Britannia Nurseries, Waltham Cross Design Brief for Reserved Matters Planning Application

PLANNING AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE

30 June 2015

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION

Item 1: 07/15/0404/O

Location: 24-28 Andrews Lane, Cheshunt, Herts

Description: Outline application for the demolition of the shops and construction of 2 no two bed and 2 no one bed apartments

Applicant: Broxbourne Council

Date Received: 08/05/2015 Date of Committee: 30th June 2015

Expiry Date: 08/05/2015 Officer Contact: K Smith /P Quaile

Ward Members: Cllr Mobb, Cllr Jackson & Cllr Greensmyth

RECOMMENDED that outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.

1. CONSULTATIONS

1.1 HCC Highways – No objection.

2. PUBLICITY

2.1 Site notice and neighbour letters (expired 8th June 2015).

3. REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 No representations have been received by the Planning Service directly in relation to this application.

3.2 However, following public consultation of this revised application, the following comment has been received by local members, from the Senior Minister of Rosedale Community Church:

In the 7 years (I have been the minister at Rosedale Community Church), we have never had any trouble with the area's youth. On an occasion when there was a large congregation of youth gathered out front they were extremely polite and voluntarily took themselves off so as to avoid any unnecessary disruption. Besides the occasional litter, we have had little to no vandalism done to the church property and none we would have felt reportable. If the Council goes forward with any plans (including the raising of this issue again), I can guarantee an increased level of distress amongst our elderly members who will be directly affected. It would appear there must be a lot more ‘invisible’ problems occurring in front of the shops that goes unnoticed by the vast majority of residents.

4. RELEVANT LOCAL PLAN POLICIES

4.1 The following policies of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001- 2011 (adopted December 2005) apply:

SUS1 Sustainable Development Principles H2 Maximising the Development Potential from Sites H6 Amenity of Existing Residential Areas H8 Design Quality of Development EMP6 Local Employment Sites RTC6 Non-Retail Uses other than in Core Town Centre Frontages HD13 Design Principles HD16 Prevention of Town Cramming HD17 Retention /Enhancement of Landscape features T3 Transport and New Development T11 Car Parking

4.2 Under the provisions of the NPPF the Council is required to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and to provide a mix of housing to meet current and future demographic needs.

5. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE

5.1 The site is located off Andrews Lane in a cul-de-sac next to the community hall and near to Fairley House in the Rosedale estate. The site consists of a single-storey building which contains three commercial units, one is a general store which occupies a double unit and the other is a hot food takeaway. The brick-built structure with tiled pyramid roof dates from the 1970s. The subject building is in need of maintenance and appears to have suffered vandalism in recent times. There is a small service yard to the rear, next to residents’ parking areas reached from Brampton Close and there is a pedestrian access along the northern flank which is barred to motor traffic by bollards at its eastern and western ends. Facing the site across the road are two pairs of houses which were constructed earlier this century and there are domestic gardens to the north. There are two substantial London Plane trees to the frontage and one to the rear of the site at its north- western corner.

Street frontage

5.2 The front area of the site is hard surfaced in paving and tarmac with a parking inset for two cars serving the building.

6. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

6.1 07/14/1044/O. Outline application for the demolition of the shops and construction of two no. two bed flats and two no.one bed flats. Refused for the following reasons:

1) The proposed flats would be out of keeping with the character of the local area which is occupied predominantly by houses. Accordingly the proposal fails to comply with Policies HD14 and HD16 (a) which accord with the policies and principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2) The Applicant has failed to submit adequate justification in relation to loss of a local shop and viable local business. In the absence of sufficiently detailed information relating to the pattern of anti-social behaviour and criminal activities, at this time the proposed loss of local shops would be contrary to Policy RTC6 of the adopted Local Plan which seeks to protect retail uses outside of core town centre frontages and Policy EMP6 which seeks to prevent loss of local employment sites outside designated employment areas. Policies RTC6 and EMP6 accord with the policies and principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.2 The above application was subject to objection from neighbouring residents and businesses, as summarised below:

Three representations objecting/commenting on the earlier application were received. A summary of objections is as follows:

 Overlooking and consequent loss of amenity and privacy at existing houses adjoining the site.  There will be more noise and fumes from cars in the rear of the property due to the manoeuvring to park.  There is a current anti-social behaviour problem and youths use the alleyway to hang out.  Youths will hang out in the front car park.  The parking and entrance to the flats should be at the rear.  There is a loss of local consumer choice as Tesco has taken over Zenz House and Morrisons have taken the Victoria public house.  More flats will stretch medical and dental services to the point where they will not be able to provide an adequate service.  The residents will not benefit from the closure of these shops.

Two petitions were also submitted to the Council containing a total of 839 signatures and stating that the local convenience store and chip shop should be saved as they have served the local community for 30 years and anti-social behaviour has been reduced dramatically over the years. The second petition states that the shop is desperately needed by all local residents but in particular by the elderly and retired for everyday essentials. The Council should look at what is needed by local residents, not what is more profitable.

7. PROPOSAL

7.1 The background to this application is the long-standing problems of crime and anti- social behaviour which have occurred in and around this small local centre. The car park opposite the site was a focus for anti-social behaviour and was therefore developed for social housing in the early part of this century. A by-product of that development was intended to be a significant reduction in crime in the vicinity. This site, however, as reported by Herts Police and Park Guard remains problematical

with a total of 10 incidents of crime and 95 cases of anti-social behaviour being reported in the three years between March 2012 to 14th June 2015. The Council’s Community Safety Officer advises that this is the highest level of anti-social behaviour by location within the south of the Borough, accounting for 9.3% of youth related anti-social behaviour incidents (95 out of 1022 incidents). The solution set out in this proposal is to remove the focus of the trouble which centres around the shop and hot food take away.

7.2 The shops are let by the Council to tenants. The leases to these tenants have expired and the Council has not renewed these leases as it intends to redevelop the site. The tenants have applied to the courts to require the Council to grant new leases on the existing terms and, if successful, they could be granted new leases for up to fifteen years. They have a right to new leases under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 if the Council cannot demonstrate its genuine intention to redevelop the site. The previous refusal of permission has affected the Council’s ability to do so.

7.3 Further context to this application is provided by a recent survey of 702 local residents and businesses undertaken by the Council separately from the planning consultation relating to the previous application. The survey took place in January 2015 and 211 responses were received. The questions focussed on use of the local shops and whether the respondents supported the Council’s intention to redevelop the site. Of the 211 residents who replied, 123 (58.2%) opposed the redevelopment plans and 86 (40.8%) supported the proposals. Other findings from the survey were:

 167 respondents use the shops (130 frequently)  Only two of the eight houses opposite the site replied to the survey  Some respondents expressed concern for elderly residents and suggested other solutions such as closing the shops earlier, increased patrols, better lighting and use of CCTV.

7.4 This application seeks outline permission with all matters reserved to redevelop the site to provide four apartments, 2 x one bedroom and 2 x two bedrooms. The indicative drawings and image submitted with the scheme show a two storey building comprising a mix of materials under a gabled roof. The footprint would be shallower than the existing structure with the rear wall in the same location but the front wall set back around six metres. Access is shown to be taken off the pedestrian access along the northern boundary. A rear amenity space is shown to the western side of the block which includes space for a dedicated refuse storage area. Seven parking spaces are indicated, five to the frontage and two to the northern flank. This would entail removal of the bollards at the western end of the access. The London Plane trees would be retained.

Proposed Site Layout

Side access viewed from Andrews Lane

8. APPRAISAL

8.1 The main issues to consider are:

(i) The Principle of redevelopment at this site (ii) Townscape, Layout and Design (iii) Amenity (iv) Highways and Car Parking

The Principle of Development at this Site

8.2 The site has a lawful use as three commercial units including a general store and a hot food takeaway. The Council’s Local Plan seeks to retain retail units outside the core town centre frontages through adopted Local Plan Policy RTC6 which states the Council will “seek wherever possible, to retain opportunities for a broad range of convenience shops serving the day to day needs of local shoppers”. In this instance, if the shop were to be lost, the nearest local centre would be the shopping facilities available at the junction of Churchgate Road and Church Lane, Cheshunt. The cluster includes two convenience stores, a hairdresser, betting office, café and public house and falls well within the illustrated distance. Although these local facilities would be readily accessible to the eastern parts of the Rosedale estate being at a distance of less than 0.5k from the existing shops, those services would clearly be less readily accessible from the more western parts of the Rosedale estate.

Map showing a 0.5k radius from the application site

8.3 In light of the above, it must be considered whether in this instance, the Council should seek to retain the existing shopping facilities. As set out at paragraph 7.1, there is a clustering of instances of anti-social behaviour within the locality of the shops and it is considered that the shops are the magnet for this type of behaviour. If it is accepted that the instances of anti-social behaviour are related to the shops and that behaviour causes harm, then it can be concluded that the Council should not seek the retention of the shops in this location. In such circumstances, the loss of the retail units would not conflict with policy RTC6.

8.4 As there is also a lawful commercial use in the form of a Class A5 hot food takeaway, the proposal falls to be assessed in relation to Policy EMP6 which seeks to retain local employment sites outside the designated commercial areas. Policy EMP6 sets out criteria by which to assess applications and states that alternative uses will only be permitted where:

 The use causes environmental problems or  The owner can demonstrate there is no effective demand for the premises and  There is no reasonable prospect of commercial re-use or  The current occupier can be re-located to satisfactory premises in the Borough or  The development provides essential community benefits

In this case, the unit in question is not vacant and there has been no exercise to market or re-let. The particular circumstance in the background to this application is long-running anti-social behaviour centred around this block which although centrally located in the estate, is tucked in a cul-de-sac off Andrews Lane which is likely to exacerbate its vulnerability to anti-social behaviour. Vandalism to the building is visible evidence of this problem which has occurred for many years.

8.5 Accordingly the circumstances surrounding the anti-social behaviour issue require careful consideration when determining this planning application.

8.6 Detailed information setting out the history of anti-social behaviour within this location has been provided by Hertfordshire Constabulary’s Community Safety Unit for the period March 2012 to June 2015. This indicates that the reporters of cases of anti-social behaviour have included 16 ‘repeat callers’ who are people who have called on more than two occasions. Incidences of anti-social behaviour over the period have been more prevalent in the warmer months between April and October. Other trends are that instances of antisocial behaviour peak between the hours of 19:00 and 19:59 and are also more common on Fridays.

8.7 As a result of the instances outlined above, the location falls within a hotspot for anti-social behaviour. A meeting was held with local residents in December 2013 and since then the location has become a police priority area and therefore the subject of an increased level of patrols by both the Police and Parkguard. Actions being taken are also being monitored by the multi-agency Joint Action Group.

In addition, the following measures were implemented:

 street lighting was upgraded to white light

 an overgrown area of self planted trees running alongside the footpath by the kissing gate was thinned out

 the CCTV system located at Fairley House providing a view of the shop frontages has been upgraded (CCTV originally installed in 2007) and a further redeployable CCTV camera was located at the rear of the shop premises in October 2014

However, a request by residents to create a fenced ‘dead zone’ to the side of the shops was not pursued as it was not considered that this would assist in addressing the problems and may even exacerbate it.

8.8 Despite these actions both the Police and Council continue to receive reports of ASB problems from local residents. Whilst the Council’s Community Safety Officer acknowledges that the level of incidents has fallen during the last few months, he and the Police anticipate this level rising again in the warmer months, in line with the seasonal trends. This behaviour causes environmental problems and removal of this local difficulty would provide a benefit to the local residents. The NPPF (at para.69) encourages planning decisions to aim to deliver ‘safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion’.

8.9 Although the loss of the retail use does not comply with Policies RTC6 and EMP6, there are other, exceptional, circumstances to be considered as part of the assessment of this proposal. Considerable weight is applied to the need to address the on-going antisocial behaviour at the site and in addition the scheme would also provide much needed residential accommodation within the Borough. The loss of the commercial component of the site is regrettable as a local service and amenity but on balance, is overall considered to be acceptable in view of the social context and the benefits which would result. The principle of development of this site for four apartments is, on balance, considered to be acceptable.

Townscape, Layout and Design

8.10 This outline proposal indicates a two-storey building set back around 5.5 metres from the front wall of the existing building. There would be a private amenity area to the rear (west) and car parking to the north and east. The main windows to habitable rooms would address the street or face along Brampton Close. The access would be via a door to the northern flank. This general arrangement is considered to be acceptable. The two buildings View from Brampton Close to the immediate south of the site are single storey structures while all the remaining buildings in the immediate locality have two storeys. The main public views of the application site are down Brampton Close and along the short access road to Andrews Lane. The additional storey will result in a significant change to the appearance of the site but given the general urban context of two storey houses it is considered that a taller building would not look out of place in this location.

8.11 The existing building is of strictly limited architectural merit and is in need of significant maintenance work. The external appearance of the two storey building is a matter to be determined via a future reserved matters application but the scale and form of the building type proposed would be in keeping with the character of the area and the indicative imagery indicates that a good quality of design can be achieved.

Illustrative Impression ns

A10

8.12 The character of development surrounding the estate is mixed. Immediately opposite the shops are two pairs of quite recently constructed two storey semi- detached houses, situated between a terrace of four older two storey dwellings and Fairley House- a two storey Victorian building. Adjacent to the site lie terraces of 1970s style houses to the north and the single storey Rosedale Community Church to the south. On the opposite side of Andrews Lane are a terrace of maisonettes and a two storey block of flats built in the 1980s. Further along Andrews Lane are dwellings of a range of styles constructed across a range of architectural eras extending back to the start of the last century. Whilst the detailed design of the flats proposed through this application is reserved for future consideration, it is considered that the principle of a two storey block of four flats is in keeping within the existing character of the locality. The indicative drawings submitted with the application demonstrate that suitable details for a development could be secured which would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding townscape in accordance with adopted Policies H6, H8 and HD16 and the Council’s updated SPG.

Amenity

8.13 There are two aspects to amenity which relate to this proposal. First, the impact on amenity for neighbours and secondly, the quality of amenity to be enjoyed by the future occupiers of the flats.

8.14 With regard to the impact on neighbours, the main issues relate to potential loss of privacy and light. The front of the proposed flats would look across Andrews Lane to four houses which were built earlier this century. This would be a conventional relationship across a public highway. To the rear, the windows would face at 90 degrees to existing dwellings and while there would be views across rear gardens, the nearest would be at a distance of 16.6m and this relationship is considered to be acceptable. High level windows are indicated to the flanks and these could be obscure glazed to further minimise any impact on privacy. The distance of the building from the adjacent dwellings and its orientation means that it would not have a material impact on daylight or sunlight. In terms of the general impact which would occur, use of the site as four flats is considered likely to reduce noise and disturbance in the locality. A condition is proposed to deal with the surfacing materials and boundary treatments.

8.15 With regard to the standard of accommodation proposed, all the flats meet the Council’s update SPG floorspace standards in terms of overall area, bedroom sizes/widths and bathroom accommodation. The rear amenity space for the flats at the rear (as amended) would meet the updated SPG standard of 20 square metres per flat. The standard of accommodation proposed and the overall impact on amenity for adjoining residents is considered to be acceptable in accordance with adopted Policy H8 and the Council’s updated SPG.

A11

Highways/Parking

8.16 The applicant has amended the proposal so that there would be two parking spaces to the north side of the new building accessed from Brampton Close and five on the existing frontage accessed from Andrews Lane. The Council’s Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards (February 2011) seeks two spaces per two bedroom flat and 1.5 spaces per one bedroom flat. The proposal meets that standard (2x 2 bed and 2x one bed). With regard to highway implications, there would be less vehicle movement generated by four flats than three commercial units. The land to the front, side and rear of the application site is owned by the Council so there will not be any works required to the public highway and access from the highway would remain as at present. The impact on the highway and the level of parking are considered to meet the requirements of Policy T3 and T11 along with the Council’s updated SPG.

Other matters

8.17 The application has been amended to show a refuse store of adequate size in the corner of the rear amenity area. The siting would be accessible from the footpath and close to the proposed front entrance to the site. Subject to a condition controlling its detailed design and specification the refuse storage facilities are considered to be acceptable. The site frontage would not have planting but there is scope for landscape planting in the 80m2 rear garden area. The three substantial London Plane trees which are on the site have previously been cut back significantly. The advice from the Council’s tree officer is that subject to protective conditions these trees, of good amenity value, can co-exist with the new two-storey building.

8.18 A condition is proposed to ensure that external security lighting would not prove intrusive to adjacent occupiers. It is not considered that four flats would have a serious impact on the availability of medical services in this part of the Borough.

9. PLANNING OBLIGATION

9.1 This proposal for redevelopment of a Council-owned site is subject to a requirement for planning obligation under the terms of Policy IMP2 of the Local Plan. There are six bedrooms proposed in total, for which a contribution of £18,000 would normally be sought, secured by a unilateral planning obligation. In this case, as a Council scheme, all sale receipts would flow to the Council and would be used for the benefit of services to local residents. In such a context, a planning obligation is not considered to be necessary.

A12

10. CONCLUSION

10.1 This application is a Council scheme which seeks to redevelop an unattractive 1970s block of commercial units to provide four apartments. The report has found that, on balance, the principle of loss of these units is acceptable and these relatively low-cost units would be a welcome addition to the housing stock in a sustainable location. The townscape implications are considered to be acceptable, the detailed design is a matter to be determined at reserved matters stage. The standard of accommodation for future occupiers meets Council SPG standards as does the proposed level of parking. There would not be a material impact on amenity for neighbours. The three semi-mature London Plane trees which adjoin the site would be retained and could co-exist with a building as now proposed.

10.2 The results of the recent survey indicate that there is a significant level of local opposition to loss of these local services. However, it is the case that removal of the shop premises and the additional surveillance from residents is likely to reduce the anti-social behaviour which has been a feature of this part of Andrews Lane over many years. Accordingly, in light of the above appraisal in relation to the matters of anti-social behaviour and the varied character of the surrounding townscape, it is considered that the development should be approved.

RECOMMENDED that outline permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. GEN02 – Approval of details – Outline application 2. GEN03 - Standard Time Limit - Outline application 3. GEN07 – Development in Accordance with Numbered Plans 4. GEN13 – Approval of Materials 5. GEN14 – Approval of Surfacing Materials 6. IND14 – Refuse Disposal 7. RES04 – Obscured glazing to all flank windows 8. RES06 – Parking Area to be maintained 9. RES07 – Completion before Occupation (including surfacing and allocation) 10. LS01 - Landscaping scheme 11. LS02 – Landscaping details 12. LS03 – Replacement planting 13. LS06 – No felling of trees agreed to be retained 14. LS07 – Protection of trees 15. LS09 – Works under tree canopy 16. VEH18 – Drainage 18. GEN15 - Fencing 19. Details of all external lighting 20. Hours of construction 21. Wheel Washing

A13

Item 2: 07/15/0405/O

Location: 24-28 Andrews Lane, Cheshunt, Herts

Description: Outline application for the demolition of the shops and construction of 2 no two bed houses with off-street parking.

Applicant: Broxbourne Council

Date Received: 08/05/2015 Date of Committee: 30th June 2015

Expiry Date: 08/05/2015 Officer Contact: K Smith /P Quaile

Ward Members: Cllr Mobb, Cllr Jackson & Cllr Greensmyth

RECOMMENDED that outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.

1. CONSULTATIONS

1.1 HCC Highways – No objection.

2. PUBLICITY

2.2 Site notice and neighbour letters (expired 8th June 2015).

3. REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 No representations have been received by the Planning Service directly in relation to this application.

3.2 However, following public consultation of this revised application, the following comment has been received by local members, from the Senior Minister of Rosedale Community Church:

A14

4. RELEVANT LOCAL PLAN POLICIES

4.1 The following policies of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001- 2011 (adopted December 2005) apply:

4.2 Under the provisions of the NPPF the Council is required to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and to provide a mix of housing to meet current and future demographic needs.

5. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE

Street frontage

A15

5.2 The front area of the site is hard surfaced in paving and tarmac with a parking inset for two cars serving the building.

6. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

6.1 07/14/1044/O. Outline application for the demolition of the shops and construction of two no. two bed flats and two no.one bed flats. Refused for the following reasons:

A16

6.2 The above application was subject to objection from neighbouring residents and businesses, as summarised below:

6.3 Three representations objecting/commenting on the earlier application were received. A summary of objections is as follows:

6.4 Two petitions were also submitted to the Council containing a total of 839 signatures and stating that the local convenience store and chip shop should be saved as they have served the local community for 30 years and anti-social behaviour has been reduced dramatically over the years. The second petition states that the shop is desperately needed by all local residents but in particular by the elderly and retired for everyday essentials. The Council should look at what is needed by local residents, not what is more profitable.

7. PROPOSAL

7.1 The background to this application is the long-standing problems of crime and anti- social behaviour which have occurred in and around this small local centre. The car park opposite the site was developed for social housing in the early part of this century and a by-product of that development was intended to be a significant reduction in crime in the vicinity. This site, however, as reported by Herts Police and Park Guard remains problematical with a total of 10 incidents of crime and 95 cases of anti-social behaviour being reported in the three years between March 2012 to 14th June 2015. The Councils Community Safety Officer advises that this is the highest level of anti-social behaviour by location within the south of the Borough, accounting for 9.3% of youth related anti-social behaviour incidents (95 out of 1022 incidents). The solution set out in this proposal is to remove the focus of the trouble which centres around the shop and hot food take away.

A17

redevelop the site. The previous refusal of permission has affected the Council’s ability to do so.

7.4 This application seeks outline permission with all matters reserved to redevelop the site to provide 2 x two bed houses, each with a private rear garden and off-street parking to the front. The indicative drawings submitted with the scheme show a two storey brick building under a gabled roof. The footprint would be shallower than the existing structure with the rear wall in the same location but the front wall set back around six metres. Access would be from the front of the properties via Andrews Lane, with four parking spaces provided to the front. The London Plane trees would be retained.

Proposed Site Layout

A18

Side access viewed from Andrews Lane

8. APPRAISAL

8.1 The main issues to consider are:

(i) The Principle of redevelopment at this site (ii) Townscape, Layout and Design (iii) Amenity (v) Highways and Car Parking

The Principle of Development at this Site

A19

Map showing a 0.5k radius from the application site

A20

8.5 Accordingly the circumstances surrounding the anti-social behaviour issue require careful consideration when determining this planning application.

In addition, the following measures were implemented:

 street lighting was upgraded to white light

 an overgrown area of self planted trees running alongside the footpath by the kissing gate was thinned out

A21

8.9 Although the loss of the retail use does not comply with Policies RTC6 and EMP6, there are other, exceptional, circumstances to be considered as part of the assessment of this proposal. Considerable weight is applied to the need to address the on-going antisocial behaviour at the site and in addition the scheme would also provide much needed residential accommodation within the Borough. The loss of the commercial component of the site is regrettable as a local service and amenity but on balance, is overall considered to be acceptable in view of the social context and the benefits which would result. The principle of development of this site for two houses is, on balance, considered to be acceptable.

Townscape, Layout and Design

8.10 This outline proposal indicates a two-storey building set back around 5.5 metres from the front wall of the existing building. There would be private amenity space to the rear (west) and car parking to the front. The main windows to habitable rooms would address the street or face along Brampton Close. The access would be via Andrews Lane. This general arrangement is considered to be acceptable. The two buildings to the immediate south of the site are single storey structures while all the remaining buildings in the immediate locality have two storeys. The main public views of the application site are down Brampton Close and along the short access road to Andrews Lane. The additional storey will result in a significant change to the appearance of the site but given the general urban context of two storey houses it is considered that pair of semi detached dwellings would not look out of place in this location.

8.11 The existing building is of strictly limited architectural merit and is in need of significant maintenance work. The external appearance of the dwellings is a matter to be determined via a future reserved matters application but the scale and form of the dwelling type proposed would be in keeping with the character of the area and the indicative plans indicate that a good quality of design can be achieved. View from Brampton Close

A22

Illustrative Front and Rear

8.12 The character of development surrounding the estate is mixed. Immediately opposite the shops are two pairs of quite recently constructed two storey semi- detached houses, situated between a terrace of four older two storey dwellings and Fairley House- a two storey Victorian building. Adjacent to the site lie terraces of 1970s style houses to the north and the single storey Rosedale Community Church to the south. On the opposite side of Andrews Lane are a terrace of maisonettes and a two storey block of flats built in the 1980s. Further along Andrews Lane are dwellings of a range of styles constructed across a range of architectural eras extending back to the start of the last century. Whilst the detailed design of the houses proposed through this application is reserved for future consideration, it is considered that the principle of the pair of two storey semi-detached dwellings is in keeping within the existing character of the locality. The indicative drawings submitted with the application demonstrate that suitable details for a development could be secured which would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding townscape in accordance with adopted Policies H6, H8 and HD16 and the Council’s updated SPG.

Amenity

8.14 With regard to the impact on neighbours, the main issues relate to potential loss of privacy and light. The front of the proposed dwellings would look across Andrews Lane to four houses which were built earlier this century. This would be a conventional relationship across a public highway. To the rear, the windows would face at 90 degrees to existing dwellings and while there would be views across rear gardens, the nearest would be at a distance of 16.6m and this relationship is considered to be acceptable. High level windows are indicated to the flanks and these could be obscure glazed to further minimise any impact on privacy. The

A23

distance of the proposed development from the adjacent dwellings and its orientation means that it would not have a material impact on daylight or sunlight. In terms of the general impact which would occur, use of the site for dwellings is considered likely to reduce noise and disturbance in the locality. A condition is proposed to deal with the surfacing materials and boundary treatments.

8.15 With regard to the standard of accommodation proposed, the dwellings exceed the Council’s update SPG floorspace standards in terms of overall area, bedroom sizes/widths and bathroom accommodation. The rear amenity space for the houses would exceed the updated SPG standard. The standard of accommodation proposed and the overall impact on amenity for adjoining residents is considered to be acceptable in accordance with adopted Policy H8 and the Council’s updated SPG.

