Our report on the Rectory Farm Public Inquiry
By Gary Ansell, Chair, KL&DRA
The Rectory Farm Public Inquiry kicked off on time at 9:30am on Tuesday 9 April 2024 in Dacorum Borough Council’s Chamber. It was very much like a court of law, but instead of a judge and jury, the Inspector from the Planning Inspectorate, Mr Dominic Young, presided over matters and it is he who will decide the outcome of the public inquiry.
The parties involved were the Appellant – Angle Property, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) – Dacorum Borough Council (DBC) and the Joint Objectors Group (JOG) - KL&DRA with CPRE Herts as a third party (also known at the inquiry as the Rule 6 party).
The Inquiry commenced with opening statements from each of the three parties. Members of the public attending the Inquiry were also given an opportunity to give their views and three residents read statements relating to the Green Belt, carbon emissions, the food growing capability of the land and the extreme height of one of the block of flats proposed for the site and to be positioned very close to Hempstead Road. This was in addition to a number of residents who had submitted interested party statements on various aspects of the proposed development.
Following that, the format of the Inquiry was for each party in turn to present their statement of case along with evidence to prove it, provided by their expert witnesses. Each witness could then be cross-examined by the other two parties’ Counsels. The Inspector also asked his own questions of the witnesses. In this way, the Inspector was able to hear all the arguments from the three parties involved.
DBC were first up and their Counsel, Annabel Graham-Paul and Senior Planning Officer, Robert Freeman stated their case, to a very small extent on their first reason for refusal (inappropriate development in the Green Belt). Their case centred extensively on three SANG options:
1. Providing an on-site SANG which Natural England had refused as the site is too small;
2. Obtaining an award of SANG credits from one of the Council owned sites. The Council had refused this option, stating they had to keep their credits for small and brownfield sites and that they would not give any provision for sites deemed as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, even if the appellant were to win the appeal.
3. The fact that (in their view) the appellant had not secured an off-site SANG solution (which essentially meant they had not got a signed agreement with The Boxmoor Trust for provision of a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) at Westbrook Hay).
Check out our SANG blog by clicking here.
Without that, DBC’s Counsel maintained that they could not legally grant planning permission. They also said that if they had been granted a 3 month adjournment, this would have given the appellant enough time to secure the agreement, and that if that had taken place, then DBC would drop all their objections to granting planning permission, because, in their view, the benefits of the development would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and would constitute very special circumstances for removing the site from the Green Belt and allowing development.
NB: The KL&DRA do not agree with DBC’s position in any way. To us, it looks like the Council has not defended the Green Belt at Kings Langley at all, despite removing the site from their Local plan. They have not defended the Green Belt on the purposes stated in the National Planning Policy (NPPF), as we have, and did not even put the case of Rectory Farm to their own Planning Committee for discussion, prior to refusal of planning permission, but delegated all the decision making to a planning officer. Dacorum Borough Council has completely let Kings Langley down and has failed completely to defend our green field Green Belt.
The appellant, who had not agreed to the request for adjournment (nor had the KL&DRA), then cross-examined, very little on Green Belt, but extensively on the SANG issue, suffice to say the arguments got very technical in terms of what is legal and lawful.
After the break barrister Joe Thomas presented our case for protecting the Green Belt going through our evidence with Jed Griffiths. Jed has over 50 years of planning experience and although there were some points on which we did agree with the Council, we contended that the appellant had not evidenced the Very Special Circumstances needed to support their application. Continuing on Day 2, Jed was cross-examined by the appellant’s Counsel and we felt he, and Joe did a really good job for us.
The Inquiry then moved on to the appellant’s case with evidence given by their expert witnesses: Mr Morton (Green Belt); Mr Stacey (Affordable Housing); Mr Kirkpatrick (SANG provision); onto Day 3 and Mr Ledwidge (Planning Matters); and their Counsel, Mr Guy Williams.
Our Counsel cross-examined: Mr Morton, challenging him hard on his Green Belt evidence; Mr Stacey, regarding the fact that none of the homes would be genuinely affordable and that the level of affordable homes did not amount to very special circumstances; Mr Ledwidge, challenging him hard on a number of inconsistencies in his evidence regarding open space and harm to the Green belt.
There then followed a more informal round table session where the appellant’s expert, Mr Grierson summarised the appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Proof of Evidence. The KL&DRA team challenged on the loss of openness and the misleading way the appellant had presented their photographic evidence: Michael Bouvier, a local resident, challenged the accuracy of the appellant’s assessments of the impact of the proposed block of flats and its height; Gary Ansell provided and talked through a sectional drawing showing the true height and impact on the view from Hempstead Road; Ann Johnson expressed concerns over the removal of hedgerows screening the site along the Hempstead Road and the trees along the canal, and how such screening would be protected, should the development go ahead. Various other concerns were raised with the appellant regarding openness, the positioning of tall buildings and the ‘tunnelling effect’ that would be apparent when approaching Kings Langley from the Coniston Road end of the site.
There then followed another round table discussion which we did not get significantly involved with – Conditions and Planning Obligations. We won’t describe the detail here as it was largely legal arguments relating to Section 106 agreements, the SANG agreements and SANG provision, the last of which turned into an often heated exchange of disagreements. The session continued into the last day of the inquiry, where the Inspector ran through some points he wanted to confirm. We did contribute our views on: the timing of construction vehicles entering and leaving the site; Concerns regarding the use of cranes on the site and privacy for residents of Hempstead Road and some highways matters.
NB: We have subsequently asked the Council for more details of the highway matters being requested by Herts Highways.
Closing statements
We were up first and Joe presented our closing statement in respect of the Green Belt. To view our closing statement, please click here.
It was then the turn of DBC’s Counsel, whose closing statement mainly focussed on the lack of SANG provision. To read the Council’s closing statement, please click here.
Finally, the appellant’s Counsel presented his closing statement, which mostly presented the appellant’s arguments against the Council’s views on the lack of SANG provision. To read the appellant’s closing statement, please click here.
The Inspector then formally closed the Inquiry thanking everyone. He made mention of the JOG’s contribution, noting that we were the only ones in the room not being paid! We now await his decision which is not expected until late June at the earliest.
KL&DRA Conclusion
This has been a very unusual public inquiry. DBC dropped a bombshell at the eleventh hour, during our preparation of Statements of Case and Proof of Evidence for the Inquiry, stating that they would drop their opposition to the appeal if the appellant secured the SANG provision to mitigate the harm the development would cause to the Chilterns Beechwoods SAC. This meant that effectively, only our party was left, objecting to development of the site on Green Belt grounds (our case was not predicated on any points related to SANG provision). This made our job harder.
Jed and Joe did a great job in presenting our case and our evidence, in a measured and convincing way and Joe cross-examined the appellant’s expert witnesses firmly and fairly. In our Closing Statement, you will be able to read the strong arguments we put forward, based on planning policy and planning guidance as to why there are no very special circumstances to take Rectory Farm out of the Green Belt and why the benefits of the development do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.
Our barrister feels that we are in a better position than we were at the beginning of the week, and all of our reasons for protecting the Green Belt at Rectory Farm in Kings Langley have been put before the Inspector.
NB: If you wish to read a more detailed summary of the inquiry, please refer to the KL&DRA – Rectory Farm Committee Briefing Notes which can be viewed here.