HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
POLICY, RESOURCES & PERFORMANCE CABINET PANEL
WEDNESDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2013 AT 2.00 PM
Agenda Item
No.
5
NORTH ORBITAL ROAD UPPER COLNE VALLEY - HELIOSLOUGH LTD;
CONSIDERATION OF THE LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT DATED 20 DECEMBER 2012
[FP A001/13]
Report of the Director Resources & Performance
Author:
Dick Bowler, Estate Manager (Tel: 01992 556263)
Executive Member:
Robert Gordon, Leader of the Council and Executive
Member for Resources & Economic Well-Being
Local Member:
Aislinn Lee, St Stephens Division
1.
Purpose of report
1.1
To enable consideration of the Secretary of State’s advice that he is
‘minded to approve’ planning permission for a Strategic Rail Freight
Interchange [SRFI] development on and around the site of the former
Radlett Aerodrome, as advised in the letter dated 20 December 2012 from
the Department for Communities and Local Government.
2.
Summary
2.1
Arising from legal agreements entered into in 1985, at the time that
planning permission was granted for mineral extraction and restoration
development, the County Council now owns the site of the former Radlett
Aerodrome.
2.2
That ownership is the subject of covenants that restrict use of the land to
uses compatible with the site’s location within the Green Belt and prohibit
buildings other than any to serve such uses. Land retained in the
ownership of Lafarge [now Lafarge Redland] has the benefit of those
covenants, which were imposed when title to the land was transferred to
the County Council.
2.3
In 2003 HelioSlough Limited (the ‘Applicant’), a developer of commercial
property, entered into commercial agreements with Lafarge and with
another landowner with the intent of promoting a development scheme for
a Rail/Road Freight and Distribution facility. HelioSlough subsequently
made two planning applications for an SRFI.
1
2.4
Both applications were refused permission by St Albans City & District
Council as Local Planning Authority. Both applications were the subject of
planning appeals and Public Inquiries. The first application was dismissed
by the then Secretary of State, but in the decision letter it was intimated
that, but for an inadequate alternative sites assessment, there was a
possibility that planning permission could have been granted for an SFRI
scheme at the Radlett site that would be of regional significance.
2.5
The second application was initially dismissed by the Secretary of State
but that decision was quashed by the High Court because, in relation to
the refusal reason given on the consideration of alternative sites, the
decision letter was “..not adequate to explain to the informed reader why
the Secretary of State has arrived at the conclusion, which the inspector
held could not rationally be drawn”.
2.6
The Secretary of State therefore had to reconsider the Inspector’s report
and to ‘re-take’ his decision. On 20 December 2012 the Communities
department issued a letter which stated that the Secretary of State is
‘minded to approve’ grant of planning permission for the scheme.
2.7
The County Council now needs to consider the content of that letter and to
give initial consideration to what actions and communications should be
put in hand.
2.8
As no actual decision to grant planning permission, and no planning
permission exist, it is appropriate to consider a potentially three stage
process for consideration of all of the matters that may arise from these
circumstances, as follows:
i) To give general consideration to the content and implications of the
letter and, if appropriate, to authorise officers to have discussions with St
Albans City & District Council and the Applicant regarding the possibility
of, and possible content of, a s106 agreement; and separately with the
Applicant only regarding the possibility of, and possible content of, a
unilateral undertaking by the County Council, substantially in the form of
the undertaking dated 17 December 2009;
ii) To give consideration to the issues generally, to the outcomes of the
discussions authorised at i) and to decide whether or not to authorise
either a s106 agreement or a unilateral obligation by the County Council;
and
iii) If planning permission is granted by the Secretary of State, to give
consideration as to whether to dispose of its interest in the site and if so
on what basis.
2.9
The issues raised by the existence of the ‘minded to approve’ letter,
require significant further work to be undertaken to ascertain all relevant
information, to provide commentary and to identify possible courses of
actions; all to enable Cabinet to be able to give fully informed
2
consideration to the issues and to be able to take reasonable decisions.
2.10
The St Albans City & District Council has written to the Secretary of State
intimating that unless he takes actions to reverse his ‘minded to approve’
position by a deadline of Friday 25 January 2013 it will seek judicial review
of his earlier decision not to re-convene the Radlett Inquiry and not to
conjoin that inquiry with another into a appealed refusal of planning
permission for a scheme near Slough.