Highways/Parking

8.16 Two parking spaces would be provided for each dwelling, in accordance with the Council’s Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards (February 2011). With regard to highway implications, there would be less vehicle movement generated by the dwellings than the existing three commercial unit and County Highways have raised no objection. The impact on the highway and the level of parking are considered to meet the requirements of Policy T3 and T11 along with the Council’s updated SPG.

Other matters

8.17 The site is capable of providing refuse storage for each dwelling in accordance with the Councils standards. The detailed design and specification of refuse storage facilities may be secured by condition. The site frontage would not have planting but there is scope for landscape planting in the rear garden areas. The three substantial London Plane trees which are on the site have previously been cut back significantly. The advice from the Council’s tree officer is that subject to protective conditions these trees, of good amenity value, can co-exist with the new two-storey building.

9. PLANNING OBLIGATION

9.1 This proposal for redevelopment of a Council-owned site is subject to a requirement for planning obligation under the terms of Policy IMP2 of the Local Plan. There are four bedrooms proposed in total, for which a contribution of £12,000 would normally be sought, secured by a unilateral planning obligation. In this case, as a Council scheme, all sale receipts would flow to the Council and would be used for the benefit of services to local residents. In such a context, a planning obligation is not considered to be necessary.

A24

10. CONCLUSION

10.1 This application is a Council scheme which seeks to redevelop an unattractive 1970s block of commercial units to provide two houses. The report has found that, on balance, the principle of loss of these units is acceptable and these relatively low-cost two bed dwellings would be a welcome addition to the housing stock in a sustainable location. The townscape implications are considered to be acceptable, the detailed design is a matter to be determined at reserved matters stage. The standard of accommodation for future occupiers meets Council SPG standards as does the proposed level of parking. There would not be a material impact on amenity for neighbours. The three semi-mature London Plane trees which adjoin the site would be retained and could co-exist with a building as now proposed.

RECOMMENDED that outline permission be granted subject to the conditions set out below.

1. GEN02 – Approval of details – Outline application 2. GEN03 - Standard Time Limit - Outline application 3. GEN07 – Development in Accordance with Numbered Plans 4. GEN13 – Approval of Materials 5. GEN14 – Approval of Surfacing Materials 6. IND14 – Refuse Disposal 7. RES04 – Obscured glazing to all flank windows 8. RES06 – Parking Area to be maintained 9. RES07 – Completion before Occupation (including surfacing and allocation) 10. LS01 - Landscaping scheme 11. LS02 – Landscaping details 12. LS03 – Replacement planting 13. LS06 – No felling of trees agreed to be retained 14. LS07 – Protection of trees 15. LS09 – Works under tree canopy 16. VEH18 – Drainage 17. GEN15 - Fencing 18. Hours of construction 19. Wheel Washing 20. PD rights for future extensions/outbuildings withdrawn

A25

Item 3: 07/13/0158/O

Location: Britannia Nurseries Bryanstone Road Waltham Cross

Description: Outline application for the demolition of existing former nursery buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site for residential development comprising 90 dwellings, internal access road, public open space, 30 public car parking spaces and ancillary development.

Applicant: Britannia Nurseries

Date Received: 25/02/2013 Date of Committee: 30th June 2015

Expiry Date: 28/05/2013 Officer Contact: Douglas Cooper

Ward Members: Cllr Aitken, Cllr Harvey and Cllr Bowman

RECOMMENDED that subject to a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the application first being submitted to the Secretary of State as Green Belt development under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 and endorsement of the Britannia Nurseries Design Brief, planning permission be granted subject to conditions at the end of this report

1. CONSULTATIONS

1.1 Hertfordshire County Council – Highways. No objection subject to planning conditions relating to implementation of highway works, requirement for a construction management plan, details for surface water drainage and requirement for a Travel Plan. Seek a financial contribution of £69,750 towards sustainable transport measures and a contribution towards evaluating the travel plan.

1.2 Hertfordshire County Council - Education – No objection. Seek a financial contribution to primary schooling in accordance with the Developer Toolkit. No contributions are sought for nursery or secondary education. Original response – no further comment received.

1.3 Environment Agency – No objection, subject to conditions. These include conditions relating to drainage and the submission of a remediation strategy and verification report for contaminated land.

A26

1.4 Lee Valley Regional Park Authority - Objection as the scheme does not comply with Section 12 of the Regional Park Act 1966. This is amplified by the adopted policies of the Park Plan (2000) and the landscape proposals included in the Thematic Proposals (2011). The scheme involving the use of Green Belt land would create an unacceptable precedent contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and adopted local policies if approved. Whilst the whole site lies in the Regional Park and is designated green belt the Authority considers that an application which was restricted to the footprint of the existing developed parts of the site at its southern end may be considered more favourably. The Authority would wish to see a scheme which takes account of the adopted Park Plan (2000) and draft area PDF proposals (see section 8.4).

1.5 Environmental Health Service – No objection subject to conditions relating to noise and contaminated land.

1.6 Leisure Services – seek an access road into the allotments with at least 6 parking spaces together with fencing on the boundary. Original response – no further comment received.

1.7 Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust – no objection subject to conditions. Original response – no further comment received.

1.8 Arboricultural Officer – no objection subject to conditions. Original response – no further comment received.

1.9 Hertfordshire Constabulary – no objection subject to any future scheme achieving full Secured by Design accreditation.

1.10 Natural England – No objection. The development is not likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying features for which the Lea Valley SPA has been classified. The development will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the Turnford and Cheshunt SSSI has been notified. Would expect the LPA to assess the possible impact of the proposals on local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity), local landscape character and local or national biodiversity property habitats and species. Measures to enhance biodiversity should be considered

1.11 CPRE – the site is not designated for housing in the current Local Plan. The development would have a detrimental effect on the openness of the Green Belt and impact on the adjoining Regional Park. No special circumstances have been demonstrated. Original response – no further comment received.

A27

2. PUBLICITY

2.1 The original application was advertised by means of a site notice and letters to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in addition to a newspaper advert dated 6 March 2013. The consultation period expired on 21 March 2013.

2.2 Following the quashing of planning permission by the High Court the application has been re-advertised by means of a further site notice and letters to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in addition to a newspaper advert dated 12 March 2015. The consultation period expired on 25 March 2015.

3. REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 No comments were received following the original public consulation in 2013. Four letters have been received following public re-consulation. These raise the following issues:

- Impact on openness of the Lee Valley Regional Park; - Northern part of the site is undeveloped and can only be developed in very special circumstances; - Detrimental impact on peace and quiet of Latimer Court; - Increase in traffic, - Increase in noise disturbance, crime and trespass; - Increased flood risk; - Illegal immigrants currently resident on application site; - Inclusion of affordable housing; - Loss of Green Belt; - Harm to wildlife; - Pressure on local schools and shops.

3.2 Statement of Community Involvement - Prior to the application originally being submitted the applicants undertook extensive community consultation. A Statement of Community Consultation accompanies the application. A public exhibition was held at Holdbrook Primary School on 17th December 2012. An advert for the event was posted in the Mercury and invitations were posted to residents and businesses in proximity to the site. In total 8 people attended the event, 4 of whom filled out comment sheets. According to the Statement of Community Consultation the majority of comments related to transport. Support was expressed for new homes and affordable housing on the site. It has not been considered necessary to replicate this process following the quashing of the planning permission since the proposed development in unchanged.

A28

4. RELEVANT PLAN POLICIES

4.1 The following saved policies of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 (adopted December 2005) apply:

SUS1 Sustainable Development Principles SUS2 Energy SUS 3 Waste and Recycling SUS12 Contamination SUS16 Flood Risk Assessments SUS17 Flood Prevention SUS18 Surface Water Drainage GBC2 Development within the Green Belt GBC16 Landscape Character Areas and Enhancement GBC20 Protected Species H6 Protecting the Amenity of Existing Residential Areas H8 Design Quality of Development H12 Housing Mix H13 Affordable Housing H14 Securing Provision of Affordable Housing CLT1 Community, Open Space and Recreational Facilities CLT2 Children’s Play Areas CLT3 Maintenance of Landscaping/Open Space CLT4 Lee Valley Regional Park HD13 Design Principles HD14 Design Statement on Local Character HD17 Retention/Enhancement of Landscape Features HD18 Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands T3 Transport & New Development T4 Green Travel Plans T9 Pedestrian Needs T10 Cycling Provision T11 Car Parking IMP2 Community & Infrastructure needs linked to new development

4.2 The Borough Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) (August 2004) is relevant in this case as it provides design guidance for all forms of development.

4.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 also needs to be considered as it sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The chapters of particular relevance in this case are chapters 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes), 7 (Requiring good design) and 9 (Protecting Green Belt Land)

A29

4.4 The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) Park Plan 2000, the Lee Valley Park Development Framework (PDF) Vision (2010), Thematic Proposals (2011) and the draft proposals for Area 6 of the Lee Valley within which the application site lies are also material considerations. It should be noted that these documents do not form part of the Development Plan. Particular policies to note from the adopted Park Plan (2000) are strategic policies:

L1 (L1.1(i) – L1.1 (v) inclusive) Openness L2 (L2.1-L2.4 inclusive) Protection LS1 (LS1.1, LS1.2, LS1.4 and LS1.6): A Positive Identity LS2.1 A Legible Landscape L3.2 Regional Role L4 (4.1-4.3 inclusive) Quality and Sustainability

4.5 Each of these policies is supported by more detailed proposals included in Part 2 of the Park Plan. The site is identified as lying within a landscape investment area which recognises the site’s physical fragmentation and degraded character which require to be addressed through a range of measures.

4.6 The essential thrust of these policies and proposals is maintained in the draft Park Development Framework.

5. LOCATION, DESCRIPTION AND USE OF THE SITE

5.1 The Britannia Nurseries site is located on the eastern side of Waltham Cross to the north of Bryanstone Road. Originally a horticultural nursery, the site lies within the Lee Valley Regional Park (LVRP). It is also within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The site lies primarily within Flood Zone 2 with a narrow strip running along the eastern boundary of the site falling within Flood Zone 3. No buildings are proposed within or immediately adjacent to the part of the site which lies within Flood Zone 3. The northern part of the site is located within the Lea Valley Marshes Landscape Character Area.

A30

Figure 1 Application Site

5.2 The site covers approximately 4.4ha. The land is generally flat.

5.3 The site is split into two defined character areas:

5.4 The southern half of the site equating to 2.1 hectares originally contained eight glasshouses. Of these, five glasshouses covering 36,210 square feet were used for the production of flowers until 1986. These were latterly re-clad with steel and their use was changed from growing to wholesaling. This use ceased in 2010 when the buildings were badly damaged by fire. The buildings since then have lain derelict. The other three glass houses covering 21,726 square feet were used for the production of shrubs and ferns until 2008. Since then, these glasshouses have lain vacant. Most of the remainder of the site is laid to hardstanding.

5.5 The northern half of the site equating to 2.3 hectares originally contained 31 glasshouses which covered 256,000 square feet. These glasshouses were used for flower production but were demolished in 1985 to facilitate gravel extraction. Subsequent to this, gravel was commercially extracted from the site until extraction finished in 1992. The land was backfilled with inert waste. The original subsoil and topsoil is then understood to have been spread across this area and sown with grass. Since then the area has been left as unused scrubland.

A31

Figure 2 Aerial view of the application site (red line approximate)

Figure 3 Original glass house area

A32

5.6 The northern boundary of the overall site is defined by tall trees and mature landscaping. Allotments lie beyond this boundary. The Trinity Marsh Ditch abuts the northern and eastern boundary. The eastern boundary consists of trees and hedges of lesser height than the northern boundary with some gaps present allowing views into the Regional Park which extends through open land to the River Lee which lies 120 metres to the east. The southern boundary consists of security fencing, hedges and trees with views available into the site. Opposite this boundary is built development including blocks of residential flats, a car dealership and an electricity substation. The western boundary consists of fencing and hedging which separates the adjacent industrial site containing a scaffold yard, open storage, oil containers and commercial vehicles. Further to the west is the West Anglia main railway line running north/south.

Figure 4 Redundant buildings on site which have been fire damaged and vandalised

A33

Figure 5 Looking eastwards across the site Figure 6 Northern Boundary towards the Park

Figure 7 Western Boundary shared with Figure 8 Western Boundary with commercial use houses visible in the distance

6. PROPOSAL

6.1 This is an outline planning application to demolish all existing buildings on site and to erect 90 dwellings, along with an internal access road. 40% of these dwellings would be designated as affordable housing. An indicative break down of house types includes 25 x two bed houses, 31 x three bed houses, 24 x four bed houses and 10 x five bed houses

6.2 The proposal creates a new public access into the Lee Valley Regional Park from Waltham Cross with public open space and 30 public car parking spaces creating a reception area for visitors.

6.3 All matters have been reserved, meaning that the layout submitted, the house types and the road relocation are all illustrative. These will assist the Committee in visualising the style of properties which could be built and arranged on the site.

A34

Figure 9 Indicative Layout

A35

6.4 The indicative layout on the previous page shows housing being arranged within individual plots that are set back from internal roads and which are designed to follow a natural hierarchy. Parking is achieved from car ports, garages and open spaces. Landscaping is shown throughout. The large landscaped area along the eastern section of the site is designed to create a new entrance into the Lee Valley Park with an extension of parkland to the boundary of the development which would overlook that parkland.

6.5 Whilst design and appearance are not being considered as part of this application, it should be noted that the proposed scheme proposes four different house types of a largely traditional nature. Properties would range between two and two and a half storeys. Typical upper limits of property height are stated to be 9.5m and lower limits would be 7m. Dwelling widths are stated as ranging between 4m and 11m and depths are stated to range from 6m to 9m. The illustrative layout demonstrates a greater number of detached, two storey dwellings located on the eastern side of the development, designed in a form that would create an attractive edge to the Park in this location.

7. PLANNING HISTORY

High Court Judgement

7.1 Planning permission was previously granted by the Council for this application on 22nd April 2014. However, this permission was judicially reviewed by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. As a result of this review, the High Court quashed the previous planning permission. A copy of the Judgement is appended to this application. Essentially, the grounds for appeal and the outcome on those grounds were as follows (references to the relevant paragraphs in the judgement are in [ ]):

7.2 A series of challenges were made to the Council’s approach to the Green Belt:

Ground 1(a) the site as previously developed land

The Court held that the southern part of the site was previously developed land as the buildings were used for non-agricultural purposes alone [41]. The northern part of the site was not previously developed land and the report to the Council had erred in failing to draw that distinction [44]. It was also incorrect for the report to treat the whole site as derelict or otherwise as previously developed land and so wrong to treat the proposal as not inappropriate development in the Green Belt [45].

The report did not address what would be very special circumstances to justify such development [45]. Additionally whether or not there were very special circumstances the proposal was in breach of the Local Plan policy GBC2 as it was for inappropriate development in the Green Belt [45].

Restored land is not previously developed land and any connection between the removal of the buildings in the south of the site and very special circumstances for the construction of housing in the north had to be justified [46, 49, 50].

A36

The harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness had to be identified and the absence of more severe harm was not a very special circumstance [47]. Consequently the development of the previously developed land in the southern part would not be inappropriate development provided it would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development’ in accordance with paragraph 89 of the NPPF but the northern part was inappropriate development and required very special circumstances (see [49]).

Ground 1 (b): the meaning of “openness”

A conclusion as to the effect of the scheme on the openness of the Green Belt was essential in considering how far the previously developed land justified the development and the extent of the harm to the Green Belt [59]. Such an approach would have needed to consider changes in building footprints and sizes, and the effect of development over a larger part of the site and the potential impact of enclosed gardens on openness [57 to 59].

In the judge’s view [60]:

“The spread of urban housing development over the northern site is such an obvious and extensive increase in the developed area and in the area of openness lost, that I do not see, in the absence of clear analysis and explanation, how the report rationally could have avoided saying that there was a significant loss of openness - most of the currently open northern part was to be developed - and that was a breach of the NPPF as well as of GBC2”

Ground 1 (c): misunderstanding of the need to give “substantial weight” to harm to the Green Belt

There was a failure to identify that substantial weight had to be given to the harm to the Green Belt [65]. The Regional Park Authority’s complaint that the development would create a precedent had no substance since the case turned on its particular facts: a serious fire destroying half of the buildings and the business ceasing to trade [63 to 65].

Ground 1(d): the treatment of housing need

The Court agreed that the committee had been appropriately advised that there was a five year housing land supply, but that the supply position was very tight and sites needed to come forward to maintain that [69]. A shortfall in housing land supply could be part of the very special circumstances to justify a scheme, noting the NPPF and the 2013 Written Ministerial Statement [68].

A37

Ground 1(e): attractiveness of development as a very special circumstance

Compliance with the normal quality of design required by development control policies cannot amount to very special circumstances [71]. However the layout being more spacious, with greater open space, a boulevard, courtyard and new entrance to the recreational area of the Park could be treated as part of the very special circumstances [71].

Ground 1(f): ignoring the need for the development to address concerns about dereliction

The regional park authority’s arguments that the committee should have received more information about contamination, the availability of any powers to require the removal of buildings by discontinuance orders or amenity notices and the use of CCTV to deter anti-social behaviour were rejected [72 to 74].

Ground 2 the Development Plan

Since the proposal included inappropriate development, contrary to policy GBC2, it was not in accordance with the development plan [75, 76].

Ground 3 the Regional Park Plan and the development plan

The Court rejected the Regional Park Authority’s arguments that the Park Plan was part of the development plan [81]. It was not automatically incorporated by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Act 1966 nor was it in fact incorporated [81, 84]. There was no entitlement for the Park Plan to be given the same weight as the development plan [83].

Relevant Applications

7.3 The application site has been the subject of several planning applications over the years relating to its use as a commercial growing business. The following applications are considered to be the most relevant:

7/712-97/LDC 1997 Certificate of Lawfulness for the existing use of part of the Britannia Nurseries for the wholesale of fresh flowers and storage, display and wholesale of florist sundries.

7/260/1998 - Permission for the cladding of part of the Glasshouses and the continued use of a proportion of the site for the trade of florists sundries and cut flowers (post facto) – refused.

7/699/1999 - Cladding of an area of glasshouses with steel (post facto) – refused.

ENF 21/98 – Appeals relating to operational development and change of use of land (applications 7/260/1998 and 7/699/1999). The appeals were allowed and enforcement notices were quashed. It was established that there was a composite use of firstly horticulture and secondly the wholesaling of cut flowers and florists sundries.

A38

7/61/2001 - single storey extension between two existing buildings to create enlarged store & revised entrance - Conditional Approval 16/03/2001.

Adjacent Local Plan Allocations

7.4 The small depot to the west of the site (outside the red line) is allocated for housing within the current Local Plan.

Design Brief

7.5 The resolution of the April 2014 meeting of the Committee to approve this application included a request from the Committee that a Design Brief be prepared to provide the Council with greater certainty on the disposition and quality of the proposed development. This Design Brief was prepared and consulted upon, including consultation with the Planning and Regulatory Committee. Adherence to the Brief was also included as a condition within the subsequent grant of planning permission. A finalised brief was prepared following the consultation and is appended to this report. Because of the judicial review process, the brief was never finalised. Given that this application is now being brought back before the Committee, this is an opportunity for the Committee to endorse the finalised Design Brief in accordance with the recommended condition should the committee be minded to resolve to grant planning permission. That endorsement is sought within the recommendation.

8. APPRAISAL

8.1 The main issues to consider in this application are as follows:

- The principle of redevelopment for residential use in the Metropolitan Green; Belt and the Lee Valley Regional Park; - The layout and density of the development; - The impact on the amenity of existing and future residential occupiers; - Noise disturbance; - Ecology; - The impact on the local and strategic highway; - Access and parking; - Flood Risk / Contamination; - Affordable Housing; - Planning Obligations.

A39

The Principle of Redevelopment for Residential Use in the Metropolitan Green Belt

The Broxbourne Local Plan

8.2 Policy GBC2 in the Broxbourne Local Plan states that planning permission will not be granted for development other than in the following cases:

Construction of new buildings for the following purposes:

- agriculture or forestry; - essential small scale facilities associated with outdoor sport or outdoor recreation and for cemeteries; - other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; or - limited extensions to alteration or replacement of existing dwellings subject to requirements of policies GBC11 and GBC13

8.3 Development of this site for housing does not accord with this policy and the application is therefore considered to be a departure from the terms of the Development Plan.

8.4 Policy CLT4 states that the Council supports the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority in the continuing development of the Regional Park in the expectation that development will be predominantly recreational uses appropriate to a Regional Park. Residential development is not explicitly excluded by the policy but the thrust of the Local Plan is clearly towards the on-going improvement of the Park for recreational use.

The Lee Valley Regional Park Plan

8.5 Although not part of the Development Plan, the provisions of the Lee Valley Regional Park Plan are also material to the consideration of this application. The approved 2000 Park Plan shows the application site as a Landscape Investment Area (see paragraph 8.6). The Authority is in the process of revising the adopted Park Plan through the development of the Park Development Framework and is working to translate the thematic proposals onto area based maps to provide specific area proposals. The LVRPA completed a consultation on these proposals for Broxbourne in February 2015. The application site is located within Area 6 and the Authority’s draft proposals for this site involve the provision of a new access into the River Lee Country Park via the Britannia Nursery site - to be assessed as part of a proposal to bring this area back into a Park related use; possibly for natural play and informal recreation. There is no consideration as to how or when this would happen or as to how such a proposition would be funded.

8.6 Whilst the Council has welcomed the majority of proposals for the Park area within Broxbourne, it has objected to the provisions for the Britannia Nurseries site. The response to the Park is appended to this report.

A40

8.7 Whilst this planning application does involve the provision of a new access into the River Lee Country Park and does bring a significant part of the site back into a Park related use, it is evident from the LVRPA’s opposition to the application that it does not consider the full proposal to be in accordance with either the approved Park plan or the emerging Park plan. This position is not disputed in respect of the emerging plan and it is accepted that the proposed development is not in accordance with the suite of documents as currently drafted. However, members should note the Council’s objection to this Plan which is not yet finalised. The approved Park Plan places much emphasis on the creation of new entrances and gateways into the Park which would be achieved through implementation of this proposal. However, the Plan gives no support for housing as a means to achieving this and identifies the application site as a “Landscape Investment Area” which requires landscaping for identifiable recreational, leisure or nature conservation activities. The proposed development is not in accordance with this proposal and on balance would be considered to be contrary to the Park Plan.

8.8 Notwithstanding the foregoing, members should note that the Park Authority is not now opposing the development of the southern portion of the site.

8.9 The LVRPA also refers to section 12 of the Lee Valley Regional Park Act 1966. This places a duty on the LVRPA ‘to develop, improve, preserve and manage or to procure or arrange for the development, improvement, preservation and management of the park as a place for the occupation of leisure, recreation, sport, games or amusements or any similar activity, for the provision of nature reserves and for the provision and enjoyment of entertainments of any kind’. Section 12 does not place any duty upon the Council, although it is relevant that it indicates the purposes of the park. The application site is not in a recreational or nature reserve use but instead is a former warehouse/horticultural site with very large buildings and poorly restored landfill. Whilst the LVRPA wish the site to be used for recreation, they have no detailed proposals which would secure that. Since the LVRPA has indicated no intention to compulsorily purchase the site, the question for the Council is what is reasonable in planning terms.

The National Planning Policy Framework

8.10 Both the Broxbourne Local Plan and the Lee Valley Regional Park Plan must be considered together with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework through which the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts and the prevention of urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 81 states that “local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.” Paragraph 87 states that “inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”.

8.11 Under the NPPF, development which is not inappropriate development may be approved provided it is acceptable under other planning policies. One category of new buildings which are not inappropriate development are (paragraph 89, NPPF):

A41

“limited infilling or partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development”.

8.12 This is an exception which was not contained in the previous National Green Belt policy (PPG2) and is not reflected in Policy GBC2.

8.13 By virtue of its previous use for wholesaling and distribution, the southern portion of the site is by definition “previously developed land”.

8.14 Taken in isolation, the key test for the southern portion would be whether the proposed development has a greater or lesser impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing buildings and their associated paraphernalia. This is a value judgment though it may be aided by an appreciation of the amount of built coverage and comparison of the volume of buildings on the site. These are as follows:

Existing

Area of existing buildings: 6,511m2 Volume of existing buildings: 23,990m3 Area of existing hardstanding: 7,316m2

Proposed (for south end of the site only)

Area of proposed houses and garages: 2,780m2 Volume of proposed houses and garages: 14,985m3 Area of proposed internal principal access roads: 1,941m²

8.15 In area and volumetric terms, the resultant built/developed coverage of the south end of the site would consequently be less than existing.

8.16 Notwithstanding the area/volumetric assessment, it is considered that the existing arrangement of buildings and the presence of unsightly security fencing have a significant detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt in this location. They stand square against the public area of the Park whereas the proposal for this location is for a substantial area of open space that will enable the built edge of Waltham Cross to openly address the Park edge. Setting aside the houses and garages, much of the remainder of the development will consist of gardens and areas of incidental open space which will exhibit the level of openness typical of suburban housing estates. The gardens may accommodate ancillary structures such as garden sheds and fences but for the southern area alone, it is considered that the proposed development would be significantly more open than the current situation. For this reason, the principle of developing the southern section of the site in accordance with the submitted master plan and the planning brief is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and to be acceptable in principle.

A42

8.17 This is not the case with the northern section of the site where the glass houses have long since been demolished and there was no wholesaling and distribution use. The housing within this area does constitute “inappropriate development” and should only be approved if the committee can conclude that very special circumstances exist. This matter is dealt with in the ensuing sections of this report.

Harm to the Green Belt

8.18 Prior to considering whether very special circumstances exist that could enable approval of this application in full, members should first consider the level of harm that would be created by the proposed development if it was to proceed. Substantial weight has to be attached to any harm to the Green Belt. Harm arises by reason of inappropriateness by definition. Additional harm may be caused by the particular effects of the development on the Green Belt. In order to assess this, the following paragraphs consider the impact of the proposed development against the fundamental aim and each of the purposes for which the Green Belt has been designated.

The Fundamental Aim of the Green Belt

8.19 Paragraph 79 of the NPPF identifies that the “the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open: the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.” Issues of openness in respect of the southern portion of the site have already been discussed. Considering the northern area of the site in isolation, there is clearly a loss of openness. Taking the site in its entirety the respective coverage of the site is as follows:

Existing

Area of existing buildings: 6,511m2 Volume of existing buildings: 23,990m3 Area of existing hardstanding: 7,316m2

Proposed

Area of proposed houses and garages: 6,200m2 Area of proposed internal principal access roads: 3,466m2 Approximate Volume of Proposed houses and garages: 33,956m3

A43

8.20 In area and volumetric terms, the resultant built/developed coverage of the overall site would still consequently be less than existing and in that regard alone, the end result could be considered as more open. The eastern edge of the proposed development and its interface with the public area of the Park would also be significantly more open though the northern area would not. The overall built perimeter of the proposed development would be greater but relatively smaller buildings (houses and garages) interspersed with gardens and vegetation would present significantly less bulk than the redundant glass houses. In totality, it is a close call as to whether the proposed development would be more “open” than the existing situation and members can form their own views on that question. For the purposes of this report, it is considered that the overall impact is neutral.

8.21 On the question of permanence, the existing situation of a privately owned derelict site does not sit comfortably with the permanence of this particular edge of Broxbourne’s Green Belt. If this application was to be approved, it will lead to a re- drawing of the Green Belt boundary through the new Local Plan. This would be located along the easternmost road edge of the proposed development with the housing on one side outside the Green Belt and the public park on the other side within it. That would create a permanent and defensible edge through both land use and ownership.

The Purposes of the Green Belt

8.22 Paragraph 80 of the NPPF states that the Green Belt serves five purposes:

 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 special character of historic towns; and  to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other land.

Sprawl

8.23 Whilst the proposal undoubtedly represents an extension of the built up area into the Green Belt, it is not considered that it constitutes sprawl and particularly not of an unrestricted nature. The planning brief and plans submitted in support of the outline planning application seek to define a clear boundary to the housing development and to enable a successful transition between the proposed development and the Park. Any further encroachment would be constrained by the publicly owned Park to the east and by the presence of the Council allotments to the north. The presence of trees and the Trinity Marsh ditch along the north and east boundaries also present definable boundaries beyond which further encroachment would be constrained.

A44

Coalescence

8.24 The relationship of Waltham Cross to settlements to the east is indicated on the map overleaf. It is clear that no towns will merge as a result of this proposal being implemented and whilst the urban boundary of Waltham Cross will extend eastwards, any impact that the development has on the coalescence of these settlements is considered to be insignificant.

Encroachment

8.25 The proposal does represent an encroachment into the countryside and the Green Belt with a consequent loss of openness. For the reasons that have previously been rehearsed, that encroachment is considered to be limited to the northern portion of the site.

Setting and Special Character

8.26 It is not considered that the proposed development would have any detrimental impact on the historic character of Waltham Cross. Whilst Waltham Cross is an historic town, most of its “historic character” has been engulfed by later development and survives only within the town centre and other isolated pockets of the town.

8.27 The setting of Waltham Cross along its eastern boundary is essentially established by the Lee Valley and the transition between the urban area and the Lee Valley Regional Park. Within the vicinity of the application site, this transition is currently considered to be very poor - to the detriment of the overall setting of the town. Far from damaging the setting of Waltham Cross, it is considered that implementation of the master plan and the development brief for the proposed development would significantly improve the setting of the town

A45

A46

Urban Regeneration and Dereliction

8.28 One of the stated purposes of the Green Belt is to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other land. It is considered that the main purpose of this clause is to enable the recycling of derelict land within urban areas by preventing their outwards spread into the countryside. The Council has comprehensively assessed the potential to recycle land within the urban area and has produced a Strategic Land Assessment to evidence this potential. Through this process, it is currently estimated that urban sites can deliver in the region of 2,200 new homes. This falls significantly short of the objectively assessed housing need within the Borough which is estimated to be a need for 6165 new homes between 2015 and 2030. Broxbourne must therefore provide sites within the Green Belt if it is to even come close to meeting its needs. This being the case, it is not considered that a permission for housing on this site would have any significant impact on preventing urban regeneration by discouraging the recycling of derelict and other land. On the contrary, this proposal seeks to assist the regeneration of Waltham Cross by recycling derelict land. This is a matter that is returned to within the assessment of very special circumstances within the next section of this report.

Conclusion

8.29 Examination of the impact of the proposed development against the fundamental aim of the Green Belt concludes that there is an overall neutral impact on openness and if members agree with that contention, this would not be a reason for refusing this planning application. Approval of the application would ultimately necessitate a re-drawing of the Green Belt boundary in this location as set out in the report in a defensible and permanent location.

8.30 Examination of the impact of the proposed development against the five purposes of the Green Belt concludes that the only significant detrimental impact is through encroachment into the countryside. For the reasons outlined, this encroachment is considered to be limited to the northern portion of the site. That is not to lessen the impact of this additional encroachment which on its own would provide sufficient justification to refuse this planning application. This is “inappropriate development” and can only be justified if very special circumstances can be demonstrated. The following section sets out an analysis of those circumstances.

A47

Very Special Circumstances

8.31 When considering any planning application, NPPF paragraph 88 states that “local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” If members agree with the contention that the proposed development of the southern portion of the site is more open than the current situation, in strict legal terms, it is only necessary for very special circumstances to be demonstrated for the northern portion. However, this is a single development and members need to consider the overall picture. In its judgment on very special circumstances, the following analysis therefore considers the development as a single entity.

8.32 There is no definition of the meaning of “very special circumstances”. In order to give members guidance on the factors that could constitute very special circumstances, the following are considered to be germane to the consideration:

1. Will the proposed development have a positive overall impact on the renaissance of Waltham Cross and the development of the Lee Valley Regional Park?

2. Are there substantial cultural, social or community benefits, particularly in respect of the impact of the development on the Lee Valley Regional Park;

3. Is there a substantial housing need that cannot solely be met within the urban area?

4. Does the application have characteristics that benefit the Green Belt?

The Renaissance of Waltham Cross and the Development of the Regional Park

8.33 Over the last five years, much has been achieved in the regeneration of Waltham Cross. The 2012 Olympic Games was the catalyst for the development of the Lee Valley White Water Centre and a host of development, transport and environmental improvements in and around the Town Centre. However, much still needs to be done and the potential development of Waltham Cross Railway Station as an important junction on Crossrail 2 is a further catalyst for a renewed regeneration drive.

A48

8.34 Connectivity between Waltham Cross, its station and the Lee Valley Regional Park has been poor since the Park was first established. The White Water Centre has revitalised the southern entrance but this is an unpleasant 500 metre walk further down Eleanor Cross Road from Bryan Road. Given the proximity of Bryanstone Road to the station, the opening up of this site presents an unparalleled opportunity to create a major new entrance into the Park from Waltham Cross town centre and the Waltham Cross train and bus stations. It is anticipated that visitor numbers to the Park from these locations would significantly increase as a result. The development would incorporate an accessible, safe and attractive new route for pedestrians and cyclists as well as providing 30 visitor parking spaces for users of the Park. The substantial area of open space created by the development would be an attractive extension of the usable park area and officers would seek to ensure that the wildlife value of this space is maximised.

8.35 The redevelopment of the northern part of the site enables built development to be moved away from the south eastern part of the site (where the derelict glass houses are currently located) towards the urban area to the west. The new usable open space would be integrated into the existing recreational part of the Park. It is considered that the net result would be an enhancement of the Lea Valley Marshes Landscape Character area in accordance with Local Plan Policy GBC16.

8.36 The NPPF encourages the planning system to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land where appropriate. The Britannia Nurseries site itself has lain derelict for many years. That dereliction is most marked in the southern section of the site which is still occupied by derelict glass houses. One of the most important considerations for this application is the state of the northern part of the site. The glass houses that previously occupied this area have long since been demolished and the area became a landfill site that discontinued in excess of 20 years ago. The area is now essentially scrubland. In order to advise members on the current state of this ground, the applicant was asked to submit a Land Dereliction and Restoration Assessment Report. This confirms that the ground is made up and that it comprises a mixed layer of sandy and silty clay with brick, concrete and stone rubble with occasional clinker and cinders. The depth of the made ground to the north of the site is between 2.45 metres and 5.80 metres. At the surface, there are some coarse gravel sized fragments of furnace slag together with occasional metal bars, wooden timbers, tile fragments and plastic/ceramic pipe debris. A thin mantle of topsoil like material (0.1 to 0.3 metres thick) is present at the surface in some locations but is of mixed quality often containing elements of the underlying made ground. .

A49

8.37 There are various contaminating substances within the site and the applicant has assessed the impact of these on a variety of potential after uses. Restoration of the land for habitat, grazing land or as recreational land would be low risk. The site is not, however, suited to horticultural use. For residential use, there are considered to be moderate risks and a remediation strategy and verification plan would be required by condition should this application be approved.

8.38 It is evident from the foregoing that the northern part of the site has never been properly remediated. Although there is some vegetation growth, it is considered that the land remains in a semi-derelict state. Members would therefore be entitled to view its remediation through this development as an important part of a very special circumstances case. The dereliction on the southern part of the site is self-evident and would also form part of the very special circumstances case for the whole development. Whilst any contamination that is present does not need to be remediated for all potential after uses, the remediation that would be undertaken for a housing development would also be a positive benefit.

Cultural, Social and Community Benefits

8.39 The benefits to the Lee Valley Regional Park have already been considered in the previous section. There will also be benefits to the wider community. If the application is approved, the amenity and outlook of many of those living around the site will be significantly improved. There has been a history of theft, squatting, drinking and trespass since the site was vacated in 2010, with the police having been called 14 times to the site as a result. The implementation of these proposals would address these issues.

8.40 Waltham Cross as a town would benefit from the introduction of good quality family housing with gardens, counterbalancing the recent trend in the town for high density, flatted developments. The site is a logical extension to the existing urban area and it is in a sustainable location within walking distance from public transport, facilities and local amenities.

8.41 The application is subject to a planning obligation. This is set out in section 9 of this report and would deliver in the region of £1.4 million to road and rail improvements, schools, recreational facilities, Waltham Cross Town Centre and the Lee Valley Regional Park.

A50

Housing Needs

8.42 Whilst housing need on its own would not justify a very special circumstances case, it is a very significant element of such a case. The Council therefore needs to take into account the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework “to boost significantly the supply of housing” and should at all times retain a five year supply of housing land. Broxbourne’s current target, as indicated in the 2013/14 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), is 295 dwellings per annum (includes 5% buffer and undersupply from previous year). The AMR indicates that the Council had a 5.3 year supply of housing land in October 2014, including the 90 new homes on the application site which at that time benefitted from planning permission. To date, the count has not yet been undertaken for 2015. However, indications are that there will not be a five year supply at the 2015 monitoring date in October 2015. This position has been compounded by the Government’s new household projections which will increase need by in excess of 100 new dwellings per annum as well as an undersupply of new homes over the last five years. After the 2015 monitoring date, it is evident that the supply will further dwindle if new permissions do not come forward at an increased annual rate. Approval of the High Leigh development will assist in that it will add c. 120 new homes per annum. However, this will be phased over a number of years and High Leigh alone will not address the shortfall. It is consequently considered that approval of this application would have a significant impact on the maintenance of a five year housing land supply in 2015.

8.43 The Council’s Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) indicates that over the next 15 years, 2,834 dwellings can be provided on medium and large sites with planning consent or sites considered as being deliverable and developable within the urban area. When small sites, a non-implementation rate and windfall allowance are factored in, this results in the provision of 2,825 dwellings. However, subject to the Council agreeing an overall housing need figure, there will still be a shortfall of c. 3,000 dwellings. Other sites will be required to fill this gap and it is inevitable that the majority of new homes to meet this shortfall will have to be built within the Green Belt.

8.44 As well as an overall housing supply shortfall, Broxbourne has an overwhelming need for affordable homes (388 per annum) which cannot be provided in any significant amount on the relatively small sites available within the urban area. Local Plan Policy H13 states that the Council will negotiate provision of affordable housing at a rate of 40% of all units on sites capable of accommodating 15 or more dwellings. This is rarely achieved in reality on brownfield sites for viability reasons. However, this application is proposing the full application of the 40% figure and the development would therefore provide much needed affordable housing for Waltham Cross and the borough.

A51

Landscape Benefits for the Green Belt

8.45 It is accepted that the introduction of housing across most of the application site will be an encroachment into the Green Belt. However, that is tempered by the inclusion of a substantial area of open space to be dedicated to the extension of the Lee Valley Regional Park. As the indicative plan, being secured by the planning brief shows, the layout is also spacious and green. The housing will also be well screened around its boundaries which will bring additional mitigation to the overall openness of the Green Belt between the urban boundary of Waltham Cross and the western fringes of the Lee Valley Regional Park. These are all factors that can be treated as part of the very special circumstances.

Conclusion

8.46 The development of the Britannia Nurseries site has a significant role to play in the renaissance of Waltham Cross. It would open up a major new entrance into the Lee Valley Regional Park as well as providing a new reception area for visitors. It would clear a derelict site and remediate contamination. It would provide much needed family housing in a sustainable location. It would assist in maintaining a five year housing land supply and provide affordable homes for local people. It would provide significant community benefits to be drawn from planning obligations. Its overall impact on the Green Belt would be mitigated by the benefits of the layout of the development, the inclusion of open space and the mature tree boundaries around the site. It is contended that all of these factors would amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the encroachment into the Green Belt.

8.47 One of the questions for members will be whether all of the foregoing could be achieved by just developing the southern portion of the site. That proposition is not before members for their consideration. However, it is considered that the overall benefits to be drawn from such a development would be significantly fewer. The remediation of the northern area would still be sought through such a proposal which in effect would transfer much of the proposed open area at the reception into the northern area. Whilst the overall impact on the Green Belt would be less, it is considered that the overall result would be less satisfactory in terms of creating an open and welcoming visitor experience. Whilst viability has not been assessed, the overall amount of houses, the number of affordable homes and the level of the obligation would be significantly less. It is therefore considered that a comprehensive redevelopment of the entire site presents the best overall planning outcome for the site and for this location. The draft Development Brief and master plan are seeking to create a new and more appropriate urban edge that would create a harmonious transition between town and countryside. Enclosed derelict buildings and derelict land that sit against an unsightly industrialised backdrop would be replaced by a sinuous frontage of houses and gardens looking across a significantly extended parkland area that would include new wetland and additional planting. As well as creating a better edge to the town, this would enable a new and more defensible Green Belt edge to be designated within the forthcoming Broxbourne Local Plan.

A52

8.48 The foregoing would not be in accordance with the Park’s area proposals for this site. However, the Lee Park Authority has not been successful in bringing this site into the Park in the past and there is no indication that it has the means to do so in the future. The proposed development would bring significant benefits to the Park that have not hitherto been delivered and the fact that this application does not fully adhere to the Park plan is not considered to be of sufficient weight to outweigh the principle of developing the site as proposed.

8.49 Overall, it is considered that a high quality development would secure significant long term benefits to the attractiveness of the Green Belt and the Lee Valley Regional Park. It is considered that very special circumstances can be demonstrated for the entire site as set out in the foregoing. These very special circumstances would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, the particular harm by encroachment on the countryside and any other planning harm (none of which is identified).The proposed redevelopment would replace a derelict site with a high quality and sustainable housing scheme within well landscaped surroundings and the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable.

Prematurity

8.50 It has been argued that the allocation of Green Belt sites should only take place through the adoption of a Local Plan. The prematurity advice in the 2014 Planning Practice Guidance does make provision for prematurity to be used as a reason for refusal where the development proposed is so substantial or its cumulative effect would be so significant that grant of permission would undermine the plan making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan. However, the Guidance goes on to state that refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan has yet to be submitted for examination.

8.51 Broxbourne does not have an up to date Local Plan and has not at the current time published a consultative document. It is hoped that a draft Plan will be published later in the year. However, this is unlikely to be adopted until late 2016/early 2017. By that time, there is little prospect of a five year land supply being in place. It is not considered that the development of 90 houses in this location would in any case undermine the Plan.

A53

The layout and density of the development

8.52 Although the application is in outline with all matters reserved, illustrative plans have been submitted. The site access from Bryanstone Road is shown to be altered so as to improve sight lines and visibility.

8.53 A future development would need to incorporate extensive landscape buffers to the north (between the site and the allotments) and east (between the site and the LVRP) and extensive areas of open space incorporating a LEAP and SUDS balancing pond. These are proposed to be located to the east, adjacent to the site entrance, as set out in the illustrative master plan and the Development Brief.

8.54 The indicative plan also demonstrates the potential for a central boulevard travelling north south with landscaping on both sides and a landscaped court yard at its centre.

8.55 The indicative plan demonstrates a housing layout which has a slightly more urban feel to the west of the site, with the east of the site appearing more open and less dense helping to diffuse the development into the more open area of the site proposed adjacent to the boundary with the Park.

8.56 Submitted documents state that the overall development would have a dominant characteristic of traditional 2 storey dwellings with 2.5 storey houses in key focal areas of the site.

8.57 Landscaping and house design would be determined by a reserved matters submission but it is considered that a traditional palette of materials and house forms would be successful.

8.58 Indicative views through the development have been submitted as part of the scheme.

A54

Figure 11 View north from grass to the left of Bryanstone Road

Figure 12 View west from grass adjacent to LVRP

A55

Figure 13 Internal view south across the internal centre court

8.59 Overall, the density, illustrative housing mix and illustrative layout as submitted would result in a proposal which accords with Policy H8. If elements of this proposal were to differ significantly as part of a reserved matters application, the current positive elements of this scheme might be lost. In particular, the spaciousness and openness of the development and its positive relationship with the LVRP are central to a positive recommendation and would need to be carried through to any reserved matters submission. For this reason, the implementation of the aforementioned planning brief will be secured by a proposed condition if the Committee resolves to approve this application.

The impact on the amenity of existing and future residential occupiers

8.60 Based upon the illustrative layout submitted, the outlook from the properties to the south would not be detrimentally affected. It is considered that realigning the road and removing the existing buildings would materially improve the appearance of the site. The window to window distances would comfortably exceed the standard set out in the Council’s SPG.

8.61 With regard to the noise resulting from use of the houses, while there is always potential for disturbance from residential uses, there is no reason to believe that the impact in this case would be different in nature or scale from any other comparable new housing development.

8.62 The houses would generally be arranged in conventional block patterns with gardens to gardens and many of the houses would have a generous set back from the estate roads. The illustrative plan demonstrates that it would be possible to comply with the Council’s SPG guidelines in terms of rear garden sizes and distances of separation.

A56

8.63 Overall it is considered that the quality of the scheme as a package results in a proposal which should be supported in terms of future living standards and amenity for residents in compliance with Policy H8.

Noise Disturbance

8.64 There are two principle noise sources which could adversely affect amenity for future residents - the adjacent commercial site and the railway line. A continuous noise survey was carried out between August and September 2012 to establish a baseline. The noise levels slightly exceed the significant observed level for day and night time and therefore mitigation would be required. Double glazing with acoustically treated trickle vents would resolve the issue and would be required by condition. When the detailed layouts to gardens in the closest proximity to the railway are designed, an acoustic fence should be incorporated.

8.65 The Council’s Environmental Health Service does not object to this approach.

8.66 The submitted technical work undertaken as part of the discussions has been assessed in detail and was previously endorsed by the Council’s Head of Environment Health who did not raise objection to the proposal subject to controlling conditions. The most recent consultation with Environmental Health still raises no objection subject to appropriate conditions relating to noise and contaminated land.

The impact on the local and strategic highway network including parking

8.67 Vehicular access to the site would be achieved from Bryanstone Road, which would be extended and realigned into the site. The layout shown on the illustrative plans has been put forward so as to create high profile gateway access into the site and improve visibility to this section of Bryanstone Road.

8.68 Accessibility to the site by alternative modes of transport is good. Alternative provision by foot, cycle and public transport is available.

8.69 The drawings indicate that there would be sufficient capacity within the parking layout to accommodate the Council’s parking guideline standards. A future reserved matters application would be required to fully demonstrate this.

8.70 Hertfordshire County Council has assessed the means of access and impact of the development on the highway network and raises no objection subject to planning conditions relating to implementation of highway works, requirement for a construction management plan, details for surface water drainage and requirement for a Travel Plan.

A57

The Allotments

8.71 The Council allotments to the north are currently accessed via the level crossing. This development would introduce an alternative and safe vehicular access to a dedicated parking area for the allotment holders. Access into the allotments would be via a pedestrian route from this parking area. Full details would be negotiated through a reserved matters application.

Ecology

8.72 The applicant has submitted a detailed assessment of the existing ecological value of the site to support the application together with a more detailed Reptile Survey which was carried out after a recommendation being raised in the Ecology Report. The Reptile Survey found that the site contains a low population of Grass Snake and a low population of Common Lizard, important at a site scale. The survey confirms that to comply with legislation and to avoid committing an offence, vegetation clearance works should be timed to avoid disturbance to breeding birds and the killing and/or injury of reptiles. This would be by conducting vegetation clearance between November and February (inclusive). The removal of any soil and rubble mounds will need to be conducted during the active season (March to October, weather dependant). These mounds will need to be destructively searched under a method statement to avoid impacts to reptiles. If vegetation needs to be cleared within the active period, the entire site will need to be destructively searched. Compensation for the habitat lost should be included within the development. This should include features suitable for reptiles within the landscaping along the eastern boundary, including log piles and long grassland.

8.73 Subject to the mitigation outlined within the submitted survey, it is not considered that there would be any conflict with Local Plan Policy GBC20. The mitigation proposed through the Reptile Survey would be secured by the imposition of a planning condition.

8.74 The development would not adversely affect statutory and/or non-statutory designated sites located within 1km of the site. The hedgerows have potential for dormice. The trees and scrub provide suitable habitat for nesting birds and bats. The ditches are not suitable for otters, water voles or newts. No signs of badgers exist.

8.75 While the habitat present both on and off site is deemed suitable for protected species, the site is considered a low risk for their presence. Precautions are recommended when removing vegetation to allow for any animals which might be there to escape. Any work to clear vegetation should be undertaken outside the bird nesting season.

8.76 The Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust confirms that the site has no notable ecological value. The Trust agrees with mitigation and careful phasing of development and request that an enhancement of biodiversity on site is implemented through good layout, design and landscape proposals.

A58

8.77 Subject to the conditions sought by the Trust, it is considered that the ecological implications of this development would be acceptable. Overall it is considered that the scheme complies with Policies HD17 and HD18 of the Local Plan.

Flood Risk / Contamination

8.78 The matters of flood risk and drainage are both covered by detailed technical assessments. The Environment Agency has not objected to the flood implications subject to condition requiring submission of details of the surface water drainage and on-site contamination.

8.79 With regard to contamination there has been an identified risk from the historical use as a nursery, landfill and above ground fuel storage. Risks range from low to moderate. Further intrusive investigation to assess and quantify the identified potential contamination will be required by condition. The Council’s Environmental Health Service does not object to this approach.

8.80 The issues relating to flood risk and potential contamination are considered to be acceptable and in compliance with Policies SUS18 and SUS12 of the Local Plan.

Affordable Housing

8.81 Policy H13 of the Local Plan states that affordable housing is required where the number of units to be provided exceeds 14 units or the site area exceeds 0.5 hectares as is the case with this site. The applicant has agreed to provide 40% of the dwellings proposed as affordable housing (36 units).

8.82 Exact dwelling split and tenure has not yet been agreed but would be secured through the proposed section 106 Agreement.

A59

9 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

9.1 The Council and the applicant had entered into a section 106 agreement which was attached to the previous grant of planning permission. This centred around securing a suite of mitigation measures to meet the statutory tests for planning obligations and that would be suitable for a development of this scale in the green belt. Should it be resolved to grant planning permission, a new agreement requires to be negotiated and the applicant has indicated a willingness to enter into a similar agreement, albeit that this will need to be in accordance with the new section 106 regulations. The following heads of terms would form the basis for the new agreement:

 £250k for strategic transport improvements including the up-grade of the A.10;

 £250k for strategic and local rail improvements, including the potential up-grade of the West Anglia mainline;

 £250k for Waltham Cross Renaissance and the implementation of the Town Centre Strategy;

 £250k for recreational and landscape improvements in the vicinity of the site, including contributions to the enhancement of the Lee Valley Regional Park;

 Education/County Council toolkit contribution;

 Sustainable transport improvements contribution;

 40% on site affordable housing;

 The provision of a Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) within the development site.

9.2 The previous totality of the obligation was approximately £1.4 million. A similar sum allowing for inflation would be expected within the new obligation.

A60

10 CONCLUSION

10.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt and the Lee Valley Regional Park and the proposal is contrary to the development plan in that it does not comply with Local plan Policy GBC2. It is also contrary to the Lee Valley Park Plan. However, this is a long standing derelict site that in its current state is seriously detrimental to both the Green Belt and the Park. Whilst the Lee Valley Park Plan does propose that the site should be brought into recreational use, the site is in private ownership and no realistic or deliverable proposals have been made that would take the site into Park use. The southern portion of the site is previously developed land and it is considered that its development would be justified through the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. The Park Authority does not now object to this proposition. Development of the northern portion of the site would be inappropriate development and an encroachment into the Green Belt and its development would only be justified if very special circumstances can be demonstrated. Whilst there is harm by reason of inappropriateness and encroachment into the countryside, that further harm is limited as the development would be a sustainable extension of the existing urban area and would not extend excessively into the open countryside. Considerable weight must nonetheless be given to that harm. The case for very special circumstances has been set out in this report based on the entirety of the development and the perceived benefits that would accrue from a comprehensive redevelopment of the entire site. On balance, it is considered that a high quality, sustainable housing development that opens up a major new entrance into the Park from Waltham Cross would be a major benefit to both Waltham Cross and the Park. It is also considered that the development as set out would provide greater benefits to the Green Belt than the current long standing dereliction. It would provide much needed housing, help to retain a five year land supply within the borough, provide affordable housing and bring about a range of other benefits to the community through its mitigations.