3.
Recommendations
3.1
The Cabinet Panel is invited to recommend to Cabinet that:
a)
The proposed potentially three stage process set out in paragraph 2.8 of
the report, for consideration of all of the matters that may arise from the
‘minded to approve’ letter from the Department for Communities and Local
Government dated 20 December 2012 regarding the former Radlett
Aerodrome and other lands, be agreed;
b)
The Chief Executive and/or Director, Resources & Performance be
authorised to have discussions with St Albans City & District Council and
the Applicant regarding the possibility of and possible content of a s106
agreement; and separately with the Applicant only regarding the possibility
of and possible content of a unilateral undertaking by the County Council,
substantially in the form of the undertaking dated 17 December 2009; and
c)
To undertake such other further investigations as are considered
appropriate and to bring a further report to Cabinet in due course.
4.
Background
4.1
The County Council owns the freehold interest in the former Radlett
Aerodrome site. It is shown on plan EM 13637 provided as appendix 1
and has an area of about 119 hectares. When the freehold was
transferred in 2006 restrictive covenants were imposed, benefitting land
controlled by Lafarge, that for a period of 21 years from 2006 limit use to
agricultural, open space and recreational purposes. There is also in the
title an old covenant that permanently precludes building on the land.
4.2
The origin of the County Council’s ownership is in legal agreements made
in 1985, at the time of grant of planning permission for gravel extraction
and land restoration, that provided for ownership of the land to transfer to
the County Council and covenants to be imposed on transfer.
4.3
The land is the subject of a short term lease to Lafarge to enable
completion of the works required as part of the planning permission for
mineral extraction and site restoration.
4.4
HelioSlough Limited, formerly a joint venture between Helios Properties
3
plc and SEGRO plc (formerly Slough Estates International), was
established in March 2004. It is now wholly owned by SEGRO plc, a
property company listed on the London Stock Exchange and with a market
capitalisation of c £1.8 billion.
4.5
HelioSlough Limited is understood to have the benefit of a joint venture
agreement made with Lafarge Aggregates Limited and an agreement with
The Gorhambury Estates Company Limited in respect of lands included
within the planning application.
4.6
It has made two applications for planning permission for an SRFI, a bypass road and a new Country Park on a very large site bounded by the
M25, the London Midland Railway, the A414 and Park Street & Frogmore.
4.7
The lands included in the planning applications have an area of 419
hectares and are shown on the Location Plan, provided as appendix 2. All
of these lands are situated in the Green Belt.
4.8
It will be noted that Area 1 on that plan corresponds with the area of land
in the county council’s ownership, plus land at Hedges Farm to the north
that is understood to be under option.
4.9
The form of development proposed on these lands is shown on the
Landscape Masterplan as provided as appendix 3. The proposed
buildings have an area of over 331k sq M [over 3.5m sq ft] arranged in 5
units. Rail connections are to the north and south running lines of the main
line railway to the east.
4.10
The five very large buildings that comprise the commercial premises within
the proposed development are exclusively on the county council’s land.
4.11
The rail connection infrastructure is within that land and on the land to the
east of the main line.
4.12
Highway infrastructure is a new ‘Frogmore by-pass’, mainly on the County
Council land and to the west of the new buildings, then on other lands at
the connections to the A414 to the north and to Radlett Road to the south.
4.13
Both planning applications were refused permission by the Local Planning
Authority, were appealed and the first appeal was dismissed in February
2008.
4.14
However, in the decision letter the then Secretary of State acknowledged
that the need for an SRFI to serve the area to the North West of London
had been substantiated and in effect said that but for an inadequate
alternative sites assessment there may well have been a case for planning
permission to have been granted.
4.15
The decision letter contained this key paragraph:
“The Secretary of State considers that the need for SRFls to
serve London and the South East is a material consideration of
4
very considerable weight and, had the appellant demonstrated
that there were no other alternative sites for the proposal, this
would almost certainly have led her to conclude that this
consideration, together with the other benefits she has referred to
above were capable of outweighing the harm to the Green Belt
and the other harm which she has identified in this case
(IR16.202). However, like the Inspector, she considers the
appellant's Alternative Sites Assessment to be materially flawed
and its results to be wholly unconvincing (IR 16.203). She
considers this failing to be critical. In view of this, she concludes
that the appellant has not shown that the need for the proposal or
the benefits referred to above constitute other considerations
which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm
which 'this development would cause, and that very special
circumstances to justify the development have not been
demonstrated.” 1
1 Communities
letter 1 October 2008, paragraph 58
4.16
Consequently, a second application was made with a revised alternative
sites assessment, and that particularly included evaluation of another site
within the Green Belt at Colnbrook, near Slough.