10.2 Any reserved matters application must support the benefits set out within this report and a development in excess of 90 dwellings is highly unlikely to be permitted. It is considered that the site could accommodate an upper limit of 90 houses. This still needs to be fully demonstrated through a detailed layout to be submitted as part of a reserved matters application. If this application is approved, officers will seek an exemplar housing scheme that would be to a high standard of sustainable design and construction. The requirement for a development to be in accordance with the appended planning brief would ensure these ambitions.

A61

1. Time Limit (Outline Applications) 2. Reserved Matters 3. External facing materials 4. Surfacing materials (SUDS) 5. Refuse/recycling storage and collection 6. Landscaping details (notwithstanding) 7. Completion of all roads and footpaths before first occupation 8. Sustainable drainage and sewerage strategy 9. Construction/foundation design 10. Wildlife mitigation/enhancement 11. Fencing/boundary treatments 12. No felling of trees prior to landscape scheme 13. Protection of trees 14. (Notwithstanding) Ground contamination assessment – including remediation strategy 15. Ground remediation 16. Private use of garages and parking spaces 17. Hours of construction (08.00-17.00pm Mon-Fri) and (8-1 Saturdays) No Sundays/Bank Holidays 18. All future dwellings are to be accredited by Secure By Design 19. Visibility splays at junctions 20. Acoustic Insulation Scheme 22. Cellweb foot path construction over RPA’s to park 23. Access road into allotment with at least 6 parking bays and access to LVRP with at least 30 parking bays. 24. Details of protection for protected species. 25. Development to be in accordance with Design Brief

A62

A63

Case No: CO/2496/2014 Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 185 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Friday 30th January 2015

Before :

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY ------Between :

THE QUEEN (on the application of LEE VALLEY Claimant REGIONAL PARK AUTHORITY) - and - BROXBOURNE BOROUGH COUNCIL Defendant -and- BRITANNIA NURSERIES Interested Party ------

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) ------

Gregory Jones QC and David Graham (instructed by Lee Valley Regional Park Authority) for the Claimant Richard Harwood QC (instructed by Broxbourne Borough Council) for the Defendant Jenny Wigley (instructed by Attwaters Jameson Hill) for the Interested Party

Hearing dates: 3rd and 4th December 2014 ------

Judgment

A64

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY:

1. The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, the claimant, is a statutory body established under the Lee Valley Regional Park Act 1966, for the purposes of improving and preserving the land adjoining the River Lee, passing through Essex, Hertfordshire and Greater London, as a regional park for the purposes of providing opportunities for recreation and leisure. The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, LVA, has certain plan making functions and particular procedural rights in relation to development control, although it is not itself a development control authority. The nine district and two county councils whose areas include part of the Regional Park provide the members of the authority. One such district council is the defendant, Broxbourne Borough Council.

2. Broxbourne Borough Council granted planning permission on 22 April 2014 to Britannia Nurseries, the interested party, for the development of 4.4 ha. of land, within the Regional Park and within the Green Belt, for the demolition of existing former nursery buildings and structures, and redevelopment with 90 dwellings, public open space and public car parking spaces. The LVA had objected to this proposal because it was contrary to Green Belt policy and its own policies for the Regional Park.

3. The Council referred the application to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who, on 24 July 2013, having considered the LVA objections, declined to call the application in for his own determination, not because of any consideration of the detailed merits of the application but because it did not raise issues of more than local importance. There is no challenge to that decision, but the Council was then entitled to and did proceed to grant planning permission, after the conclusion of an agreement with the developer under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

4. The planning application site was originally a horticultural nursery. It comprises a northern part which amounts to approximately half or a little more of the whole site, and which is open, grass scrub land. It appears that at one time there had been substantial nursery buildings on part of the northern area which were demolished to make way for mineral extraction, after which the land was to be restored for agricultural purposes with inert landfill, according to the conditions of that permission. This is consistent with its appearance as grass scrub land. The southern part of the site contains substantial former nursery buildings concentrated in the south-east part, including some which have collapsed after fire damage. There are other buildings and substantial areas of hard standing.

5. The site as a whole is in the south-west corner of the Regional Park in this section, the main body of which lies to the north and east of the site. To the south, and outside the Green Belt, is built development, as there is to its west beyond the north –south railway line.

6. The LVA challenges the grant of permission on the grounds that the Council misinterpreted Green Belt policy in the National Planning Policy Framework, NPPF, in an unlawful manner particularly with reference to the concepts of openness and previously developed land. The officer’s report failed to identify the harm done to the Green Belt, or to identify the breach of Green Belt policy or what very special circumstances were sufficient to outweigh the harm done. There are a number of other aspects of the report which were also said to be misleading and unlawful. The LVA also raised a particular and to some extent esoteric point, about the role of Lee Valley Regional Park plans and the statutory development plan system which involved some examination of the development of statutory plan making provisions since the Town and Country Planning Act 1962.

A65 The Officer’s Report

7. The officer’s report for the committee on 21 May 2013 summarised the responses to consultation including that of the LVA. It set out the relevant policies from the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 adopted in December 2005. The policies listed as applicable include GBC2 dealing with Green Belt development and CLT4 dealing with the Lee Valley Regional Park. Subject to the issue over the role and status of the LVRP plans, the Second Review Plan 2001-2011 is the relevant statutory development plan. Section 5 of the report dealt with the location and described the site and its location much as I have set out already. It described the northern part of the site as being within a Landscape Character Area, a designation within the Development Plan. It also stated that the site “is split into two defined character areas”, the southern half and the northern area as I have described them. An aerial view of the application site and photographs of it were included in the report. The majority of committee members also went on a site visit.

8. The proposed development is described in section 6. Mr Jones QC for the LVA pointed out that it was an outline planning application with all matters reserved which meant, as the report said, that the layout, house types and “road relocation” were all illustrative. The illustrative material provided would assist the committee in visualising the style of properties which could be built and arranged. “However, a future reserved matters application could look significantly different”. There would be four different house types of a largely traditional nature ranging between 2-2½ stories. Typical upper limits of property heights would be 9.5 metres with lower limits of 7 metres. Dwellings widths would range between 4-11 metres and depths would range between 6-9 metres. The illustrative layout demonstrated a greater number of 2 storey detached dwellings on the eastern side of the development “in order to minimise visual impact from the Regional Park”. It noted that design and appearance were not part of the application.

9. The planning history of the site was referred to briefly, noting the permission in 1984 for the extraction of minerals with restoration to agriculture with inert fill. In 1998 permission had been granted for cladding part of the glass houses and for the continued use of part of the site for trade in florist’s sundries and cut flowers.

10. It is the appraisal section which matters for these purposes. The main issues to consider included first “the principle of redevelopment for residential use in the Metropolitan Green Belt and the Lee Valley Regional Park”; other main issues included the supply of housing land, layout and density and other development control matters. In dealing with the first main issue, which the report repeated, it first set out policy GBC2 of the Local Plan, which states that planning permission will not be granted for development in the Green Belt other than for the purposes specified in the policy, none of which apply to residential development as proposed here. Paragraph 8.3 continued:

“8.3 Development of this site for housing does not accord with this policy. However, the provisions of this policy in relation to this site are now to some extent superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework. Whilst the NPPF retains the previous stance of national guidance in that there is a presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt, it now allows for:

“limited infilling or partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brown field land), whether redundant or in continuing use which would not have a greater impact on the

A66 openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development”.

8.4 This is a change in emphasis to provide a more flexible approach to derelict green belt sites provided that the openness of the green belt is not compromised.”

11. The report then continued in paragraph 8.5: “In addition to the foregoing, the applicant also contends that there are ‘very special circumstances’ in support of this scheme and has put forward the following case as to why development is justifiable.” There then followed eight points:

 The development would be well contained within the boundaries;

 The development would not result in coalescence settlements;

 The site was not rural countryside due to former activities;

 It was Local Plan Policy to promote the re-use of previously developed and derelict urban land;

 Green Belt land had to be released in order to meet the Council’s short and medium term housing requirements;

 There was an overwhelming need for affordable housing which would not be provided within the urban area;

 There was a need for family housing with gardens which could not normally be provided within the urban area; and

 The site is a logical extension to the existing urban area.”

12. Mr Harwood QC for the Council submitted that those eight points were no more than a summary of the applicant’s case, and that it was the following paragraphs that contained the officer’s appraisal of very special circumstances.

“8.6 With regard to the points made by the applicant, the proposal would be a comprehensive redevelopment of this derelict and redundant site resulting in the removal of dilapidated buildings. It would remediate any contamination and also address a history of anti-social behaviour. In total, police have been called 14 times to the site as a result of theft, squatting, drinking and trespass.

8.7 It is not considered that a residential development on this site would unacceptably extend the urban area into a high quality area of the Green Belt. It is noted that the scrub to the north of the site is formed from an area of landfill. Any development on this site would not result in the merging of urban areas and the 90 dwellings proposed would be sited appropriately after taking account of the sites constraints.

A67 8.8 Whilst the objections raised by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority are noted, it is considered that this development would not be harmful to the character of the Park. On the contrary, it is considered that the clearance of a long derelict site and its replacement with high quality housing facing out across a new area of public space should be seen as a substantial improvement. In addition, the creation of a major new entrance to the Park will open it up to Waltham Cross and visitor numbers will be increased. Access to the Park for Waltham Cross residents currently requires an 800 metre walk down Eleanor Cross Road to the Lee Valley White Water Centre. This development will create an attractive new route for pedestrians and cyclists as well as providing 30 visitor parking spaces for Users of the Park.

8.10 Overall, it is considered that a high quality development could secure significant long term benefits to the openness and attractiveness of the Green Belt and Lee Valley Regional Park. It would replace a derelict site with a high quality and sustainable housing scheme within well landscaped surroundings.”

13. Paragraph 8.9 was incomplete and members were advised to ignore it. The next issue dealt with in the report was the supply of housing land. Mr Jones criticised this paragraph because he said that it did not make clear whether there was or was not a 5 year housing supply, when in fact there was a 5 year housing supply even without this proposed development. Paragraph 8.11 reads as follows:

“The Supply of Housing Land

8.11 The Council needs to take into account the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework to boost significantly the supply of housing and should at all times retain a five year supply of housing land. This currently means that there must be sufficient land within the borough to enable 1,250 new homes to be built. In order to maintain this figure, a limited number of sites need to come forward before a more comprehensive review of the green belt takes place through the new Local Plan site [sic]. [allocation plan, I infer]. Permission for this site would make a significant contribution to the supply.”

14. The report next turned to the layout and density of the development, pointing out that the application was in outline but illustrative plans had been submitted; the development would need to incorporate extensive landscape buffers to the north and to the east and the illustrative plan showed open space areas including the play area and drainage pond located to the east adjacent to the site entrance. There was potential for a central north-south boulevard with landscaping and a landscaped courtyard. Housing with the more urban feel was to the west of the site, and to the east it would appear more open and less dense “helping to diffuse the development into the more open area of the site proposed adjacent to the boundary with the LVRP”. Mr Jones pointed out that the reference to the boundary with the LVRP was a misconception since the site itself was within the LVRP; the site was merely not land owned by the LVA.

A68 15. In paragraph 8.19, the officer concluded that the density, illustrative housing mix and layout accorded with policy H8 on design. It added that if elements of the proposal differed significantly in the reserved matters application the “current positive elements of this scheme might be lost. In particular the spaciousness and openness of the development and its positive relationship with the LVRP are central to a positive recommendation and would need to be carried through to any reserved matters submission”. The planning obligation would include the payment of £250,000 for improvements to the LVRP and recreation in the vicinity of the site.

16. The conclusion to the report said:

“10.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt and the Lee Valley Regional Park. However, it is a long standing derelict site that in its current state is seriously detrimental to both. It is in private ownership and no realistic proposals have been made that would take the site into Park use. On balance, it is considered that a high quality sustainable housing development that opens up a major new entrance into the Park from Waltham Cross would be a major benefit to the Park. It is also considered that the development as set out would provide greater benefits to the green belt than the current dereliction. The development would be an extension of the existing urban area and would not extend excessively into the open countryside. It would provide much needed housing, help to retain a five year land supply within the borough and provide affordable housing.”

17. The next paragraph dealt with what would be expected in the reserved matters application. It pointed out that more than 90 dwellings were highly unlikely to be permitted and that 90 was the upper limit which the site could accommodate. Even that number would need to be fully demonstrated through a detailed layout.

18. The LVA’s Head of Planning addressed the Council’s committee briefly, referring to the LVA’s policies, to the support which the Development Plan gave to refusing permission, and to the “unacceptable precedent” which the grant of permission for this housing development in the Green Belt and in the Regional Park would create.

19. The reasons for the grant of permission produced in April 2014, after negotiations were concluded on the s106 agreement, were:

“Reasons for Grant of Permission: Overall, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policies SUS10, SUS17, GBC2, H8, H13, T3, T9, T11 and IMP2 and all other relevant policies of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 (December 2005) and the Supplementary Planning Guidance August 2004. Very special circumstances have been demonstrated in this case which allow for development in the green belt, there will not be a materially detrimental impact on the area generally, upon the local and strategic highway network nor upon the amenity and outlook of the adjoining properties. The development has secured community benefits for the area local to the site and the Lee Valley Regional Park.”

A69 20. The s106 agreement limits the number of houses to 90. Conditions require the provision of 30 car parking spaces for Park users, and that the reserved matters application conform to a Design Brief, the current draft of which supports the illustrative layout considered by the committee.

The Policy Framework

21. Relevant parts of the National Planning Policy Framework on Green Belts are:

“79…The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green belts are their openness and their permanence.

81. Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.

88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. “Very special circumstances” will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.

22. Paragraph 89 affirms, as GBC2 does, that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate, subject to exceptions of which I mention two. One is replacement buildings for the same use provided that the new is “not materially larger” than the old. That is not directly applicable here, save that it indicates why there would generally be no harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The other exception is fully quoted in paragraph 8.3 of the officer’s report, and applies to the redevelopment of previously developed land which does not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and on the purposes of including land within the Green Belt than the existing development. The glossary defines “previously developed land”, and is important:

“Previously developed land:

Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures; land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time.”

A70 23. Other NPPF policies deal with the maintenance of a five year supply of housing, and in paragraph 47 with boosting significantly the supply of housing but not so as to breach specific NPPF policies such as the Green Belt. On 1 July 2013, a written Ministerial statement in Parliament on the Green Belt made it clear that “the single issue of unmet demand… for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the “very special circumstances” justifying inappropriate development in the Green Belt”. The NPPF also requires high quality in the design of development whilst discouraging unduly prescriptive design policies on the imposition of particular styles or tastes: paragraphs 57, 59 and 60.

24. The supporting text to Local Plan policy GBC2 refers to the problem of derelict glasshouses in West Cheshunt, where the 1986 Structure Plan Review incorporated provision for a review of Green Belt boundaries, which was said to have achieved a good balance between development and retaining countryside.

25. The Local Plan policies place the northern two-thirds of the site, in a Landscape Character area where policy GBC16 seeks to include landscape enhancement measures, whenever development is permitted in the Green Belt countryside.

26. The Local Plan also contains retained policy CLT4 on the Lee Valley Regional Park. It provided that the Council supported the LVA in continuing development of the Park in the expectation that development would be predominantly recreational uses appropriate to a Regional Park, though some more intensive recreational uses might also be permitted.

27. Strategic Proposal LVRP1 of the Lee Valley Regional Park Plan, adopted in 2000, envisages the achievement of the Park’s role in providing a range of recreation, leisure and nature conservation “experiences” through the protection of a “continuous corridor of connecting and interrelated open space, water and vegetation” and the definition and protection of the Park boundary through “the creation, enhancement and management of visually attractive, quality Park edges.” The Park is recognised as a link in a Green Chain of regionally significant open spaces. The Park itself provides a network of open space reaching from London into the countryside. A key feature of the Park is its openness. Its role is reliant on the quality of agricultural and rural land in and adjoining the Park, although some agricultural activities have an adverse impact on it. Strategic Proposal LVRP3 seeks to make appropriate use of the Park’s resources in a number of ways, including the “regeneration of areas of vacant and derelict land to provide a balanced range of sites for regional leisure, recreation and nature conservation”.

28. The site lies within area 3.1 of this Plan, which is an area proposed “for informal recreation and nature conservation with an emphasis on quiet recreation within a wooded, grassland and water environment.” Open space was to be protected, and acquired if necessary. Intrusive uses which were incompatible with the Park were to be removed or their adverse impact was to be mitigated. The explanatory text referred to pockets of housing, chalets and glasshouses in this context. The Plan makes it clear that housing development is not compatible with the leisure purposes for which the Park was established, and precludes the opportunity being taken to bring the land into uses compatible with the Park.

29. Policy L1.1 seeks to protect and enhance the openness of the Park by “ensuring no development in or adjacent to the Regional Park adversely affects the open character of the Park”, and “avoiding built development which compromises the purpose of areas of Green Belt …” Other policies oppose development incompatible with Park purposes, L.2.1; and L.2.3 seeks to ensure that derelict and unused land is brought in to Park use. Development for purposes which are not those of the Regional Park should be located within “existing established areas”, where they would have a negligible effect on the openness of the Park.

A71 The Legal Framework

30. S38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that, if s 70 requires regard to be had to the development plan in the determination of a planning application, “the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

31. Certain provisions of the Lee Valley Regional Park Act 1966, the 1966 Act, are relevant. S12 creates the duty of the LVA, among other tasks, to develop, improve, preserve and manage the Park as a place for leisure, recreation and sport and for the provision of nature reserves and for the enjoyment of any kind of entertainment. The LVA may do all such things as it thinks necessary to fulfil that duty.

32. S14 makes special provisions for planning. First, the LVA had to prepare a plan showing proposals for the use and development of the Park, about which it had to consult the local planning authorities in relation to whose areas those proposals relate; this plan is to be kept under review, in a similar fashion. By s14(2)(a):

“The local planning authorities shall from time to time include in their development plans or in any proposals for any alterations …such part of the [LVA plan] or of any amendment to that plan as relates to their area.”

Copies of this plan and amendments must be sent by the LVA to the local planning authorities and be kept available for public inspection. However, by s14(2)(b), the inclusion of a part of the LVA plan in a local planning authority’s Development Plan:

“shall not be treated as indicating the approval of the local planning authority to such plan…nor shall such inclusion prejudice any representation to the Minister which the local planning authority may think fit to make thereon.”

33. Development control is dealt with in s14 (4). The local planning authority has to notify the LVA of any application which appears to the planning authority as likely to affect any part of the park, and then to consult it. S14(8) contains a special provision which empowers the LVA to require the local planning authority to refer its determination of the application to the Minister, who can require the application to be referred to him, for determination after the LVA has had an opportunity to be heard by an Inspector.

General

34. The approach of the two main parties to the issues was quite different. Mr Jones took issue with many aspects of the officer’s report, contending that in a variety of ways, they showed errors of law. However at root, his complaint was that development had been permitted to spread to undeveloped areas of open Green Belt land with no appreciation of the harm which that did according to policy, and with no proper appraisal of the very special circumstances required to overcome such harm. Mr Harwood’s over-arching defence was that one should stand back from the detail of the criticisms and, recognising that the committee would have some experience of Green Belt issues, see the bigger picture which the report painted. The report recognised that the development was in breach of Green Belt policy; it analysed the degree of harm, and it set out the very special circumstances which the committee was entitled to conclude clearly outweighed that harm. The site contained large and derelict buildings close to the edge of the open part of the Park; the appearance of this part of the Green Belt and of the Park would be improved by the removal of the dereliction and the new housing, located so as to create a greater area of open space at the

A72 boundary to the recreational area of the Park. There would also be a significantly more accessible new entrance to the Park for those in Waltham Cross. The housing itself would be an additional benefit.

35. Nonetheless, in order to deal with the issues it is necessary to look at the detail of the criticism. But I say at the outset, that there are significant problems with the structure and reasoning in the report, and indeed in ascertaining with what point it was dealing at various stages. Mr Harwood’s detailed submissions showed rather more awareness of the pitfalls facing this particular proposal in this location than did the report, so his analysis and the report did not always chime. I have not dealt separately with Ms Wigley’s submissions on behalf of Britannia Nurseries, save as to discretion, since they essentially echoed Mr Harwood’s.

Ground 1: The lawfulness of the approach in the Officer’s Report to the Green Belt: (a) the site as previously developed land

36. Mr Jones contended that the report treated the whole site as previously developed land, to which the new approach in the NPPF applied. That was wrong in law since no part of the site was previously developed land: the northern part was simply not previously developed; the southern part was excluded from “previously developed land” because it was land “that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings”. On that, he made two points. First, although the agricultural use had ceased in the buildings on the southern part, that use had not been replaced by a non-agricultural use; and second, even if it had been, the land would still be land which is or has been occupied by agricultural buildings. Mr Harwood accepted that the northern part was not previously developed land, but denied that the report had treated the northern part, or the site as a whole, as previously developed land. Its approach had been that the southern part was indeed previously developed land, and that that was a factor which contributed to the very special circumstances which could justify a breach of Green Belt policy through permitting inappropriate development on the site as a whole. The definition of previously developed land did not require the whole of any application site to have been previously developed land for the new provision to have some application. Mr Jones’ submissions were wrong on both aspects of whether the southern part was excluded from being previously developed land.

37. I take first of all the question of whether the southern part of the site was previously developed land. There was no issue but that the southern part was “previously developed land” subject only to the scope of the exception. I accept Mr Harwood’s analysis of the planning history: the glasshouses had been agricultural buildings but their agricultural use did not just cease; it had been replaced by a non-agricultural use or by a mixed agricultural and non-agricultural use. Although plants were still grown there, a retail component was introduced when the plants, along with florist’s sundries, were sold from the glasshouses. This use was permitted on appeal in 1999; the use had already commenced. So, the agricultural buildings occupying the land were last used for non-agricultural purposes, and now were not used at all. So, the buildings were not last lawfully used for agricultural purposes, but for a mixed use including agricultural and non-agricultural components.

38. But did that mean that they had ceased to be “agricultural buildings” for the purposes of the NPPF? This is an issue of some nicety not addressed specifically in the report. The report must have assumed that the permitted change of use to include a related non-agricultural component meant that they were no longer agricultural buildings. No statutory definition of “agriculture”, or “agricultural” in s55(2)(c) or s336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or in Schedule 2 Part 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 SI NO.418 offers any assistance beyond the reference to permitted development rights for agricultural buildings applying only to buildings designed for the purposes of agriculture. They had been designed as horticulture, so they had in part A73 last been used for the purposes of agriculture. The mere cessation of an agricultural use would not cause them to cease being agricultural buildings. An unlawful change of use which would still be enforced against, would not change the use of the building in this context. But I conclude that the implied approach of the report is correct. The words “agricultural building” in the NPPF, as in the legislation, in my view mean a building used for the purposes of agriculture alone and do not include one which was used for the purposes of agriculture alone and do not include one which was used for agricultural purposes but which, lawfully, is now used for another purpose, mixed with agriculture or not. These buildings were in fact no longer used for agricultural purposes alone. A barn now converted to a dwelling was once used for agricultural purposes, it was an agricultural building, but it is now a dwelling house and not an agricultural building.

39. The second aspect of this issue is whether nonetheless, as Mr Jones contended, the previous agricultural use of the buildings meant that the land was still excluded from “previously developed land” as it remains land which “is or has been occupied by agricultural buildings”. The language of the exclusion was quite straightforward. Mr Harwood contended that the exclusion could not apply where the agricultural use of the buildings had ceased and had been replaced by another use, whether a permitted use, or one which had become a lawful use. The position would be even more obvious if the buildings had been demolished and lawfully replaced with other buildings for use for non-agricultural purposes, but which logically on Mr Jones’ submission would still mean that the land “has been occupied” by agricultural buildings.

40. In my judgment, those words must be read in the context of the words defining previously developed land. That is land which “is or was occupied by a permanent structure”. The exception uses the words “is or has been occupied by agricultural buildings”. The policy first looks at the present position and asks what buildings occupy the site, to which the answer is: buildings lawfully not used for agricultural purposes. The present tense deals with the position as it is. The policy then looks at whether the land “was” or “has been” occupied by permanent structures or certain buildings. The past tense deals with the position where the buildings which once occupied the land no longer do so, having been demolished, or fallen down. Their removal does not in general prevent land being previously developed land, and in the case of agricultural buildings, their removal does not end the exception. The past tense is not used to deal with former agricultural buildings which continue occupy the land but which are no longer agricultural buildings. That is covered by what “agricultural building” means.

41. The problem with Mr Jones’ approach is three fold, although I can see that his interpretation is a possible one. First, it does not seem to me the most natural reading of the language of the policy. The policy would have to cover the position where buildings still occupy on the site, and where they once occupied the site but have since been demolished or have fallen down. That is what the two tenses deal with. The use of the past tense to cover both sites no longer occupied by any buildings, and sites still occupied by buildings but which have changed from a use within the exception to one outside it, rather strains the scope of quite simple language. Second, the policy justification for his suggested interpretation is not strong enough to overcome that reading. The aim of the agricultural building exception is to avoid a necessary exception to normal policies, agricultural buildings in the countryside and the Green Belt, often permitted development not requiring specific planning permission, becoming the vehicle, through this new policy, for allowing built development which would otherwise be inappropriate in the Green Belt, or not normally allowed in the countryside. Were the lawful change of use of an agricultural building to become the vehicle for a new non-agricultural building, the aim of the policy could be to some degree undermined though it would still cover the erection of new non-agricultural buildings. I do not think that that makes a sufficient dent in the rationale for the policy to overcome the simple reading of

A74 straightforward language. Third, it would introduce some very odd consequences which I cannot accept are intended. If agricultural buildings had once occupied a site, whether they had changed their use long ago, or had been demolished and replaced with non-agricultural buildings with permission, the site could not be previously developed land. If the whole of the southern site is redeveloped for housing, it would still be within the exception to previously developed land when any further redevelopment took place. Accordingly, I conclude that the southern part of the site was correctly treated as previously developed land.

42. Mr Jones contended next that, even if the southern part as a whole had been previously developed land, the report failed to consider the very material differences between the policies and their effect as applied to the northern and southern parts of the site. Applying the definition of previously developed land, as Mr Harwood said is should be applied, would have required the two parts to be treated separately, because the northern part of the site was not previously developed land, whereas the southern part was. Instead, the report had run the two parts together, and treated the site as a whole.

43. Mr Harwood first submitted that the report had treated the northern part as not previously developed land, for the development of which for housing very special circumstances were required, but had treated the southern part as previously developed land, for which on its own, no very special circumstances were required for development for housing.

44. I reject Mr Harwood’s first submission. At no stage does the report draw any distinction between the northern and southern parts of the site in this context, and certainly not in the context of which parts were previously developed land. That is important in view of the way in which the new flexibility is introduced in the report as offsetting or diminishing the significance of the breach of GBC2. Paragraphs 8.3 and 8.6-8.10 of the report treat the application site as one: it is derelict, redundant, with dilapidated buildings and anti-social behaviour; development of the whole would not affect the Green Belt; the long derelict site would be cleared and replaced with high quality housing. The effect of the reference to the new policy exception for previously developed land in paragraph 8.3, in the context of the reference to the need for very special circumstances, is to treat the policy exception as constituting or as being part of very special circumstances for the whole site, and to avoid the committee grappling with the clear effect of the admitted breach of Green Belt policy over at least the northern part of the site. It was, I note, never suggested that the development of the northern part was necessary to enable clearance and redevelopment of the southern part. I appreciate that the majority of committee members had seen the site, but the report does not draw the distinction which their visit would have suggested, and so would have diminished rather than affirmed any distinction which they ought to have appreciated in the application of policy as between the southern and northern parts.

45. The report, taking the whole site as derelict land needing clearance and improvement by quality housing, treated the site as all previously developed land, and therefore treated the whole development as not now being inappropriate under the new Green Belt policy. Paragraph 8.3 sets out the Local Plan policy which the development breached, but it then referred to the new NPPF policy, introducing flexibility and in part superseding it, with no suggestion that it only applied to part of the site. GBC2 and the NPPF are treated as applying to the site as a whole, the former superseding the latter. That conclusion is not displaced by the subsequent reference to very special circumstances in paragraph 8.5. Although such a reference implies a breach of Green Belt policy, paragraph 8.5 commences “In addition”, that is it introduces additional points in favour of the proposal, rather than as factors required to outweigh harm through inappropriateness and specific harm. Indeed Mr Harwood submitted that paragraph 8.5 was merely listing the applicant’s arguments, and not setting out the planning officer’s appraisal. The officer thereafter makes no comment at all as to what he sees as the very special circumstances. I do not read paragraphs 8.6-8,10 as A75 being his appraisal of very special circumstances, outweighing unidentified harm: the concept is not mentioned in the report after paragraph 8.5. Rather it is a commentary on the applicant’s points, regardless of whether they are or are not capable of being very special circumstances. 1 also point out that the reason for the grant of permission states that there was no breach of GBC2; GBC2 would be breached of course even if very special circumstances were found to outweigh the harm. In reality, for there to have been no breach of GBC2, it had to have been read as now subject to the new policy in the NPPF.

46. Some of the factors in paragraphs 8.6 and 8.7 are distinctly odd as very special circumstances anyway, which is why I do not accept that that is what those paragraphs refer to. On paragraph 8.6, I find it hard to square the fact that most of the site is not previously developed land, with the description of the site as a whole as derelict, in the absence of specific reasoning. Restored land is excluded from the definition of previously developed land; and its restored state therefore would not usually be a basis for treating development of it for housing as a very special circumstance. No connection was suggested between the removal of dereliction, notably of derelict buildings and hardstanding where it exists on the south, and the extent of housing development on the north, so it is difficult to see why that was treated as a very special circumstance -- if it was- justifying development to the north.

47. That is then compounded in paragraphs 8.7 and 8.10. If these are very special circumstances, they all ignore the harm done by reason of the very inappropriateness of this development in the Green Belt. It is also difficult to see how the absence of some more severe harm to the Green Belt could be a very special circumstance permitting harm by reason of inappropriateness, unless perhaps the development must take place in the Green Belt and the question is which is the least harmful location for it, which was not the issue here. The lower quality of an area of Green Belt land does not reduce the harm done by inappropriate development, and though it may or may not affect any particular specific harm, the way in which the lesser quality of the surface area of the Green Belt might reduce harm to openness would require careful explanation. It may also be right that the development would not result in the actual merging of urban areas; were it in fact to do so, that would be a very strong form of harm. But the absence of such a form of severe harm cannot reduce the harm by reason of inappropriateness or the harm actually done to the openness of the Green Belt. The assertion that the urban area would not “extend excessively into the open countryside” or “unacceptably into high quality Green Belt” in reality is an unrecognised but real assertion of harm by inappropriateness, and of specific but not great harm to openness. That cannot be a very special circumstance at all. Those passages merely set out as positive points a degree of the harm, not very special circumstances clearly outweighing it.

48. The next question is whether that absence of distinction matters in law. Mr Harwood’s second submission was that the absence of greater differentiation did not matter. In effect, the committee was told it could be satisfied that there were very special circumstances, needed because the development did not comply with Green Belt policy, and the existence of previously developed and derelict land within the site which would be cleared and improved was one of those very special circumstances.

49. I cannot accept Mr Harwood’s submission as to how the report informed the committee the facts and analysed the issues for it. I have already set out my reading of the report. The committee had to be advised that part only of the site was previously developed land and as to the significance in Green Belt policy terms of that fact. This would be done by treating the site as two parts: the southern part which was for these purposes accepted as previously developed land to which the new flexibility could apply, subject to the issue of openness; and the northern part, the development of which for housing would be a clear breach of GBC2 and of the NPPF, which should be refused in the absence of sufficient very special circumstances. If the site were treated as a whole, how was the committee to approach A76 compliance with Green Belt policy as a whole, when there was a breach on part and not the other? How was it to analyse whether very special circumstances existed, and whether that outweighed the harm done? And how could the gain from developing the southern part, reflected in the very fact that the policy was now more flexible, count towards the very special circumstances on the northern part? I do not know how that could have been done, but it most certainly was not done.

50. Drawing the distinction, by whatever means, would have enabled the proper identification of the relevant harm, notably the impact on openness of the inappropriate development on the northern part, would have required identification of the degree of very special circumstances required, and what the relevant very special circumstances actually were. The northern part was neither previously developed land nor in need of the clearance of dereliction or at least not dereliction remotely of the same order as on the southern part. The removal of dereliction in the southern part, the most important of the very special circumstances, could not have been used to support housing development in the northern part, whether as previously developed land or as very special circumstances, at least not without some very careful reasoning the nature of which I cannot at present envisage, given that it was not said that the development of the north was necessary to achieve removal of dereliction from the south. I have already dealt with some of the other factors which Mr Harwood said were very special circumstances.

51. This is not a case in which the previously developed land is so large a proportion of the whole site as to make the distinction one which could reasonably be ignored. While I accept Mr Harwood’s point, that the flexibility in the NPPF for previously developed land may not require every part of the application site to have been previously developed land, the presence of some previously developed land within an application site does not make the whole site previously developed land either, applying the definition in the NPPF. The NPPF itself draws a limit on whether a site is previously developed land by reference to the curtilage of the buildings.

52. I have come to the conclusion that the report and the committee took into account irrelevant considerations in dealing with the whole site either as if previously developed land or as if at least some of the same very special circumstances applied to it as a whole. They ignored important policy based distinctions going to whether there had been a breach of policy, as to the harm done, as to the extent of very special circumstances required, and in their identification. The relevant analysis simply did not happen at all. I would quash the decision on ground 1(a). This failure also affected the approach to openness to which I now come.

Ground 1 (b): the meaning of “openness”

53. This ground, which Mr Jones put first, contended that the report to committee had misinterpreted the concept of ‘openness” or reached an irrational conclusion about it in paragraph 8.10. It was legally flawed, whether it was an analysis as to why the exclusion from the exception for previously developed land in the NPPF did not apply, (the proposed development having no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development), or an analysis of the absence of harm which the proposed development would do to the Green Belt (by reason of its lack of greater impact on openness), or an analysis of very special circumstances. The application of the NPPF policy on previously developed land required an assessment of whether the development of that land had a greater effect on openness than did the existing development on it. It did not contemplate an analysis of the effect of development on that land plus land which was not previously developed land.

A77 54. Paragraph 8.10 had treated the effect of a housing development on both northern and southern parts of the site as having no greater an effect on openness than the existing development, and indeed as having a “significant long term beneficial effects” for openness. Yet the housing would cover a very much greater area than the existing buildings which lay to the south-east of the southern part of the site, albeit that they were taller, bulkier and closer together than the proposed housing would be. Even if that approach might have been adequate for the southern part, it could not rationally apply to the whole site. Although paragraph 8.4 was not objectionable in itself, it did not suggest that openness would in any way be compromised by the proposal. Visual impact was not to be confused with “openness”, which simply meant an absence of any buildings or development”; Timmins v Gedling BC [2014] EWHC 654 (Admin). Nor did the report refer to the fact that inappropriate development was by definition harmful to the Green Belt, in addition to any specific harm which it might do to openness; paragraph 88 of the NPPF.

55. Mr Harwood submitted that members of the committee would have been very familiar with Green Belt policy. They were entitled to take the view as a matter of planning judgment that the housing on the whole site would lead to no greater a reduction in openness than had been created by the large buildings in the southern part which would be removed: spreading the area of built development in return for reducing the height of development was said to be a conventional way of maintaining or improving openness and visual amenity in what was not an open site. Reduced density and greater space between buildings was relevant to the judgment on openness. The housing would also be further away from the recreational area of the Park, beyond the site boundary; the south-east part would become open and the north-east part would remain open. The northern part was also required to provide for the northern vehicular access to the allotments to the north and Park parking. The visual improvement of the site brought about by the removal of the derelict buildings, and its development with high quality housing and landscaping had been taken into account as very special circumstances, not as going to openness.

56. I cannot accept Mr Harwood’s submissions. They presented a rather more sophisticated analysis of how a tenable decision might have been arrived at than the report provided. The report simply did not deal with the extent of built development on the site as a whole and compare it with the proposed development by foot print, whether by reference to the footprint of buildings alone or to the area occupied by man-made development. No such exercise was done, nor was it suggested that the basis of the comparison which should be undertaken. Nor does the report suggest that if the built area of the existing buildings were compared to the footprint of the proposed houses alone and found to be greater, that the effect of an openness of dispersal of the smaller footprint of the housing over a much wider area, with its accompanying enclosed gardens, ancillary buildings, roads, paved areas and so on, could be traded off against the reduction in height.

57. There is support for a comparison of built footprints being relevant to openness and to a trade-off between height reduction and an increase in footprint being permissible in the formula PPG2 on Green Belts in Annex C, “The Future of Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt”. Paragraph C9d0 says that new development should “not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity)”. For these purposes, the footprint was the ground floor area of the existing buildings, excluding for example hard standing. But C6 warned that the “character and dispersal of proposed redevelopment will need to be considered as well as its footprint. For example, many houses may together have a much smaller footprint than a few huge buildings, but may be unacceptable because their dispersal over a large part of the site and enclosed gardens may have an adverse impact on the character of the Green Belt compared with the current development.”

A78 58. If such an approach is being adopted, and even if the data on heights and areas of spread and footprints could be left to the impressions of a site visit or photographs and to an illustrative layout, the question of how the two sides of the comparison played out in their effects on openness should have been presented as the key question. Some analysis of the key points would have been required, especially in view of the way in which housing development would spread to such a large extent beyond the area of existing built development, and over the bulk of the open northern part. It is obvious that the report and committee had to address how the impact on openness could be no greater, even if no greater on the southern part alone, given that the open northern part would be largely developed for housing.

59. I would accept that the effect of development on openness may involve questions of degree. and that there may be scope for some reduction in height and bulk offsetting some greater extent or spread of built area, and, if so, that how far the offset goes before the impact on openness increases can be a matter of impression. A conclusion on the degree of impact on openness is essential to reliance on the new flexibility for “previous developed land” in the first place, as noted in paragraph 8.3 of the report, and to the analysis of harm. There might be a benefit to openness on the southern part of the site but to treat that as benefiting the whole site would require explanation that that is the approach being adopted and how it could rationally lead to the answers here.

60. The spread of urban housing development over the northern site is such an obvious and extensive increase in the developed area and in the area of openness lost, that I do not see, in the absence of clear analysis and explanation, how the report rationally could have avoided saying that there was a significant loss of openness- most of the currently open northern part was to be developed- and that was a breach of the NPPF as well as of GBC2. The conclusion in paragraph 8.10 was irrational on the information and analysis available to the committee, and might well be irrational however presented.

61. I accept that this planning committee had training and experience in dealing with Green Belt issues, and that can make up for some apparent deficiencies or short cuts in an officer’s report. But these are very significant. This decision also was significantly affected by the role of the new flexibility given to previously developed land, on which proper analysis was required.

62. Accordingly, the grant of permission is quashed on this ground too.

Ground 1 (c): misunderstanding of the need to give “substantial weight” to harm to the Green Belt

63. This concerns the approach in the officer’s report to paragraph 88 of the NPPF, set out above. This required, on Mr Jones’ submission that “substantial weight” be given to the harm done to openness by the extension of development on to the open land in the north of the site. He submitted that the report contained no such advice, and such harm as was identified was to be given no greater weight than that of any other harm. Nor did it contain any reference to the harmful precedent which this development would set to the advantage of those who left Green Belt sites derelict, albeit after a serious fire, for a few years.

64. Mr Harwood again referred to the experience which the committee would have of Green Belt policy, and submitted that it was not necessary, in order for the decision to be lawful, for the report explicitly to refer to the need to give substantial weight to harm to the Green Belt. It had referred to the harm and to the need for very special circumstances. This case turned on its particular facts, and could not be a precedent for other cases. The site became derelict after a serious fire destroyed half the buildings and the business ceased to trade; it was not just left to go derelict.

A79 65. There is no substance in the precedent point. However, if it is inappropriate development, which is what Mr Harwood contended was indeed the case on the northern part, the harm by reason of inappropriateness needed to be set out, together with any specific harm, and then the very special circumstances needed to be set out, which had to be sufficient clearly to outweigh the harm. The report reads as though it involves a straightforward balancing exercise. I am conscious of the need to avoid creating an error of law out of a failure in the precise repetition of a hallowed or perhaps hackneyed planning phrase. That might not suffice to show that an experienced committee misunderstood its task, if it stood alone. But it reinforces my earlier views about the unlawful way in which the Green Belt issues were approached.

Ground 1(d): the treatment of housing need

66. Mr Jones submitted that the report relied upon housing need as part of the justification for the development, as part of the very special circumstances. That required the committee to be told whether or not here was a shortfall in the five year housing land supply, its extent, and what steps other than granting permission for the use of Green belt land, in advance of a review of its boundaries, could be taken. A shortfall in housing land supply was not normally a very special circumstance, since Green Belt boundaries were marked by their permanence, and Green Belts were only to be built on exceptionally. The NPPF, paragraphs 14, with footnote 9, and 47, required the full and objectively assessed housing needs to be met, but only where that was consistent with NPPF policies, which include Green Belt policy. If there were no shortfall, it would be irrational to treat the reducing surplus over five years as a very special circumstance. The committee ought also to have been asked to reconsider its decision after the written Ministerial statement of June 2013, which made it clear before the grant of permission that the “single issue of unmet housing demand” was unlikely to outweigh Green Belt objections.

67. Mr Harwood contended in his written submissions that the report should not be read as if housing need had been a very special circumstance; but it was another benefit. As I understood his oral argument, he contended that housing need could be a very special circumstance. The very special circumstances here were the quality of design, openness and attractiveness of the redevelopment and its removal of dereliction. Housing was a factor, but only in the context of the committee being told that Green Belt sites would have to be released before the general review of the Green Belt in order to maintain a five year supply of housing land. In September 2012, there had been a 5.24 year’s supply, on a 252 dwellings requirement a year, and the 90 dwellings on this site enabled a supply at 5.4 years to be maintained. The Ministerial statement made no change to policy, and the Committee had not taken unmet housing demand on any view as the sole basis for finding very special circumstances.

68. Mr Harwood is on the stronger ground here. A shortfall in housing land supply can, as a matter of policy, be a very special circumstance, although the occasions when it is likely to suffice by itself to warrant the grant of permission for housing development in the Green Belt are expected to be few and far between. That is in effect what the NPPF and the Ministerial statement say. So there is nothing unlawful in the committee treating it as one of a number of very special circumstances. I do not accept Mr Harwood’s submission that the committee considered it as another material consideration rather than as a very special circumstance. But, if so, it does not help the claimant. Once the issue is whether or not inappropriate development should be permitted in the Green Belt, all factors which tell in favour of the grant go to making up very special circumstances, which may or may not suffice. It is not necessary to go through the process of considering whether a factor is not a very special circumstance but nonetheless falls to be taken into account in favour of the development as another relevant material consideration. See Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Redhill Aerodrome Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1386. A80 69. It is surprising that the committee was not told that there was in fact a five year supply of housing land. It may have known that that was the position anyway. But what is said in paragraph 8.11 does not significantly mislead the committee anyway. It was not said that there was now a shortfall, which is what I would have expected to be said if there had been such a shortfall. The comment in paragraph 8.11 that to maintain the five year supply , “a limited number of sites need to come forward before a more comprehensive review of the green belt takes place through the new Local Plan site ” accords with the facts, and 90 dwellings would make a significant contribution to a year’s supply. It indicates that the supply position is very tight. This ground of challenge is rejected.

Ground 1(e): attractiveness of development as a very special circumstance

70. This challenge was first to the potential relevance of the attractiveness of the housing development as a very special circumstance and then to the certainty attached to its attainment. The former was at issue because all development was required by the NPPF, paragraphs 57-59, and various other development control policies in the Local Plan to be of good quality. So there could be nothing special about this development being of an especial quality. The latter was at issue because the plans relied on were merely illustrative, and not part of the outline application.

71. I have set out the way in which the design of the housing and its layout would be controlled by condition and s106 agreement to conform to the illustrative layout and to what was said about design. There is nothing in the second point raised by Mr Jones. The first point is more troubling. I accept that there may be features of a design which can amount to very special circumstances. But that has to go beyond satisfaction of the normal quality of design required by development control policies. The housing may be more attractive than the buildings it replaces; it may even be more attractive to some eyes than the open grass and scrubland. But no feature of the design of the houses themselves is identified, beyond that they would be traditional, to suggest that something more than compliance with normal development control policies, just as would be required on non Green Belt land, is to be attained. So it is difficult to see, absent specific reasoning, how that could constitute a very special circumstance. The layout however may be more spacious, with greater open space, a boulevard, courtyard and new entrance to the recreational area of the Park. If the layout were treated as part of the very special circumstances, I cannot conclude that that would not be lawful. Paragraph 8.8 focuses on those layout points. I reject this aspect of the challenge.

Ground 1(f): ignoring the need for the development to address concerns about dereliction

72. This ground alleges that the committee had to have far more information about the inefficacy of ways of dealing with those problems, other than by inappropriate development in the Green Belt, before it could give weight to the removal of dereliction and anti-social behaviour as a very special circumstance. For example, suggested Mr Jones, the committee should have had information about the extent, nature and cost of removal of the contamination, the possible use of other powers to secure the removal of dilapidated buildings as in ss102 and 215 of the 1990 Act, or the use of CCTV to deter anti-social behaviour. As Mr Harwood pointed out, whatever their merits as suggestions, the LVA had not raised them in its objection to the application for planning permission. The committee were told that there was no prospect of the problems being solved by the LVA, bringing the site into Park recreational use. The application had been accompanied by a preliminary contamination assessment identifying the risks from contamination as “low to moderate”, as reported to the committee. This was not put forward as a very special circumstance, but merely as the answer to what could otherwise have been a separate development control problem for housing use.

A81 73. Mr Harwood provided to my mind compelling arguments why the particular statutory powers to which Mr Jones had referred for dealing with dereliction had not been expressly discussed as answers to the problems which the committee was dealing with, and why CCTV would not be much of a deterrent to anti-social behaviour, because of the screening provided by large buildings on site. There is nothing in this aspect of the challenge.

74. Nonetheless, the LVA has succeeded on many aspects of ground 1 of its challenge, and the decision falls to be quashed.

Ground 2: the Development Plan

75. The statutory question is whether the development was in accord with the development plan. Non-compliance with one policy does not necessarily mean that the proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan viewed as a whole. Different policies may pull in different directions. But here, the policy which dealt with the principle of the development, GBC2, was not complied with. All the other policies referred to deal with the sort of development control issues which arise whether or not development of the sort proposed is objectionable in principle in the location proposed. There was no policy dealing with the principle of development for housing in this location which pulled in a different direction from GBC2, though other policies may have been relevant to the existence of very special circumstances. Indeed, neither the Green Belt conclusions in paragraph 8.10 nor the overall conclusions in paragraph 10.1 express any view at all that the development accords with the Development Plan, though I have explained that the report reads as though the development complies with the Plan, read as subject to the NPPF. The report does not approach this important issue by identifying the position in relation to the Development Plan, and then the other material considerations, in effect here the very special circumstances.

76. In reality, non-compliance with GBC2 meant that this development did not accord with the Development Plan. But this does not provide a further ground of challenge; rather it covers the same territory as the legally defective treatment of the Green Belt and very special circumstances, albeit in a different guise.

Ground 3: the Regional Park Plan and the development plan

77. Mr Jones submitted that the Park Plan had been incorporated into the Development Plan by virtue of s14 (2)(a) of the 1996 Act. This is a rather different point. He sought a mandatory order compelling the Council to adopt the Plan as part of the Development Plan. His initial submissions treated this point as a glimpse of the obvious.

78. Mr Harwood submitted that the issue of how the Park Plan related to the Development Plan was beyond the scope of these proceedings. The simple fact was that the statutory provisions for development plans had changed on a number of occasions since the 1962 Act, it was not easy to see how the 1966 Act could fit the development plan regime, or how it could have done so back in 2005. The Park Plan had not in fact been incorporated into the Plan adopted in 2005. Besides, the 1966 Act did not require the Park Plan to be incorporated in the adopted Plan; it provided a vehicle for including the Park Plan in the Local Plan as submitted to the Minister for approval, where it might or might not survive scrutiny. The committee had also considered the relevant Park Plan policies.

79. I was concerned that the Park Plan had been adopted in 2000, the Development Plan in 2005, and yet it was only now that the issue was raised, although it must have been abundantly clear that the Development Plan had not incorporated the Park Plan, if that was what was required. I could not readily see how s14 (2) could fit readily with the various plan-making regimes which have succeeded that in the 1962 Act, with differing roles for the involvement of the Ministers or his Inspectors. I asked for short further submissions. A82 80. Whether properly raised in the grounds or not, and I am inclined to agree with Mr Harwood, I do not consider that I can resolve the issue of how the Park Plan relates to, nor how it should be dealt with during the course of preparation of, current Development Plan documents on the basis of the submissions which I have received. It is a very difficult topic, and not one to be handled without notice to other affected authorities, or on the basis of the short and not fully considered submissions I received.

81. The only question which arises here is whether or not the Park Plan is part of the Development Plan. It is not: it has not been incorporated in it, and s14 (2) of the 1966 Act does not make incorporation in the adopted plan automatic. Nor is this a mere failure in formality, since the 1966 Act contemplates that the merits of the policies would be considered before incorporation.

82. If there were a procedural failing before 2005 in the preparation of the Development Plan, it is too late now for issue to be taken with it. It seems to me that Mr Jones has to contend either that the Development Plan is invalid because it omitted the Park Plan at the preparation stage, or that there was a procedural failing at that stage. He denied that this was questioning the validity of the Plan, such that it fell foul of the ouster provision in s284 of the 1990 Act, or that he was contending that it fell outside the powers of Part II of the 1990 Act, or that any requirement of that Part or of any regulations made under it had not been complied with; s287. He may be right, but if so, he is still many years out of time for questioning its validity by a form of judicial review, and to the extent necessary I refuse to extend time for such a challenge.

83. Mr Jones sought to avoid that by saying that he raised no challenge to the validity of the Development Plan at all, all he was submitting was that the Park Plan was entitled to be given the same weight as the Development Plan, even if s38 (6) of the 2004 Act did not strictly apply to it, as it could not do. This is ingenious, but not correct. S38(6) applies only to the development plan, giving it a unique statutory role. To require, on pain of error of law, that the Council or any other decision-maker, treat the Park Plan as part of the Development Plan when in fact it is not, would be to achieve by the back door an illicit result, shut out by the front door. It would not be consistent with s38(6). Yet the only justification for this argument is that the Park Plan ought to have been part of the Development Plan as a matter of law. The Park Plan in law now can only be another source of planning policy to which regard is to be had, as it was in this case. Moreover, Mr Jones’ submission would achieve more than the 1966 Act necessarily requires, since it is impossible to tell how the Park Plan would have fared if subjected to whatever statutory process is to be read as the replacement for the 1962 Act. In 1962, it would not necessarily have survived, as now written, into the Development Plan. There is no reason to treat it as having undergone such a test when it has not, and the LVA did not require it to do so through a legal challenge at the time when it says that the Council failed to do what it should have done. I reject this ground of challenge.

84. Mr Jones’ alternative submission was that policy CLT4 of the adopted Development Plan should be interpreted as the incorporation of the Park Plan into the Development Plan. I disagree: if a policy is to have such a significant effect, it would have said so. It does not. It simply means what it says.

A83 Conclusion

85. For the reasons which I have given this decision is unlawful, and save for any issue of discretion should be quashed. Ms Wigley contended that the LVA had failed to follow the pre-action protocol, and in consequence her clients had expended tens of thousands of pounds on necessary pre-development work which would be wasted; and so the decision should not be quashed. That is untenable. If there were such a failure, nonetheless the proceedings were commenced without delay. The expenditure was undertaken at a time when it was at the risk of Britannia Nurseries. The public interest in lawful planning decisions, and especially so of this scale, prevents that early expenditure of money being a sound basis for the exercise of a discretion not to quash the decision. Besides, if the decision is quashed, the planning application remains undetermined. There may be very special circumstances, but they have to be addressed properly, even if they apply only to enable part of the site to be developed. But it does not mean that all or perhaps any of the expenditure will have been wasted. The decision is quashed.