4.17
The second appeal was the subject of a second Public Inquiry, held in
November and December 2009, and the Inspector recommended, in his
report of March 2010, that planning permission should be granted.
4.18
His overall conclusions were:
“Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would constitute inappropriate
development in the Green Belt which, in itself, would cause significant
harm to which substantial weight should be attached. Harm would also be
caused to the Green Belt because of a loss of openness, significant
encroachment into the countryside and the contribution to urban sprawl.
There would be an adverse effect on the setting of St Albans, although the
Secretary of State concluded previously that only limited weight should be
attached to this. Harm would also arise from the adverse effects on
landscape and ecology. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with
Policies 1, 104 and 106 of the adopted Local Plan Review.
However, other considerations including, particularly the need for SRFIs to
serve London and the South East and the lack of more appropriate
alternative locations for an SRFI in the north west sector which would
cause less harm to the Green Belt, together with the local benefits of the
proposals for a country park, improvements to footpath and bridleways in
the immediate area and the provision of the Park Street and Frogmore
bypass, lead me to conclude that very special circumstances exist in this
case which outweigh the conflict with the development plan and therefore
the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions”2
2 Inspector’s
Report, page 182, paragraphs 13.118 and 13.119
5
4.19
In his report the Inspector had paid careful attention to the alternative sites
assessment and in particular to the potential of the site at Colnbrook, near
Slough and another site at Harlington, Central Bedfordshire.
4.20
In his conclusions he stated that:
“The Secretary of State [in 2008] also concluded that, given the site’s
Green Belt location, whether or not the need which the proposal seeks
to meet could be met in a non-Green Belt location, or in a less harmful
Green Belt location, was a material consideration in that case. I
consider that is still the same position for this appeal and I also
endorse the concept of assessing a possible alternative location for an
SRFI in the broad sector north west of London, as previously accepted
by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State [in 2008] previously indicated that had the
appellant demonstrated that there were no other alternative sites for
the proposal, it would almost certainly have led her to conclude that
this consideration, together with the other benefits referred to, would
have been capable of outweighing the harm to the Green Belt and the
other harm identified. However, she considered that the appellant’s
Alternative Sites Assessment was materially flawed and its results to
be wholly unconvincing.
In this particular case, I am satisfied that the assessment of
alternative locations for an SRFI conducted by the appellant has been
sufficiently methodical and robust to indicate that there are no other
sites in the north west area of search which would be likely to come
forward in the foreseeable future which would cause less harm to the
Green Belt. The sites which I consider are the most comparable are
those at Harlington and Colnbrook, both of which have schemes which
are being progressed by intending developers.
At Harlington, although the harm to the Green Belt might be broadly
similar to that at Radlett, I consider that the visual impact of an SRFI
would be greater, and its location north of Luton, albeit easily
accessible to the M1, makes it less attractive to serve London and the
South East. I consider that the location of Colnbrook within the Green
Belt in a Strategic Gap between Slough and London weighs heavily
against preferring it to the appeal site as an alternative location for an
SRFI. Nevertheless, should a scheme be developed to the same extent
as the appeal proposal, it is possible that, under the challenge of
evidence tested under cross examination at an inquiry, the differences
between the two locations, other than the Green Belt issue would be
marginal.” 3
3 Inspector’s
4.21
Report, page 181, paragraphs 13.112 to 13.115
The new Secretary of State initially disagreed with the Inspector’s
recommendation and dismissed the appeal in July 2010, including in his
reasons that:
“For the reasons given at IR13.84 – 13.88, the Secretary of State agrees with
6
the Inspector that the broad approach of the appellant in focusing on the
north west sector in the assessment of alternatives is reasonable (IR13.88).
He agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given at IR13.89 – 13.91, that
the general approach by the appellant to the assessment of alternatives and
producing the ‘long list’ has been robust and realistically pragmatic (IR13.91).