A84

A85

Britannia Nurseries, Waltham Cross Design Brief for Reserved Matters Planning Application

Planning and Development Service June 2015

A86 Introduction and purpose of the brief

The Britannia Nurseries site measures 4.4 hectares, and is situated to the east of Waltham Cross, at the southern end of the Borough of Broxbourne in Hertfordshire. Although the site is within the green belt and the Lee Valley Park it is less than 450m from Waltham Cross Town Centre, and is close to the A121 Eleanor Cross Road, several bus routes and Waltham Cross railway station. The northern half of the site was at one time used for landfill, whilst the southern half of

the site was until recently used for horticulture. 50

264 to 268 Hart

Cour t 1 to 6 to 1

31 to

36 25 to

30 59

Tem ple 62 34 7 46

HIGH STREET Court 36

262 53 MP 1 3.25

74 1 to 6 to 1

66 66

258 73

260

or or or or Lee Lee Lee

254a or Lee 38

256 Lea

16 18 17 19 20 24

22 21 23 24a 24c 24b River

254 Recre ation Ground Small 64

248

Abingdon 1 to 14

Court West Anglia 16

246 20 28

15 28 16 2 MARSH CLOSE

EDINBURGH CRESCENT 52 GLOUCESTER AVENUE Railway Line

53 ETL

234 26

27 Cheshunt Marsh

13 1

HIGH STREET

4 ROYAL AVENUE 8 CO RNWA LL CLOSE

2 19 1 2

20 2

1 42 Lee Valley CLOSE

43 MARSH

14 40

228

Dr ain

207

226 31

19 7 7 4 50 7 TCB 12 Regional Park 31

Cheshunt Marsh 12a

214 to 224

32 14

1 2 Chy El Su b Sta Hugi ll

Hous e 38

CENTRAL AVENUE Lea or Lee

1 18

1 13 Trinity Marsh Ditch

23 N O R T H R O A D 17 33 43 55 L Col

67 River Lee Navigation

Small River River River Small Small Small 79 105 River Small

107 L Col

2 93 4

6 113

22 L Col 18 113a 26 EASTERN A VENU E

206 212 to 206 SWANFIELD ROAD 115a 38 115b 115 121 Dr ain L Col

48 Dr ain L Col

60 FB

64 L Col

62 94

74 104

204 Jetty

20 106 112

B el voir A sh w ell C a xto n L Col Sawy ers SL Sawyers Court L Col 1 to 45 Hall ST JOSEPH'S ROAD Lee Valley White Church Hall

L Col 1 5 Waltham Cross 13 Conveyor El 25 Lea Valley White W ater C entre

37 15 Sub 47 10 L Col

57 5 Conveyor

Sta 69 14 (Olympic V enue) 81 L Col

ELEANOR ROAD 93 Water CentreFB

4 FB

1 to 4 16

28 Tank s

10 40 PAULS GREEN

84 88 FB Trevera L Col

5to 14 Court 1 L Col

EASTERN A VENU E

2 Olym picOlym Wh itepic Wate Wh ite r Canoe Wate r CentreCanoe Centre

59 2

(Und er Cons truction ) 178a PW 57 Dr ain

Hall 38 L Col L Co l El Su b Sta

KING EDWARD ROAD

STANHOPE ROAD 1 t o 6

4 52 26 14 Church 40 28 L Co l Four S wannes FB FB L Col

Primary School 26 178 Health Centre KING EDWARD ROAD Tank s

El Su b Sta LB L Co l Conveyor

3 17 Conveyor

19 37 39 TCP 43 3

1 Ashton H ouse L Co l

L Col Britannia Col L

Dr ain 1 to 21 to 1

Pond 12

RAILWAY ROAD Dr ain 2

1 L Col

2 Tank

23 to 33 149 13 L Col El Su b Sta Maple Leaf Court L Col L Col 2 Nurseries

MONARCH'S WAY Telephone Exchange 1 Dr ain

13 Brita nnia Nu rseries 14

7 Allotment Gardens

8 to 13 to 8 18

L Co l 160

MP 13 Waltham Cross 14 1 2

High Street QUEEN'S ROAD

YORK ROAD 27 Depot

CROSS ROAD L Col

25 Holdbrook

14 to FOUNDRY GATE El Su b Sta Recreation Ground

El Su b Sta

27 Bowy er

to 21

29 to35 29 Court

WestminsterCourt

35 9 to 1

58 to 67 to 58

Barth olomew Court 13 57 to 47 137 40

1 1 to62 Small 28 to 34 to 28

Shop ping Pa vilion 235 Dr ain 37 to 43 to 37 WAY River Lea or Lee

P a r k La n e 238 ELEANOR

133 P a r k La n e

ROAD

50 38 45 19 The Friary

SWAN ROAD Barth olomew Court 54

1 131

to 6 49 49

42 46 to 41 Redwell Cou rt El Su b Sta GeddingtonCourt

Shop ping Pa vilion to

129 The Friary 125 1 to56 Recreation Ground Trinity Marsh Ditch

El Su b Sta Cheshunt Marsh a

BRYANSTONE ROAD 28 to 33

123 64 20 10 13 to 21

123 2 14 MONARCH'S to 63 Latimer 19 1 to 12

SWAN ROAD 121a

1 1 4to 59 Court KING'S ROAD Warehouse Hill House 1 to 40 19 STATION ROAD

to 24

ELEANOR WAY 121

WAY 74 El Su b Sta Hardingstone Court

QUEEN'S ROAD 63

65 1 to 24 Warehouse Gwen doline Court

High Street 119a

67 Swans Court QUEEN'S ROAD 6 to 1 41 to 79 1 to 30 FB Multistorey YORK ROAD Hawk shead Court

1 to 6

117a Castile Court

31 to 60 Church

Car Park 83 85 Ware houses Castile Court

117 Club El Su b Sta 117

5 to 35 58 War ehouse TCB 1 to 39 BritanniaCourt El Su b Sta

115 Small Lea

62 Bridge FISHERS CLOSE 33 to 35 59 to 20 1 to21 Walt ham TRUST ROAD El Su b Sta 13 to 18 El Su b Sta ROAD

Hous e ELEANOR CROSS 159 SM

88a Council

88f 4 to 1 113 Gas Eleanor Cross Road Office TRUST 105 Waltham Cro ss 85 Gov FB 26

111 Waltham Cross SM 210 (Que en Elea nor's Cross) Eleanor Cross Road Euge na ROAD

Bank SM 107

(rest ored) 55 Hous e 198 14

109

Well ington 194 180

5 Hous e

1 4 ELEANOR CROSS ROAD 2

107 6 ELEANOR CROSS ROAD ELEANOR LB

105 Bus Station CROSS ROAD

103a 147 QUEENS WAY El Su b Sta 122

103 Town Centre A121 Eleanor Cross Road

El Su b Sta

1 33 to 39

38 Shel ter 32 384 TCB

Gar age 17g to 40 391

SL HoldbrookCourt Shel t er Surgery El Su b Sta 99 366 to381 1 to 7

Sidney Ct

PO 18

Wor ks ElSub Sta Playground 270 to 293 to 270

APPROACH Playg round Wor ks BARBEL CLOSE

STATION APPROACH 15g Albert Court Albert

1a Holdbrook

Bank 97 1 to 12 16

20 1b South

14g El Sub Sta Sor ting STATION Adelaide Court Hano ver Hou se Gara ge QUEEN'S DRIVE

PCs Holdbrook South 15 133 Office 7g 10

Car Park 50

Stua rt House 2 352 to366 10g 2 108

Car P ark 2 1 12g Wind sor Hou se Melbourne351 Courtto 324

WalthamPavilion Cross 1 6g

Walt ham 3 89 AlexandraCourt

Cros s 11g 25 Stati on Court Harold Queensgate 13 30

FB 294 to 308 Queens Court Queens

104 12 3g 1

4 (PH) 29 121

13 309 to 323 to 309

1 Railway Station ALEXANDRA WAY Waltham Cross 1g

8 Small River Lea BROOK ROAD RIVER CLOSE Rege nt Gate 100 Playg round

Playg round 3

El Su b Sta Ware house 24

22 Waltham Cross 14

42 11 81 C l ub orlee

Holdbrook choolS

Car P ark 2 25 Sports Ground

79 Holdbrook 109 In 2010 Britannia Nurseries was devastated by a major fire – since then it has been derelict and a blight on the local area.

In February 2013, the Council received an outline application for planning permission (with all matters reserved for future consideration) to build up to 90 dwellings on the Britannia Nurseries site. There were very special circumstances arising from the site’s history and location, as well as an opportunity to provide a new access point into the Lee Valley Park and a need to identify suitable short term housing land. As such, the Council’s Planning and Regulatory Committee resolved to approve the application (subject to a Section 106 legal agreement).

Mindful of the very special circumstances above, the Committee requested that a design brief be prepared to help to guide the subsequent reserved matters application for the site. This document fulfils that purpose.

Note that the photos in this report are intended to illustrate a particular point or concept and do not necessarily indicate the Council’s expectation for the scheme’s overall style.

Cover photos: Top – Aerial view of Britannia Nurseries and its surroundings, viewed from the south Below – Britannia Nursery at present; derelict and insular A87 Content of the outline application Although the outline application for the site had all matters reserved, it contained a substantial amount of indicative information and numerous technical reports; covering noise, utilities, transport, ecology, contamination, flood risk, trees, landscape and visual impact. These helped to establish the acceptability of the principle of development, and prospective developers are advised to refer to the reports in particular when preparing a reserved matters application.

An indicative site layout within the outline application was also subject to a particular degree of negotiation prior to the submission of the outline application, and is considered to be a good initial response to the site’s context. This brief will enable prospective developers of the site to evolve the outline application into a reserved matters application that can be supported by the Council.

. Key design principles The Council has developed five key design principles for Britannia Nurseries. These are informed by an overarching vision for the site which the eventual design will be expected to aspire to:

The redevelopment of Britannia Nurseries will create a high quality gateway to the Lee Valley Regional Park from Waltham Cross, with new and exemplar housing in a distinctive edge-of-park setting. The whole development will therefore act as a transition between the park and the urban area, with design references to create a residential environment which is both attractive and harmonious. This will not only create a place of which its residents will be proud, but will also be an asset to Waltham Cross and the Lee Valley Park.

Key principle 1 – Gateways to the site and the Lee Valley Regional Park: The final site design must incorporate a range of measures to open up a new entrance from Waltham Cross into the Lee Valley Park and create a successful transition between the two. The development should be outward looking; both to the Park and the adjacent housing to the south.

Key principle 2 – A clear site layout and hierarchy: The final site layout should reflect modern garden city principles in terms of its spaciousness, and have a clear hierarchy. A significant part of the eastern edge of the site should be laid out as open space to help the site blend into the Lee Valley Park, whilst the built development should primarily be arranged around a central avenue. The design of this should reflect its importance within the site, with smaller-scale streets running off this to give the site an intuitive navigability. Affordable housing should also be well distributed through the site and designed to be an integral element of the overall scheme.

Key principle 3 – Spacious and well related houses and spaces: The scale of the houses (the site is not considered suitable for flats) and gardens must reflect the edge of park location, and the Council’s aspirations for quality development. It should do this by according with the Residential Space Standards, Supplementary Planning Guidance and Secured by Design guidance.

Key principle 4 – Sustainability and high quality design: The site’s townscape and building design should take reference from the best examples in the local area, and be designed to sit comfortably alongside existing built development and the Lee Valley Regional Park. Buildings should create interest and variation and incorporate high quality finishes, and adopt best practice sustainability features where possible.

Key principle 5 – Varied and contextual landscaping: The landscaping within the final design should reflect the site’s hierarchy and the need for an open relationship with the Park; with tree lined streets, enhanced biodiversity and a mix of native and ornamental flora. The site’s boundaries should shelter the site from intrusive adjacent uses, but also help in the overall objective of creating a successful transition from the urban area to the Park. A88 50

264 to 268 Hart

Cour t 1 to 6 to 1

31 to

36 25 to

30 59

Tem ple 62 34 7 46

HIGH STREET Court 36

262 53 MP 1 3.25

74 1 to 6 to 1

66 66

258 73

260

or or or or Lee Lee Lee

254a or Lee 38

256 Lea

16 18 17 19 20 24

22 21 23 24a 24c 24b River

254 Recre ation Ground Small 64

248

Abingdon 1 to 14

Court 16

246 20 28

15 28 16 2 MARSH CLOSE

EDINBURGH CRESCENT 52

GLOUCESTER AVENUE

53 ETL

234 26

27 Cheshunt Marsh

13 1

HIGH STREET

4 ROYAL AVENUE 8 CO RNWA LL CLOSE

2 19 1 2

20 2

1 42

43 MARSH

14 40

228

Dr ain

207

226 31

19 7 7 4 50 7 TCB 12 31

Cheshunt Marsh 12a

214 to 224

32 14

1 2 Chy El Su b Sta Hugi ll

Hous e 38

CENTRAL AVENUE Lea or Lee

1 18

1 13 Trinity Marsh Ditch

23 N O R T H R O A D 17 33 43 55 L Col

67 The Key Spatial Principles River Lee Navigation

Small River River River Small Small Small 79 105 River Small

107 L Col

2 93 4

6 113

22 L Col 18 113a 26 EASTERN A VENU E

206 212 to 206 SWANFIELD ROAD 115a 38 115b 115 121 Dr ain

6 L Col 48

Dr ain L Col

60 FB

64 L Col

76 62

74 104

204 Jetty

106 112

B el voir A sh w ell C a xto n L Col Sawy ers SL Sawyers Court L Col 1 to 45 Hall ST JOSEPH'S ROAD Church Hall L Col 1 5 Waltham Cross 13 Conveyor El 25 Lea Valley White W ater C entre

37 15 Sub 47 10 L Col 57 5 Conveyor

Sta 69 14 (Olympic V enue) 81 L Col

ELEANOR ROAD 93 FB

4 FB

1 to 4 16

28 Tank s

10 40 PAULS GREEN

54 5

84 88 FB Trevera L Col

5to 14 Court 1 L Col

EASTERN A VENU E

3 1 2 Olym picOlym Wh itepic Wate Wh ite r Canoe Wate r CentreCanoe Centre

59 2 1a 7

(Und er Cons truction ) 178a

PW 57

Dr ain 38 Hall L Col L Co l El Su b Sta

KING EDWARD ROAD

STANHOPE ROAD 1 t o 6

4 52 26 14 Church 40 28 L Co l Four S wannes FB FB L Col

Primary School 26 178 Health Centre KING EDWARD ROAD Tank s

El Su b Sta LB L Co l Conveyor

3 17 Conveyor

19 37 39 TCP 43 3 1 Ashton H ouse L Co l

L Col L Col L

Dr ain 1 to 21 to 1

Pond 12

RAILWAY ROAD Dr ain 2

1 4 L Col

2 Tank

23 to 33 149 13 L Col El Su b Sta

Maple Leaf Court L Col L Col 2

MONARCH'S WAY Telephone Exchange 1 Dr ain

13 Brita nnia Nu rseries 14

7 Allotment Gardens 8 to 13 to 8 18

L Co l 160

MP 13 Waltham Cross 14 1 2 High Street QUEEN'S ROAD

YORK ROAD 27 Depot

CROSS ROAD L Col

25 Holdbrook

20 14 to FOUNDRY GATE El Su b Sta Recreation Ground

El Su b Sta

27 Bowy er

to 21

29 to35 29 Court

WestminsterCourt

35 9 to 1

58 to 67 to 58 13 57 to 47

Barth olomew Court 137 40

1 1 to62 Small 28 to 34 to 28 Shop ping Pa vilion 235 Dr ain 37 to 43 to 37 WAY River Lea or Lee

P a r k La n e 238 ELEANOR

133 P a r k La n e

ROAD

50 38 45 19 3 The Friary

SWAN ROAD Barth olomew Court 54

1 131

to 6 49 49

42 46 to 41 Redwell Cou rt 2 El Su b Sta GeddingtonCourt

Shop ping Pa vilion to

129 The Friary 125 1 to56 Recreation Ground Trinity Marsh Ditch

El Su b Sta Cheshunt Marsh a

BRYANSTONE ROAD 28 to 33

123 64 20 10 13 to 21 123 2 14 1 MONARCH'S to 63 Latimer 19 1 to 12

SWAN ROAD 121a

1 1 4to 59 Court KING'S ROAD Warehouse Hill House 1 to 40 19 STATION ROAD

to 24

ELEANOR WAY 121

WAY 74 El Su b Sta Hardingstone Court

QUEEN'S ROAD 63

65 1 to 24 Warehouse Gwen doline Court

High Street 119a

67 Swans Court QUEEN'S ROAD 6 to 1 41 to 79 1 to 30 FB Multistorey YORK ROAD Hawk shead Court

1 to 6 117a Higher density development Play area Site boundary Dense landscape boundary

Castile Court

31 to 60 Church

Car Park 83 85 Ware houses Castile Court

117 Club El Su b Sta 2 117 5 to 35 58 Lower density development SuDS balancing pond Access point Varied landscape boundary War ehouse TCB 1 to 39 BritanniaCourt El Su b Sta

115 Small Lea

62 Bridge FISHERS CLOSE 33 to 35 59 to 20 1 to21

13 to 18 Walt ham TRUST ROAD El Su b Sta Public open space/parkland Public car parking Internal road Tree lined road El Su b Sta ROAD

Hous e ELEANOR CROSS 159 SM

88a Council

88f 4 to 1 113 Gas Eleanor Cross Road Office TRUST 105 Waltham Cro ss 85 Gov FB 26

37 111 SM 210 (Que en Elea nor's Cross) Eleanor Cross Road Euge na ROAD

Bank SM The plan above sets out the Council’s broad spatial requirements for the site. The following107

(rest ored) 55 Hous e 198 14

109

Well ington 194 180

5 Hous e sections provide more specific guidance and commentary to enable these requirements and the 1 4 ELEANOR CROSS ROAD 2

107 6 ELEANOR CROSS ROAD ELEANOR foregoing principles to be met. LB

105 Bus Station CROSS ROAD

103a 147 QUEENS WAY El Su b Sta 122

El Su b Sta 103 A89

1 33 to 39

38 Shel ter 32 384 TCB

Gar age 17g to 40 391

SL HoldbrookCourt Shel t er Surgery El Su b Sta 99 366 to381 1 to 7

Sidney Ct

PO 18

Wor ks ElSub Sta Playground 270 to 293 to 270

APPROACH Playg round Wor ks BARBEL CLOSE

STATION APPROACH 15g Albert Court Albert

1a Holdbrook

Bank 97 1 to 12 16

20 1b South

14g El Sub Sta Sor ting STATION Adelaide Court Hano ver Hou se Gara ge QUEEN'S DRIVE

PCs Holdbrook South 15 133 Office 7g 10

Car Park 50

Stua rt House 2 352 to366 10g 2 108

Car P ark 2 1 12g

Wind sor Hou se Melbourne351 Courtto 324 Pavilion 1 6g

Walt ham 3 89 AlexandraCourt

Cros s 11g 25 Stati on Court Harold Queensgate 13 30

FB 294 to 308 Queens Court Queens

104 12 3g 1

4 (PH) 29 121

309 to 323 to 309

1 ALEXANDRA WAY Waltham Cross 1g

8 Small River Lea BROOK ROAD RIVER CLOSE Rege nt Gate 100 Playg round

Playg round 3

El Su b Sta Ware house 24

22 Waltham Cross 14

42 11 81 C l ub orlee

Holdbrook choolS

Car P ark 2 25 Sports Ground

79 Holdbrook 109 Key Principle 1: Gateways to the site and the Lee Valley Regional Park

To be approved, the reserved matters application will need to incorporate:  Suitable measures at the site’s main southern access to create a ‘gateway’, including the realignment of Bryanstone Road to provide vehicle access south and west;  Five new pedestrian/cycle access points, with suitable treatment of the former access points;  Minimal signage through the development, with that used matching the approved signage for the Park.

Vehicular access and the southern gateway The southern access (point 1 on the map, previous page) will be the site’s main connection to Waltham Cross. This needs to accommodate vehicles as well as pedestrians, and cyclists via a dedicated path from the site entrance and through the open space to access point 5. It will form the start of visitors’ arrival to the Lee Valley Regional Park – flanked by green space on either side of the road, it will be clear that visitors have entered somewhere different. Their journey on through the site’s hierarchy (see next page) will complete that experience. The section on key principle 5 also provides criteria for the landscaping treatment of this area.

The realignment of Bryanstone Road as it passes from south of the site and out to the west (access point 2) will also form an essential part of the gateway. The road is currently relatively narrow with restricted visibility (photo below), so the final design will need to ensure that traffic is led north into the site as the ‘through route’. The westward continuation of Bryanstone Road and Latimer Court to the east should join this as staggered t-junctions, with sufficient visibility to meet Roads in Hertfordshire guidance.

Looking north along Bryanstone Road towards the southern access point – the poor visibility is apparent. The road will need to be realigned to continue ahead a short distance into the site. Pedestrian/cycle access To ensure a suitable relationship with the site’s surroundings (particularly the Lee Valley Park), pedestrian/cycle access will also be necessary in the broad locations shown on the map (p4):

 (3) – permeably across the whole south-eastern site boundary opposite Latimer Court as part of the removal of trees and provision of open space in that part of the site (see p10);  (4) – to Britannia Lake within the Lee Valley Park to the east;  (5) – to Britannia Meadow within the Lee Valley Park, north of Britannia Lake to the east;  (6) – private access for allotment users to the Trinity Lane allotments to the north;  (7) – provision for access to the allocated housing site to the west.

At the same time, the final design must address the site’s former access points opposite Latimer Court at the site’s extreme south-east corner and opposite Mercedes close to the south-west

A90 corner. Access at these should be extinguished, and the affected areas remediated within the overall boundary treatment in those parts of the site. Signage The Lee Valley Park Authority recently gained approval for wayfinding signage in the surrounding area of the Park. To maximise the new link between the Park and Waltham Cross via the site, the developer will need to liaise with the Park Authority to provide similar signage from Eleanor Cross Road, along Bryanstone Road and through the development to the Park access points. Elsewhere in the development, vehicular signage should be minimised to reduce clutter.

Key principle 2: A clear site layout and hierarchy

To be approved, the reserved matters application will need to incorporate:  A 1+ hectare open space on the east of the site to ensure the development blends into the Park;  A hierarchy of streets with three clear and distinct layers as set out below;  A broad distribution of affordable housing throughout the site.

General layout principles The general approach should be of spaciousness, and creating a transition from the urban to the Lee Valley Park. The hierarchy below and space standards overleaf will be crucial in achieving this.

To help to create the parkland transition, the key spatial requirement will be an area of strategic open space to the east of the site. This will need to measure at least 1 hectare excluding the roads surrounding it, and include the gateway features set out in the landscaping section on page 10.

Built hierarchy The site’s built hierarchy will help to create a strong sense of place, and should have three layers which each represent a distinct area within the site:

 Central avenue: This will extend north from the main vehicular site entrance. It should be tree-lined and relatively wide between buildings compared with other streets in the site, such that the trees along it are within public verges rather than private gardens. The avenue should also have a more formal arrangement than streets east and west of the avenue. Along with the use of a more continuous frontage line and the use of varied or taller (maximum 2.5 storey) houses on key views (photo, right), this Use of a larger corner-turning landmark building to provide will reinforce its importance within the variation and a sense of place – Fairfield Park, Bedfordshire site.

A91  Park frontage: Curving east from the central avenue, the park frontage will be critical in determining how the site and the park relate. Greater spaciousness between houses will be needed to provide views through from the development into the park, but some taller (maximum 2.5 storey) houses will be accepted where they relate positively to the park.

 East and west of the central avenue: In these areas 2 storey housing should be spread around small cul-de-sacs, with differing road surface treatments and narrower roads to create a sense of cosiness and promote sensible driving behaviour. To the east of the avenue the positioning of the houses should be slightly further apart or staggered, in order to create the impression of a more generous landscape setting. This will ensure the crucial views eastward as part of a seamless transition into parkland.

Distribution of affordable housing Affordable housing should be well distributed through the site in agreement with the developer's eventual housing association partner. In the interests of creating a varied and mixed community it should not be apparent which units are affordable and which are to be sold on the open market. . Key principle 3: Spacious and well related houses and spaces

To be approved, the reserved matters application will need to incorporate:  Houses and gardens whose dimensions accord with the Council’s new Residential Space Standards;  Buildings and spaces which relate well to one another and accord with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance and national Secured by Design standards.

Space standards Britannia Nurseries is a rare opportunity site in Waltham Cross big enough to provide family housing. Elsewhere in the town flats are plentiful, and are thus not considered appropriate on this site. The houses required will need to accord with the Council's new Residential Space Standards which will amend the existing Supplementary Planning Guidance – this necessitates:

8 Overall minimum dwelling sizes of: - 75m2 for a 3 person house (e.g. a 2 bedroom house; 1x double, 1x single) - 85m2 for a 4 person house (e.g. a 3 bedroom house; 1x double, 2x single) - 100m2 for a 5-6 person house (e.g. a 4 bedroom house; 2x double, 2x single) 9 Minimum bedroom sizes of: - 12m2 for a double or twin bedroom with a minimum room width of 2.5m - 7m2 for single bedroom  Minimum main bathroom sizes of 3.5m2 in all cases  Minimum garage sizes of 6m long by 3m wide in all cases  Minimum garden depths of 10m in all cases, with minimum overall sizes of: - 50m2 for 2 bedroom homes - 65m2 for 3 bedroom homes - 80m2 for 4 bedroom homes - 100m2 for 5 bedroom homes

Relationships between buildings and spaces The relationship of the houses within the site to each other will be crucial in creating a spacious and safe development where residents enjoy living. The final site layout should meet the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance as well as national Secured by Design standards and ensure that:

A92  Houses have a reasonable outlook onto other houses or open space, of particular importance along those site boundaries where neighbouring land uses are not especially attractive. For side windows, minimum acceptable window-to-wall distances are 12m;  Wherever possible the fronts of houses face the front of other houses – otherwise, fronts should face sides. Likewise backs should face backs – this ensures privacy for the backs and overlooking for the fronts, in the interests of safety and creating an active public realm. Minimum acceptable rear window-to-window distances are 25m;  Parking spaces are sited directly in front or to the side of the houses they serve, with numbers of spaces in accordance with the Council’s residential car parking standards;  Bin storage is in accordance with the Council’s Waste Supplementary Planning Guidance;  All routes (except those into the Park) pass the front of properties, and are lit to provide reassurance to users whilst avoiding light pollution to adjacent residents;  Open spaces within the site are well overlooked by residential properties, including those outside the site on Latimer Court for the southern end of the open space.

A93 Key principle 4: Sustainability and high quality design

To be approved, the reserved matters application will need to incorporate:  An architectural approach which interprets the best design references from around Waltham Cross in order for the development to merge harmoniously from urban into parkland;  Finishes and materials which are of a high standard;  Best practice sustainability features, with at least of 10% of homes built to Lifetime Homes standards.

Architectural approach The outline application proposed a ‘traditional’ approach to the appearance of houses on the site, which may be a legitimate approach. However, the Council would welcome a more distinctive response to the site's urban/parkland fringe location. Waltham Cross and the Lee Valley Park do contain buildings of quality that provide both traditional and contemporary design cues for Britannia Nurseries, and some notable examples are shown below.

MODERN

Above: The Lee Valley White Water Centre, 500m east of Britannia Nursery, exhibiting a contemporary use of timber and glazing within a parkland setting

L eft: Eleanor House, Eleanor Cross Road: Local use of traditional design references within a modern residential development

HISTORIC

Top left: The Vine pub, 207 High Street

Above: 73 High Street

Left: Interesting brickwork detailing at houses on Arlington Crescent

A94 Finishes and materials The nature of Britannia Nurseries on the fringe between urban and parkland means that the final design for the site is likely to be particularly successful where it blends different finishes and materials. Both ‘urban’ materials such as brick and render and more ‘parkland’ appropriate materials such as timber and glass should be used to enable the design to do this.

A lack of variation and bland materials and detailing would result in a lack of visual interest and quality within the scheme. This would limit its potential in terms of good design, and would undermine the essential need to create a strong sense of place which people will take pride in. Poorly proportioned porches, standard UPVC windows and white metal garage doors are among many examples which would have a negative impact on the street scene and will be resisted.

Examples of suitable standards of variation, detailing and quality are shown below:

Above left: Careful detailing and high quality materials, from painted timber boarding to metal cladding and aluminium window frames, gives this renovated house a sharp look.

Above right: The use of bold features such as protruding elevations, dormers and long, large windows in this development add interest to an otherwise conventional building form.

Below right: Contrasting brickwork detailing creates visual interest, but more importantly

lends this more traditional development a feeling of genuine craftsmanship and quality.

Sustainability Waste storage at the front of properties should be avoided, and facilities provided to maximise recycling rates and provide space for composting in accordance with the Council‘s Waste Supplementary Planning Guidance. Buildings should incorporate features to minimise energy usage, and the Council will expect buildings to meet minimum standards in the Code for Sustainable Homes. In order to enable accessible and adaptable living, 10% of houses should also be designed to Lifetime Homes standards.

By designing-in sustainability features from the outset, the development’s design is also more likely to achieve a desirable distinctiveness. The two examples overleaf exhibit just a few of many A95 suitable means by which sustainability features can subtly but effectively be incorporated into building design. Similar approaches would be particularly welcome at Britannia Nurseries.

These houses in Wimbish, Essex, are conventional in Solar tiles have been integrated subtly into the design of appearance. However, the large south-facing windows these houses in Upton, Northampton. They are part of maximise solar gain and the walls have nothing physically the fabric of the building rather than an obvious ‘add- attached to them in order to minimise heat loss, earning on’, ensuring that design quality is not compromised.

them Passivhaus accreditation.

Key principle 5: Varied and contextual landscaping

In order to be approved, the reserved matters application will need to incorporate:  A parkland gateway which incorporates the features set out below;  An exceptional, well landscaped setting for the urban part of the site that features a mix of native and ornamental planting;  Retention and strengthening of much of the existing boundary landscaping around the site, but with strategic gaps introduced to help to strengthen the relationship between the site and its surroundings;  An implementation plan to show that the landscaping work will be phased early in construction.

The parkland gateway and frontage to the Park As set out as part of the access (p5) and hierarchy (p6) criteria, the final design will need to incorporate a fully landscaped area of open space to demarcate the entrance to the Lee Valley Park. The over-riding purpose of this space should be creating a welcome to the site and transition towards the park. Planting should primarily be native, particularly towards the site’s eastern boundary. The area around the realigned Bryanstone Road should form a westward continuation of the open space, reinforcing the sense that entering the site is the start of an arrival to the Park.

The open space will also need to be a functional space, and contain:

 A locally equipped area of play to a specification to be agreed with the Council;  The site’s main SuDS drainage feature, this being an open area of water with graded local habitat planting around its edges to ensure safety;  At least 30 visitor car parking spaces for the Lee Valley Park. These must be sited close to the adjacent road (beyond the line of trees if necessary), with suitable measures to restrict parking by non-Park users. Spaces should be constructed from a material appropriate to the park-edge setting, such as cellweb paving; A96  A segregated pedestrian/cycle route from the main site access (point 1) to access point 5.

Landscaping within the hierarchy The landscaping design – like the building design – will be crucial in providing Britannia Nurseries with a distinctive identity.

The centre of the site at present – largely meadow and hardstanding, with mature trees around the boundary

At present the site has minimal landscaping features, and so the over-riding consideration should be in ensuring the site’s landscaping complements the site hierarchy of buildings, streets and spaces. The central avenue will need to be lined with trees of a suitable scale (see example, below left) in a formal arrangement to reflect its character. Along the park frontage, similarly large trees will be required to provide a clear ‘edge’ to the urban part of the development, and planted to provide views into the park as well as views from the park of any feature buildings. Elsewhere within the development trees should relate to the scale of their surroundings (see example, below right). Feature trees should be at least an ‘extra heavy’ standard when planted, and where trees are sited within 3m of a highway carriageway or footway, root barriers will also be required.

A rhythmic arrangement of tall trees on Smaller trees on this cosier street relate this spacious street provides some better with its scale, but still offer enclosure formality, as well as a sense of enclosure and a soft element to the streetscape

Within individual house curtilages, landscaping should ensure a reasonable amount of enclosure to each plot, and allow residents the scope to take ‘ownership’ and personalise their spaces to create variation within the street scene. Front boundary treatments should be low (no higher than 1 metre), and designed to be contextual to the character of the street. Specifically, boundary treatments should be more ‘natural’ (for example by using more hedges) east of the central avenue – this will open up views and relate better to the Lee Valley Regional Park.

The outline application’s flood risk assessment suggested that all hard surfacing and paving within the site would be impermeable, with the SuDS system being designed to accommodate this. Some use of permeable surfacing would still be preferable, and the Council will expect that surfacing materials are high quality, integrate well with building materials and other landscaping, and differ throughout the site to reflect the hierarchy of streets, buildings and spaces.

The Council will expect a broad mix of plant types and species to be used throughout the site – particularly a mix of deciduous trees to provide summer and autumn interest, and evergreens and plants with varied barks and stems to provide winter and spring interest. Some plants should be

A97 native to the area and blend into the existing landscape buffer and parkland context around the site, although suitable ornamental species should also be used. The Council suggests the mix of species and approaches overleaf as a palette: Trees Barks and stems

Beech Plum

Cherry

Eucalyptus

Cornus Sanguinea

Ash

Boundaries The approach to the site's boundaries should be to open up to the surroundings where appropriate, but provide visual and acoustic protection where necessary. Consideration should also be given to Secured by Design standards where boundaries could create a hiding place. Willow Silver Birch Cornus Controversa  Southern boundary to Latimer Court: The existing dense row of trees will need to be removed to allow pedestrian access across the whole boundary;  Southern boundary to the back of the Mercedes car dealership: Extra planting should be provided as part of the creation on the gateway to the site, in order to hide Mercedes’ tall metal fence whilst still providing access to it for maintenance;  North/west boundary to the Lee Valley Park: Existing trees should be judiciously thinned to create visual gaps (see below), particularly to Britannia Meadow. This will need to include pedestrian/cycle access via bridges over the Trinity Marsh Ditch at access point 5;  Western boundary to the oil and pallet depots: Dense and tall landscaping will be required along the site boundary to provide a visual and noise barrier to these uses.

Gaps in the landscaping around the site’s northern (left) and eastern (right) boundaries are currently minimal and restrict views

A98 Implementation and management

The way the development is implemented and managed will be crucial in ensuring that it is not only completed to a high standard, but also maintained to a high standard.

In terms of building design any reserved matters application will clearly need to demonstrate sufficient quality in order to be approved, and maintenance responsibility will fall to building’s eventual owners.

The implementation and management of other spaces within the development is therefore of primary concern. The reserved matters application will need to demonstrate that:

 Roads are designed to standards within Roads in Hertfordshire, such that roads (subject to agreement once a site layout has been submitted within the reserved matters application) can eventually be adopted by Hertfordshire County Council as highways authority;  The Local Equipped Area of Play is to a design agreed with the Council, such that it is capable of being adopted by the Council if required;  The SuDS feature is designed to standards in the Interim SuDS Policy Statement, such that it is capable of being adopted by Hertfordshire County Council as SuDS approval body;  The major landscape features on the site will be planted, maintained and protected from the very start of the construction period to ensure they have an appearance of maturity by the time the development is first occupied;  Options have been considered for maintenance of the open space and public car parking to the east of the site to ensure it continues to serve its purpose, including the option of transferring land and/or maintenance responsibility to the Lee Valley Park Authority;  Options have been considered for maintenance of street trees and incidental open space around the site, as well as the allotment parking spaces to the north, including the option of transferring land and/or maintenance responsibility to the Council.

A landscape management plan for the entire site will also need to be submitted as part of the reserved matters application.

Summary Eucalyptus Ash Cornus Sanguinea

The redevelopment of Britannia Nurseries presents a significant opportunity to enhance the relationship between Waltham Cross and the Lee Valley Park, as well as to introduce an area of new high quality housing to the town. Whilst the Council has accepted the principle of the site’s redevelopment, this design brief serves an important purpose in clarifying the vision already discussed between the Council and the developer for how this should take place.

A reserved matters planning application will be required to set out full details of the proposal’s access, layout, scale, design and landscaping. In order for this to be approved, the Council expects the final design to echo the vision and key principles of this brief and the plan on page 4 by using the guidance provided. The Council would also expect on-going dialogue with the site’s developer throughout the design process, and will be happy to clarify the brief’s requirements.

A99

Planning and Development Service Borough of Broxbourne Bishops College Churchgate Cheshunt Hertfordshire EN8 9XQ

[email protected]

A100

A101

Borough Offices, Bishops’ College, Churchgate Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9XB Tel: 01992 785555 Minicom: 01992 785581 Fax: 01992 350386 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.broxbourne.gov.uk

Your Ref: Planning and Development My Ref: Extension: 5952 Please ask for: Mrs Vicky Forgione Date 12th February 2015

Stephen Wilkinson PDF Consultation Myddelton House Bulls Cross Enfield Middlesex EN2 9HG

Dear Mr Wilkinson,

Park Development Framework Consultation

Broxbourne Borough Council would like to take this opportunity to respond to the Lee Valley Regional Park (LVRP) Framework and its thematic proposals for Areas 6, 7 and 8 which cover the Park land within this Borough.

This letter sets out the Council’s response to the main projects and proposals in the Framework, indicating areas of support and potential conflict. Please also note the section on the Broxbourne Local Plan towards the end of this letter.

Area 6 – Waltham Cross to Broxbourne Station

Hazlemere Marina

Broxbourne Council has prepared a development brief for the Hazlemere Marina site, which borders the LVRP in Waltham Cross. The development brief sets out the Council’s ambitions for residential, leisure and community facilities on the site. The Council has been working with the prospective developer of the site and a planning application is in the process of being submitted on which the LVRPA will be consulted. Housing will be the majority land use within this application.

The LVRP Framework is supportive of the Council’s brief and the Council is therefore supportive of this element of the Framework.

Lee Valley White Water Centre (LVWWC)

Broxbourne Council welcomes the Framework’s proposals for making the LVWWC an ‘adrenaline sports hub, building on its success as a white water canoe centre and improving its leisure and sporting offer. It is anticipated that the Council’s Local Plan will accordingly allocate the site for leisure and sporting facilities though the site will be retained within the Green Belt. Please could you therefore send us a map clearly defining the boundary of the proposed facility.

We are particularly keen to open up the White Water Centre to the community and look forward to co-operative working to make sure this happens.

A102 Britannia Nurseries

Following the quashing of the planning permission, the Council is currently considering its position on what is now a live planning application. I do anticipate that the Council will continue to support the redevelopment of this site for housing as it has always been of the view that the proposals are entirely beneficial to the future of the Park in this location. In particular, the proposals incorporate a new entry to the park together with a visitor reception area and that is something that we would wish to continue to discuss with you. Regardless of the Council’s stance on the residential scheme, I would question the deliverability of the Framework’s proposals for bringing this site into Park use. It has been long derelict, it is in private ownership and a substantial capital sum would therefore be required for purchase and remediation. The means for achieving this are not set out within the Framework and the Council must therefore formally object to this aspect of the proposals.

Access into the Park from existing rail crossings

The Lee Valley Regional Park is situated along the eastern side of the Borough and in most cases on the eastern side of the West Anglia Mainline. As a result, visitors and users often access the Park by foot or vehicle via a level crossing. This includes access to a number of important leisure and community facilities; in particular the Herts Young Mariners Base and the Lee Valley Youth Hostel, as well as allotments, fishing lakes and parking areas.

The Framework intends to safeguard these links and enhance them as access routes into the LVRP. Although the Council would also wish to see these connections retained, I am concerned that the Framework does not make reference to Network Rail’s plans to close level crossings along the West Anglia Mainline and possibly in the longer term to four track this line. These proposals have major implications for access into the Park at these points which need to be addressed. Indeed, we may have to start planning now for alternative vehicular access points.

The Framework should highlight this issue and the fact that alternative access arrangements may need to be put in place. It should refer to the need to work with Network Rail and Broxbourne Council on finding viable solutions for accessing the Park and its facilities. The Council will continue to support the LVRPA and work with Network Rail on this issue.

Wharf Road, Wormley

Wharf Road in Wormley currently contains a number of unlawful gypsy and traveller plots and a number of plots which, given the length of time of their occupation, have become lawful. As you are aware the Council is undertaking enforcement action on particular unlawful plots, some of which are subject to a public inquiry which reconvenes in March. The Council is keen to find a long term solution for those residents of Wharf Road who have a genuine local connection to the area. This solution will be set out in the draft Local Plan, but it is likely, given Wharf Roads flood risk and access issues, that a new site will be allocated.

The Council is supportive of the Framework’s proposals to bring the Wharf Road area back into leisure/Park uses once/if the gypsy and traveller community are relocated. We would support early joint working with the Park Authority to formulate and deliver a strategy for the area.

Broxbourne Gateway and Leisure Pool Site

Broxbourne Council prepared a development brief for the former Leisure Pool site in Broxbourne in 2008. The brief, which is available on our website, supported short-term accommodation, office uses (potentially), an enhancement of existing leisure facilities e.g. boat moorings/cycle hire/marina, the creation of additional leisure facilities such as climbing walls, adventure playgrounds, cricket/tennis facilities, entertainment facilities such as amphitheatres as well as facilities which support the wetland habitat and wildlife in that area. The Council continues to support these types of uses at this site and therefore supports the Framework’s proposals for establishing this area as a major visitor hub, improving existing facilities, developing the area as a waterside park and implementation of ‘pod’ style accommodation. The Council is keen to improve A103 access to this part of the Park from Broxbourne Station and work with the Authority on bringing forward leisure and water related activities at this site. Like the LVWWC, we would envisage defining this area on the Local Plan proposals map for these types of uses. A plan defining the boundary of the site, from your perspective, would be useful.

Area 7 – Spitalbrook to Hoddesdon Business Park

Admirals Walk Lake

The Park’s proposals for this area include the improvement of links to the LVRP and New River, the provision of recreational and fishing facilities and, as currently shown on one of your thematic maps, the provision of a car park. The Council supports the overall improvement of this area and enhanced access for the public and would like to work with the Park to develop projects to secure improvements for pedestrians and cyclists. However, given the difficulties of access, to and across the New River, and the fact that this field is in private ownership, we are doubtful that this is the best site for visitor parking. Please can we liaise further to ensure appropriate wording for this locale.

Dobbs Weir Caravan Park

The Framework proposes further expansion of the Dobb’s Weir Caravan Park at Essex Road in Hoddesdon. However, the Council considers that the Caravan Park is already developed to its natural boundaries and is unsure that sufficient space exists within the current boundary to significantly increase plot numbers. If this proposal is to be retained, please could you provide a plan that shows how an expansion could be accommodated.

Maintaining and Strengthening Buffers at Hoddesdon Business Park

The Council’s Hoddesdon Business Park Strategy sets out a number of proposals and projects for the employment area, which seek to maintain its existing provision and attract new businesses. As well as improving its employment offer, the Strategy also highlights a number of transport and environmental schemes including the landscaping of boundaries with the Lee Valley Regional Park i.e. land at the northern end of Ratty’s Lane where improvements are proposed to the ad hoc car parking area that serves the Lee Valley Park, land east of Ratty’s Lane where work has begun on the provision of a sustainable energy facility, the boundary of the transport depot at Charlton Mead Lane and the Dobbs Weir boundary to the south of the Business Park. The Council therefore supports your proposals to improve these boundaries but considers that these could be strengthened to create a small visitor car park at Ratty’s Lane which is already a popular point for people to access the Park.

We would like to bring to your attention the Council’s intention to amend the boundary of Hoddesdon Business Park through the Local Plan to include, among other amendments, the Sustainable Energy Facility site at Ratty’s Lane. The site is not within the LVRP but does adjoin it.

Spitalbrook and Carthagena Lock, north of Nazeing New Road

The Council fully supports the Framework’s proposals for making improvements to habitats close to the lakes, improving visitor access and providing educational facilities in the Spitalbrook/Carthagena Lock area north of Nazeing New Road. Whilst the Council recognises the significant contamination issues which currently restrict the options for opening up this area for recreational use it is an area with significant potential. The Council would therefore recommend that the Framework advocates more detailed proposals being drawn up for this area, a project on which we would like to work jointly with you.

A104 Area 8 – Rye House Station to Ware

Turnford Surfacing site

The Turnford Surfacing Site is a former aggregate site in Hoddesdon which has also more recently been used for storage purposes. It is an unsightly disused site which would benefit from redevelopment. The Council has for some years been promoting the site for housing overlooking the Lee Valley Regional Park, thereby improving the entrance into the Park from Rye Road and making a contribution towards the Council’s housing supply. The development brief for the site also seeks the provision of commuter car parking for Rye House Station, improvements to access at the New River Bridge and the Railway Bridge, landscaping to improve the Lee Valley towpath and contributions which enhance and manage the LVRP. The Council believes this redevelopment proposal would benefit the amenity of the local area, support the provision of housing and improve the Park’s gateway entrance.

The Framework identifies the Turnford Surfacing site as a potential visitor hub with the possibility of it providing a Brewpub, a picnic area, seating, cycle hire, boat hire and moorings. Whilst the Council does not oppose the consideration of part of the site being developed for these uses, it would question the viability and deliverability, particularly given that the site is within private ownership. Given that the Council’s proposal for the site has not resulted in a planning application, we would be happy to meet and scope out what may be possible and deliverable to meet the aspirations of both authorities. That might include a mixed use scheme with the inclusion of commuter parking and some housing and I would ask that the Authority takes a pragmatic and realistic position about this issue and that a position is not reinforced which continues to leave the site derelict for the next 20 years.

Other Proposals and Projects in Areas 6, 7 and 8

The Council is supportive of a number of other projects and schemes outlined within the thematic proposals for Areas 6, 7 and 8 – in particular:

- Improving signage to the Park from existing train stations; - Providing additional facilities at Herts Young Mariners Base – subject to resolution of the access issues referred to above; - Enhancing, maintaining and refurbishing Broxbourne Mill; - Improving connections between the Park’s leisure facilities and the borough’s residential areas; - Refurbishing Rye House Bridge.

Cycling

The improvement of cycling opportunities within the Park is mentioned several times in your plans. The Council welcomes this and is keen to work with you to link our ambitions with yours.

The Broxbourne Local Plan 2015 to 2030

The Council will be publishing the Local Plan within the next few months. In accordance with statute, it will include the Lee Valley Park Plan within its overall provisions through an appropriate policy. For the most part, the Local Plan will also directly reflect the proposals of the Park Framework within its allocations. There are, however, two exceptions where we have not secured common ground – Britannia Nurseries and Turnford Surfacing. It may be possible to reach a common position on the latter but as things stand, there is likely to be an allocation for Britannia Nurseries that sits directly counter to the Park’s own proposals for the site.

The other point of potential difficulty is the four tracking of the West Anglia main line along which a safeguarding direction may be issued within the course of both plans. We will both have to address and respond to the implications of such a direction in due course. However, as things stand, the Broxbourne Local Plan is likely to support the extension of Crossrail to Broxbourne with direct implications for the level crossings along the route. A105

Conclusion

The Council welcomes the publication of the Park Authority’s proposals for the Park area within the Borough and looks forward to working with the Authority to bring forward many of the proposals and schemes set out in the thematic proposals for areas 6, 7 and 8. I would welcome further meetings to secure pragmatic and deliverable solutions and to align our respective plans.

If you have any questions concerning this response, please send them to Vicky Forgione in the Planning Policy section in the first instance.

Yours sincerely,

Douglas Cooper Head of Planning and Development

A106

A107

Item 4: 07/15/0249/F

Location: Land Rear of 70 and 76 High Street, Hoddesdon

Description: Erection of residential building to provide 22 one bed and 18 two bed flats including 9 affordable units with amenity space, 40 car parking spaces and 40 cycle parking spaces.

Applicant: Latis Homes Ltd

Agent: Latis Ltd

Date Received: 23/03/2015 Date of Committee: 30/06/2015

Expiry Date: 22/06/2015 Officer Contact: Peter Quaile

Ward Members: Cllr Brown, Cllr White, Cllr Wortley

RECOMMENDED that permission be granted subject to the conditions at the end of this report and the applicant first completing a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As amended) on the terms set out at the end of this report.

1. CONSULTATIONS

1.1 HCC Highways – No objection subject to conditions and a s.106 contribution of £18,000 (see paragraph 9.1)

1.2 Environmental Health – a condition should be imposed to prevent noise disturbance from the nearby postal depot

1.3 BoB Tree officer – No objection subject to conditions

1.4 BoB Housing – As the market has improved, a greater percentage of affordable housing may now be achievable

1.5 BEAMS – Supports the application

2. PUBLICITY

2.1 Site notice, newspaper advert and neighbour letters (expired 22/04/2015).

A108 8. REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 One representation objecting to this proposal has been received from a business owner on the High Street raising the following issues:

 The Conservative Club failed to address sound break-out and insulation and this needs to be addressed in conjunction with this application  This is a four storey building with a lift overrun and roof garden access  The application relies on the non-compliant building on the opposite side of Conduit Lane  The ‘so-called’ conservation area is being overwhelmed and surrounded by buildings of large scale

8. RELEVANT LOCAL PLAN POLICIES

4.1 The following policies of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001- 2011 (adopted December 2005) apply:

SUS1 Sustainable Development Principles H2 Maximising the Development Potential from Sites H8 Design Quality of Development H13 Affordable Housing HD2 Requirements for Evaluation of Heritage Asset HD6 Other Development affecting a listed building and its curtilage HD10 New Buildings and Change of Use of Existing Buildings in Conservation Areas HD13 Design Principles HD14 Design Statement on Local Character HD16 Prevention of Town Cramming HD17 Retention /Enhancement of Landscape features T3 Transport and New Development T11 Car Parking

8.7 Under the provisions of the NPPF the Council is required to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and to provide a mix of housing to meet current and future demographic needs.

8.7 The Council adopted the Hoddesdon Town Centre Strategy in 2010 with the key objectives of economic, physical and community enhancement for this historic market town.

A109 8. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE

5.1 The site is located to the rear car park of the Hoddesdon and Broxbourne Conservative Club and the new block would be sited to the flank (east) of the recently-completed replacement club building fronting onto Conduit Lane. Facing the site is the new mixed use building which replaced the Tudor Hall snooker club premises. To the east of the site is Legra Avenue, which is a private road, then offices and the postal depot. To the rear (south) is The Limes which is a relatively modern commercial building complex including a doctors’ surgery and pharmacy accessed along Legra Avenue.

5.2 The site falls significantly from west to east and is entered via a double-width vehicle access from Conduit Lane shared with the club building; it is predominantly hard surfaced from its use as a car park and there are two timber storage sheds. The boundaries are defined by a 1,8m high brick wall. There is a row of mature trees in the verge next to Legra Avenue; these fall outside the application site. There is a mature horse chestnut tree to the rear garden area of No.70. The whole site is within the Hoddesdon Conservation Area and the High Street frontage buildings (70 and 76 High Street) are both grade 2 listed. The application site falls within the designated Hoddesdon town centre and is an area of archaeological interest.

5.3 There are no other planning constraints or environmental restrictions to development at this site.

A110

Application site looking up Conduit Lane

8. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

6.1 Permission was granted for refurbishment of the listed building No.76 for use as a restaurant and flats, construction of a new club building and erection of a block of 40 flats under references 7/910/08/LB and 07/09/0380/F. This scheme was subsequently renewed in December 2012 (07/12/0805/F and 0806/LB) and the club element of the proposal was implemented.

6.2 An alternative scheme which involved conversion and extension of Nos.74 and 76 to provide a restaurant and flats was approved in 2014 (07/14/0444 and 0445) and this permission and listed building consent have recently commenced on site.

7. PROPOSAL

7.1 This is a full application for the erection of an L-shaped block of 40 flats with main frontages to Conduit Lane and Legra Avenue. The mix is proposed to be 18 two bed flats and 22 one bed flats with nine of the units allocated as affordable housing (3 one bed and 6 two bed). There would be 40 car parking spaces for the block including two bays for disabled drivers, six conventional spaces and 32 car spaces in two-level stacker units. The stacker units are constructed with pit below a platform so cars are parked at ground level or concealed in the subterranean pit. The normal position of the stacker appears as a standard parking space and the mechanism is only apparent when accessing a car from below. Fifteen of the spaces would be between the new block and the club building while the remainder would be set behind 70 High Street but still reached by the same access as the main application site. Forty internal cycle bays would be provided along with a dedicated refuse/re-cycling area adjacent to one of the two entrance points on the western façade leading to lifts serving the upper floors and a 209sqm roof garden to provide amenity space. Two arrays of photo-voltaic panels would sit on the flat roof behind the parapet facing south and west.

A111

7.2 The apartment block would have three sheer storeys and a fourth floor of accommodation set within the steeply-pitched roof. Inset balconies with feature timber linings and glazed balustrades would be provided for 21 of the units. The window openings would have similar timber casings and would be set in powder- coated metal framing. The ground floor would be clad in timber and there would be natural slate cladding to the upper floors designed as a rain-screen system rather than conventional overlapping slates.

Site Layout

A112

Applicant’s CGI of Legra Avenue corner

8. APPRAISAL

8.1 The main issues to consider are:

(8) The Principle of Development at this Site (ii) Design, Scale and Layout (iii) Conservation (iv) Amenity (8) Highways and Car Parking

The Principle of Development at this Site

8.2 The background to this application has its main starting point in the permission and listed building consent granted in 2009 (renewed in 2012) for partial demolition of 76 High St and its conversion to a restaurant and flats, construction of a replacement club building to the rear along with 40 apartments also accessed from Conduit Lane. As Members are aware, the demolition took place at No.76 and the new club building has been completed and occupied. The outcome of this construction work is that the permission and listed building consent, which were renewed in 2012, have been implemented. In this context, the 40 apartments to the Conduit Lane frontage could also be built out under the terms of the permission which means that the principle of erecting 40 flats is fully established. The principle of redevelopment of this site to provide 40 apartments is considered to be acceptable.

Proposed Elevation to Conduit Lane

A113

Proposed Elevation to Legra Avenue

Design, Scale and Layout

8.7 The design of the proposal would use natural materials in the form of timber, natural slate and glass but not in a traditional form. There would not be a break in materials at eaves level as the slate rain-screen cladding would continue from the main façade to the top of the roof. Windows would be over-sized and typically rectangular, punched deep into the facades along with the inset balconies. All the openings would be timber lined to add visual emphasis and to connect with the timber-clad ground floor. To the roof there would be balconies set within dormer features. The materials would strongly reflect the construction of the adjacent club building. While this is far from conventional use of traditional materials it is considered that this is a well thought out and innovative design which has the potential to add a notable new building to the eastern edge of Hoddesdon Conservation Area. Objection has been raised to the proposal for a lift housing and stair access above the element of the building fronting Conduit Lane. As this structure would be set 10m from the frontage it would not be immediately visible from street level. There would be oblique long views from the High Street and longer views from Brewery Road and further down Conduit Lane. The visual impact of this structure is not considered to be intrusive.

8.7 The previously approved apartment block has been re-designed to delete the basement car parking and there would be four levels of accommodation across the block and within the roof space. The original permission was for three sheer storeys rising to four at the eastern end with a shallow pitched roof. In terms of height, the new building would be 1.9m higher than the original approval at its western end and 1.4m higher overall than before at the eastern extremity. However, the height to eaves would 0.75m lower at its western end and 1.6m lower at its eastern extremity. The disparity would occur because the new proposal would have a conventional roof height while the original had a very shallow recessed roof. The new building would overall be taller but its sheer height would conversely be lower to the eaves which are the generally the largest element of visual impact at street level. In this case the steeply pitched roof would be more visible than a conventional eaves/roof arrangement but overall the visual impact is considered to be acceptable. The building would not appear out of scale against the nearby club building and in relation to the new building immediately

A114 opposite, it is more than a metre lower at its highest point and the eaves would range from one metre lower to five metres lower west to east (albeit that the building opposite has yet to be granted formal planning permission). The proposed building would be a significant new structure in this part of Hoddesdon town centre but it is considered that it would not be out of scale with the approved scheme or the recently-built club building or the new building directly opposite. The scale is considered to be acceptable.

Approved Scheme front façade

8.5 The layout, apart from the additional car parking to the rear of N0.70, would closely follow the site plan approved in 2009 and renewed in 2012 with an L-shaped block wrapping around the Conduit Lane and Legra Avenue frontages. The underground car park and ramp are deleted in this proposal and this enclosed part of the site, is now given over to car parking and the rear pedestrian access. With regard to its relationships to its boundaries, the building would be further from Legra Avenue, the new club building and The Limes to the rear. Along the frontage to Conduit Lane, the main façade would be around 15cm nearer the footway but against that, the 50cm projecting balconies present on the approved scheme would be replaced by inset balconies. The relationship to the street would not be out of keeping with the other buildings leading down from the High Street, including the new development opposite this site.

Legra Avenue boundary Shared Entrance with club

8.6 The interior of the building would be set out with two stair and lift cores, level access from the west of the building (replacing stepped access on the Conduit

A115 Lane frontage as approved) and a refuse store close to the street but reached from the main vehicle and pedestrian access. A concierge’s office would be located to the rear ground floor enabling effective management of the site and its common parts.

8.7 The design, scale and layout are considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Policies HD10 and HD16 of the adopted Local Plan 2005.

Applicant’s Computer Generated Images

Conservation

8.8 There are two elements to consider in relation to conservation, first, the impact on adjacent listed buildings and secondly, the setting of this site within the Hoddesdon Conservation Area. The new club building would lie between the proposed apartment block and the frontage building at No.76 and there would be a similar separation to the listed buildings on the corner of Conduit Lane. The main impact on No.70 would be the addition of a parking area to its currently neglected and over-grown rear garden. The proposal would not locate any stackers at the High Street end of the parking area and would leave a ten metre deep landscaped/planted buffer at the rear of the listed frontage building. It is not considered that there would be a materially adverse impact on the setting of any of the listed buildings described above.

A116 8.9 The design of the building has been assessed in detail in paragraph 8.3. The visual impact on the Hoddesdon Conservation Area also needs to be considered and objection has been raised on this ground by a local resident concerned about the accumulation of large new buildings which have been erected around the town. It is the case that substantial new buildings have been constructed in and near to the conservation area, including the regeneration of Fawkon Walk and Taverners Way, the new Morrison store, the redevelopment of the former Co-op store at 110-114 High Street and the recently-completed development immediately opposite the application site. The general aim of designating a conservation area is to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area in question. The intention is neither to stifle physical and economic development nor prevent contemporary and innovative architecture but rather to guide it and avoid materially adverse impacts on the historic townscape. In the case of this proposal, its detailed design has been examined and found to be acceptable in paragraph 8.3 above. A less innovative design with bulky protruding balconies has already been approved on this site and could be built out if the applicant chose to do so. The proposed building would again be a substantial block but its striking and original design could be regarded as an enhancement to the conservation area whilst respecting its historic setting by the use of traditional natural materials, albeit in a more contemporary fashion. The general point raised by the objector is considered to be valid but Members should note that the application site is set significantly lower than the historic High Street which does allow scope for a taller building, as was previously approved.. The current proposal, however, is considered to preserve and enhance the conservation area and to be in accordance with Policies HD6 and HD10 of the Local Plan adopted 2005.

Amenity

8.10 There are two aspects to amenity which relate to this proposal. First, the impact on amenity for neighbours and secondly, the quality of amenity which would be provided inside and outside the proposed block of apartments.

8.11 The proposed block would be located on a similar footprint to the approved scheme. The windows to the front façade would look across Conduit Lane to the new commercial/residential block and would therefore have a conventional relationship across a public highway. To the rear the offices, doctors’ surgery and pharmacy are located in The Limes and no loss of privacy would take place. To the east, across Legra Avenue there are only commercial uses which again would not require privacy. To the west, there will be flats in the upper floors of the High Street properties but these are located at least 40m from the proposed block which exceeds the Council SPG standard of 30m. There would not be a material change to the level of noise generated apart, perhaps from use of the roof garden. If the roof were to be used for unconventional and noisy purposes then the Council has powers under other environmental legislation to exercise control. The introduction of a car parking area to the rear of No.70 would generate a degree of extra noise to flats above commercial units along the high Street. In the context of a town centre and with a 10m gap from the rear of the building it is not considered that this would be a sustainable reason for refusal.

8.12 The overall impact on amenity for adjoining residents is considered to be acceptable and would comply with adopted Local Plan Policies H8 and HD16.

A117 8.13 With regard to the proposed block itself, the individual units would meet the minimum unit sizes, main bedroom sizes and bathroom sizes set out in the Council’s SPG updated November 2013. None of the habitable rooms would be overlooked or would have its outlook marred by an adjacent structure. The roof garden would have an area of 208sqm and would provide usable, outside amenity space. The council’s SPG standard seeks 20sqm per flat which in this case would be 800sqm for the forty flats. The approved scheme would have provided only 180sqm for the same number of flats and the ‘garden’ area would have been immediately next to the vehicle access to the underground car park. On town centre sites outside amenity space will always be at a premium and given that more outdoor space of better quality would be provided in the current scheme than the previous approval the area of garden is considered to be acceptable. The proximity of a club premises would mean that there is some potential for disturbance but this would be partly a matter of choice for those who move into the flats and partly a matter of good stewardship/licensing for the commercial premises.

8.14 The level of amenity for future residents of this apartment block is considered to be acceptable in relation to Policy H8 of the Local Plan adopted 2005 and the Council’s SPG updated November 2013.

Highways/Parking

8.15 The applicant has proposed 40 spaces for the 40 flats which would be identical to the provision agreed under the original scheme and the renewal in 2012. Although the parking standard applicable to the original scheme was a maximum level, the renewal in 2012 was under the revised SPG (Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards) which effectively removed the ‘maximum’ and simply reverted to a standard level to be applied to residential uses. The discretionary 40% discount against the standard within designated town centres was retained. The current proposal would require 33 spaces for the one bed flats and 36 spaces for the two bed flats. If the town centre discount were to be applied the parking requirement would fall to 41.4 spaces. The current scheme would replicate the previous parking ratio and at that level would in any case only fall slightly below the standard normally applied in designated town centres. In this context the level of parking is considered to be acceptable. The use of external twinned car stackers has not been previously approved in this Borough. A condition is proposed to require submission of full technical details prior to their installation/use on site. Forty cycle storage spaces internal to the block are to be provided with ten serving each floor. This provision is practical and would meet the Council’s SPG standard.

8.16 The access for vehicles and pedestrians is not proposed to be altered and service vehicles such as refuse freighters would not be required to enter the site for collections as the refuse store is immediately next to the road access. HCC as local highway authority has not raised objection to the scheme subject to a condition securing details of the car stacker system.

8.17 Overall the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of on-site parking and the impact on the local and strategic highway network in compliance with Policies H8, T3, T10 and T11 of the Local Plan adopted 2005.

A118 Other matters

8.18 The application shows a refuse store of correct size close to the northern boundary with access from the street frontage. A cycle store would also be provided internally to the scheme with space for 10 bicycles on each floor. The mature horse chestnut tree to the rear garden of No.70 is shown to be retained. One parking bay would be close to its trunk and a stacker unit would be under the tree canopy. The Council’s tree officer has confirmed that subject to conditions to protect the large, mature horse chestnut tree to be retained and to cover any crown lifting required he does not raise objection to the proposal. An amending condition is also proposed to relocate one car stacker bay from under the tree canopy to prevent root damage. The impact on this tree is considered to be acceptable.

9. PLANNING OBLIGATION

9.1 This proposal for a residential block is subject to a proposed planning obligation under the terms of Policy IMP2 of the Local Plan. In this case there was an obligation attached to the previous application which has been in part implemented (construction of the new club building). The planning obligation provides for nine affordable units, £10,000 towards sustainable transport initiatives and includes an overage clause which can generate an additional financial contribution to the Council if the sales values are sufficiently above the values set out when the planning obligation was completed. The highway contribution of £10,000 under the original scheme has already been paid. HCC Highways has sought a sum of £18,000 to contribute towards extension of the pedestrian/cycleway facility along Dinant Link Rd and it is considered that this additional sum is supportable for the specific aim which is part of the Hoddesdon and Broxbourne Urban Transport Plan.

9.2 It is understood that in principle agreement has been reached with B3Living to take on the nine affordable units. The reduced level of affordable, set at 22.5% rather than 40% stipulated by adopted Policy H13, was agreed under the terms of the previous approval to take account of the cost of providing the new club building and the considerable cost and uncertainty of restoring the Jacobean former club premises. If the overage clause were to generate an additional financial contribution it is considered that this could be dedicated towards off-site affordable housing in view of the shortfall in such provision inherent in this scheme. An obligation in the above terms is considered to be supportable and such a use of a Unilateral Undertaking is considered to meet the three statutory tests.

10. CONCLUSION

10.1 This application seeks to provide much needed residential accommodation in Hoddesdon Town Centre which would contribute to its vitality and commercial viability in accordance with the Hoddesdon Town Centre Strategy. The scheme has the support of BEAMS and would represent an innovative design using traditional materials which would complement the conservation area and the listed buildings along the High Street. There would not be material impact on amenity for adjacent residential occupiers, the on-site parking would be adequate and there would be usable amenity space in the form of a roof garden. Vehicle access would be unaltered and the traffic implications for the local road network are uncontentious. Pedestrian access would be improved. There would be nine affordable units provided which is in line with the original permission as is the overage provision which could generate additional financial contributions. The obligation is considered to meet the three statutory tests. A119

RECOMMENDED that the application be granted permission subject to the conditions set out below and the applicant first completing a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As amended) on the terms set out in paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2;

1. GEN01A – Standard Time Limit 2. GEN07 – Development in Accordance with Numbered Plans 3. GEN13 – Approval of Facing Materials 4. GEN14 – Approval of Surfacing Materials 5. IND14 – Provision of Refuse Disposal Facilities 6. RES06 – Parking Area to be maintained 7. RES17 – Parking Spaces Prior to Occupation 8. Archaeological investigation 9. LS01 - Landscaping scheme to include details of the roof garden and the parking area to the rear of No.70. 10. LS02 – Landscaping details 11. LS03 – Replacement planting 12. LS06 – No felling of trees agreed to be retained 13. LS07 – Protection of trees 14. LS09 – Works under tree canopy 15. Submission of detailed drawings of the vehicle stacker system 16. Wheel cleaning and traffic management for construction vehicles 17. Standard Hours of construction work 18. Relocation of car stacker unit shown under the horse chestnut tree canopy 19. Approval external lighting 20. GEN15 – Fencing 21. Approval of noise mitigation to eastern boundary

A120 The following schedule sets out the applications outstanding in excess of the Statutory 8 week/13 week period as at 30 June 2015 Ref No Description & Location Reason for Expiry date Delay/Comments LARGESCALE MAJOR TOTAL MAJOR THIS MONTH: 0 TOTAL MAJOR LAST MONTH: 1 SMALLSCALE MAJOR 07/14/0569/O Outline application for Awaiting s.106 26.09.2014 residential development of 13 obligation. dwellings, access, car parking, public open space and other related development - Former Wormley Primary School St Laurence Drive Wormley 07/14/1133/O Outline application for the Awaiting s.106 19.03.2015 erection of 14 dwellings with obligation. associated access and landscaping - Land adjacent to 54, 56 & 58 Kennedy Avenue, Hoddesdon 07/15/0119/F Retention, refurbishment and Awaiting s.106 07.05.2015 change of use of lock keepers obligation. cottage to class A3 (restaurant/café) use, relocation of electricity substation, and demolition of all other buildings for redevelopment to provide nine buildings comprising 115 residential dwellings - Hazlemere Marina, Station Road & Lea Road 07/15/0126/F Variation to conditions 6 and 16 Awaiting 15.05.2015 of planning permission amendment from 07/11/0403/F - Formerly Applicant. Delamare House Delamare Road Cheshunt TOTAL SMALLSCALE MAJOR THIS MONTH: 4 TOTAL SMALLSCALE MAJOR LAST MONTH: 4 MINOR 17.03.2011 07/11/0043/F Change of use of the existing first Awaiting floor of the property from B1 office withdrawal. and premises to C3 residential dwelling, subdivision of first floor to create 4 no. self-contained residential flats - 89-93 Turners Hill Cheshunt 10.11.2011 07/11/0730/O Outline application for new Awaiting s.106 footbridge over railway line at obligation. Park Lane, including bridleway route via level crossing to be

A121 discontinued with new alternative pedestrian footpath, cycle/bridleway route (Refer 07/11/0731/F) - Land opposite 116 Park Lane Waltham Cross 12.04.2012 07/12/0136/F Demolition of existing timber Awaiting s.106 framed extension and construction obligation. of a new single storey rear extension to existing A3 shop premises - 37 High Road Broxbourne 13.03.2013 07/12/0703/O Outline application for first floor Awaiting s.106 rear and side extensions, addition obligation and of a second floor and conversion additional to provide seven residential information re apartments (Re-submission parking 07/12/0064/O) - 75-81 High Street Waltham Cross 10.09.2013 07/13/0608/F Construction of 3 no. additional Awaiting two bed flats at third floor level - clarification on Former Hoddesdon Snooker Club S106 from site Conduit Lane Hoddesdon applicant. 17.01.2014 07/13/0980/F Erection of 2 no. two storey blocks Planning obligation to provide 32 rooms with received, awaiting communal facilities and parking issue. for occupation in association with The Vicarage (Re-submission 07/13/0071/F) - 11 Amwell Street Hoddesdon 27.08.2014 07/14/0566/F Re-alignment and introduction of Under traffic lights at the junction of consideration Brookfield Lane West and Flamstead End Road - Road Junction Brookfield Lane West and Flamstead End Road, Cheshunt 09.09.2014 07/14/0634/F Demolition of existing place of Awaiting s.106 worship and replacement with obligation. new Kingdom Hall and new minister's accommodation and new pedestrian access gate - Kingdom Hall Charlton Close Hoddesdon 10.11.2014 07/14/0777/F Upgrade existing main track to Under allow all weather access, new consideration track and upgrade and extend loading and stacking area - Box Wood, Goose Green, Lord Street 21.11.2014 07/14/0867/F Continued use of vacant industrial Awaiting flood risk site as open storage, parking and assessment. container storage (Refer 07/13/0868/F) - Plots F and L RD Park Essex Road Hoddesdon

A122 12/01/2015 07/14/1041/F Retention of rear wall mounted air Seeking further conditioning unit - 247A Turners advice from Hill Cheshunt Environmental Health 03.03.2015 07/15/0009/F Retention of storage container Under (Refer 07/13/0947/F) - Calves consideration Croft Farm Darnicle Hill Cheshunt

27.03.2015 07/15/0079/F Erection of a two storey block of 1 EA objection, no. one bed and 1 no. two bed under flats - Land adjacent to 144 consideration Windmill Lane Cheshunt 07.04.2015 07/15/0110/F Demolition of existing detached Awaiting S106 garage and erection of new single agreement. storey two bedroom detached dwelling - Rickless Lane Farm St James Road Goffs Oak 21.04.2015 07/15/0155/F Demolition of existing (56-58 Awaiting further Turners Hill) and erection of a new information. three storey block of two retail units and seven residential units - 56-58 Turners Hill Cheshunt 21.04.2015 07/15/0157/F Mansard roof to create additional Under one bed dwelling - 248 High consideration Street Waltham Cross

28.04.2015 07/15/0181/F Elevational alterations to second Awaiting S106 floor and replacement of existing agreement. roof plant with third floor extension to form 8 self-contained flats - 55- 59 High Road Broxbourne 13.05.2015 07/15/0244/F Two storey rear extension over Awaiting S106 existing flat roof terrace to provide agreement. two one bed flats (Re-submission 07/14/0823/F) - 109-111 High Street, Hoddesdon

07/15/0264/F Retention and repositioning of Awaiting amended motor units to rear side flat roof plan (Re-submission 07/14/1095/F) - Hoddesdon Food & Wine 50 Ware Road Hoddesdon 22.05.2015 07/15/0267/F Change of opening hours from Under 7am to 11pm Monday to Sundays consideration and Bank or Statutory Holidays to 7am to 11pm Sunday to Thursday and Bank or Statutory Holidays and 7am to 2am Friday and Saturday - 74 High Street Waltham Cross

A123 22.05.2015 07/15/0281/F Change of use from B2 (general FRA required, industrial) to B8 (storage) of up to awaiting receipt. 35 self storage units (shipping containers) - Industrial Yard Essex Road Hoddesdon 02.06.2015 07/15/0284/F Erection of a four bed detached Under house (Re-submission consideration 07/14/0333) - Lullingfield Yewlands Hoddesdon TOTAL MINOR THIS MONTH: 22 TOTAL MINOR LAST MONTH: 21 OTHER 02.06.2008 7/0287/08/F/WOL Change of use of ground and first Awaiting floor to (B1) offices (Re-submission withdrawal. 7/1207/07/F/WOL) - 206 Turners Hill Cheshunt 03.09.2014 07/12/0110/F Change of use of ground floor shop Awaiting s.106 to 2 bedroom self contained flat - 23 obligation. Whitley Road Hoddesdon 23.05.2012 07/12/0253/LDC Certificate of lawfulness for an Under existing use of part garden for the consideration. storage of building materials part open and part enclosed - 2 Longfield Lane Cheshunt 04.04.2013 07/13/0107/F Change of use of first floor and loft Awaiting s.106 from offices (B1) to residential three obligation. bed self contained flat (C3) - 120 High Street Waltham Cross 24.06.2013 07/13/0139/F Continued use of The Vicarage as a Awaiting s.106 17 bed hostel - 11 Amwell Street obligation. Hoddesdon

31.07.2014 07/14/0280/F Small animal sanctuary with visitor Under facilities including ancillary consideration. outbuildings and various non- illuminated signage (Re-submission 07/13/0491/F) - Lucky Horse Shoes

Sanctuary, Cock Lane, Hoddesdon

19.09.2014 07/14/0393/F Change of use of ground floor from Awaiting s.106 retail to self contained two bed obligation. residence with single storey rear extension - 39 King Edward Road< Waltham Cross 31.07.2014 07/14/0483/F Change of use of first floor to self- Awaiting s.106 contained flat and loft conversion obligation. with rear dormer - 2 Clarendon Parade Turners Hill 04.11.2014 07/14/0809/LDC Certificate of lawfulness for the Awaiting existing use of agricultural building information. for B8 (storage) - Brook Farm Cuffley Hill Cuffley

A124 24.11.2014 07/14/0866/LDC Certificate of lawfulness for an Awaiting existing use of outbuilding as information. seperate dwelling - Beresford House Halstead Hill Goffs Oak 02.12.2014 07/14/0896/F Brook Farm Cuffley Hill Cuffley - Under Retrospective change of use of consideration. agricultural buildings (Units A, B, H and I) to Class B8 (storage) use 15.12.2014 07/14/0940/F Variation to conditions 1 and 2 of Under planning permission 07/11/0037/F to consideration. permit further occupation of the plot - 19 Leeside Wharf Road Wormley 15.12.2014 07/14/0941/F Variation to conditions 1 and 2 of Under granted permission consideration. APP/W1905/C/11/2151926 to permit further occupation of the plot - 23 Leeside Wharf Road Wormley 06.01.2015 07/14/0946/LB Listed building consent to re-roof The Requires Beaufort Suite Hall - Beaufort Suite Secretary of Bishops College Churchgate State decision.

12.01.2015 07/14/1039/LDC Certificate of lawfulness for the Seeking further existing use of outbuilding as an information. independent residential dwelling - 23 Endeavour Road Cheshunt 06.02.2015 07/14/1115/F Removal of condition 16 of planning Under permission 7/0078/05/F/WX - consideration. Newsprinters( Broxbourne) Ltd Great Eastern Road Waltham Cross 25.05.2015 07/15/0017/HF Two storey side extension, single Seeking further storey rear extension, front information. hardstanding and change of use of amenity land along side boundary to residential - 163 Perrysfield Road Cheshun 11.03.2015 07/15/0036/F Variation to condition 3 of planning Awaiting permission 07/13/0583/F that the additional workshop is completed in drawings accordance with the proposals contained in drawing SG-019 A - Feel Free Farm Cock Lane Hoddesdon 21.05.2015 07/15/0102/HF Single storey rear extension and loft Awaiting revised conversion with rear dormer - 20 drawings. Village Close, Hoddesdon 17.04.2015 07/15/0153/F Change of use of dry cleaners shop Under (A1) to hot food takeaways (A5) and consideration installation of ventilation flue - 20 Brocket Road, Hoddesdon 21.04.2015 07/15/0160/F Conversion of garage into habitable Under room, roof alterations including consideration raising the height, gable to front elevation, half hip to rear elevation, velux windows to side elevations and A125 conversion into habitable accommodation - 11 Rye Road Hoddesdon 01.05.2015 07/15/0197/HF Erection of outbuilding (part built) for Under use as gymnasium - 5 Cattlins Close, consideration Cheshunt 13.05.2015 07/15/0236/F Change of use of amenity land to Under residential garden - 27 Hollyfields consideration Turnford 03.06.2015 07/15/0290/HF Addition of first floor to form two Under storey dwelling (Re-submission consideration 07/14/0714/HF) - 419 Goffs Lane Goffs Oak 11.06.2015 07/15/0294/HF Erection of garage at rear of garden - Seeking 10 Abbey Road Abbey Road clarification on height of building. 08.06.2015 07/15/0302/HF Single storey side and front porch Under extension - 4 Dudley Avenue consideration Waltham Cross TOTAL OTHERS THIS MONTH: 26 TOTAL OTHERS LAST MONTH: 27 GRAND TOTAL THIS MONTH: 52 GRAND TOTAL LAST MONTH: 53

J Stack Chief Executive

Contact Officer:

A126