For the reasons given by the Inspector at IR13.92 – 13.94, the Secretary of
State is satisfied that the criteria used by the appellant to assess the ‘long list’
of sites were realistic and did not lead to potential sites being inappropriately
discarded. He agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions, as set
out at IR13.95 – 13.98, with regard to the sites at Upper Sundon, Littlewick
Green and Harlington.
The Secretary of State has given very careful consideration to the Inspector’s
assessment of the Colnbrook site at IR13.99 – 13.103. He has had regard to
the appellant’s statement that the site would perform materially worse than
Radlett due to its location in a designated Strategic Gap (IR13.100). He notes
that the Inspector considers that substantial weight should be applied to the
Strategic Gap designation set out in a saved policy of the Slough Local Plan
(IR13.100). However, in this particular case, the Secretary of State considers
it appropriate to give less weight to the saved policy and he does not consider
this should be regarded as a determining factor.
In reaching his conclusions above, the Secretary of State has borne in mind
the more recent Slough Core Strategy 2006 - 2026, adopted in December
2008. He observes that paragraph 2.29 of the Slough Core Strategy
specifically mentions a proposal for an SRFI in the Strategic Gap and that the
following paragraph 2.30 outlines criteria that would have to be satisfied in the
event of an application being made for an SRFI. Read in conjunction with
those paragraphs, the Secretary of State considers that Slough Core Strategy
Policy 2 does not necessarily bar inappropriate Green Belt development such
as an SRFI in the Strategic Gap. Whilst no application has yet been made at
Colnbrook, the Secretary of State has taken into account the documentation
presented to the Radlett inquiry about an emerging SRFI proposal at
Colnbrook (Radlett Inquiry Document 9/G/1.1). This indicates that a
substantially smaller scale of rail-connected warehousing is envisaged at
Colnbrook compared with the appeal proposal. The Secretary of State
considers that if an application were to be made for a SRFI at Colnbrook of
about the size indicated in evidence to the Radlett inquiry, then harm to the
Green Belt might, subject to testing in an alternative sites assessment, be
found to be significantly less than the harm caused by the Radlett proposal.
He also notes the Inspector’s observations that an SRFI at Colnbrook could,
in common with the Radlett proposal, offer other benefits which in the case of
Colnbrook would be opportunities for improvements to the footpath and
bridleway network, biodiversity and landscape (IR13.101).
The Secretary of State has also considered a previous Secretary of State’s
decision to dismiss an appeal relating to earlier application for a SRFI
proposal at Colnbrook in August 2002 (the ‘LIFE’ proposal), including the
comment in that decision which the Inspector notes (IR13.100). However, the
current Secretary of State finds nothing in the 2002 decision that would
prejudge the outcome of an alternative sites assessment in the event of
another application for a SRFI at Colnbrook being made.
7
For the reasons given above and having regard to the evidence before him,
the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the appraisal of alternative sites
has clearly demonstrated that there would be no other suitable location in the
North West Sector that would meet the need for an SRFI in the foreseeable
future in a significantly less harmful way than the appeal site. He therefore
disagrees with the Inspector’s opinion that it cannot be rationally concluded
that the Colnbrook site would meet the needs for an SRFI in a less harmful
way than the appeal site (IR.103). “4
4 Communities
letter 7 July 2010, paragraph 24 et seq
4.22
However that decision was the subject of a successful judicial review
challenge, and the decision was quashed in July 2011.
4.23
The High Court’s reasoning for quashing the decision was expressed as
follows:
“In my judgment, the decision letter gives rise to a substantial doubt
whether the Secretary of State did properly understand the inspector's
reasoning on this crucial part of his recommendation or the additional
restraint imposed by policy, namely that it must be shown that the
development is essential in that location. It is of course not an absolute
bar but it in my judgment a very high bar. In my judgment, the decision
letter does not adequately display how it might be shown that it is
essential to have a SRFI at Colnbrook as opposed to any other location. It
is not adequate to explain to the informed reader why the Secretary of
State has arrived at the conclusion, which the inspector held could not
rationally be drawn. For that reason alone, the 2010 decision letter is
quashed, and the 2010 report must be reconsidered.“ 5
5
Transcript HelioSlough Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government
2011 WL 2582652 page 20 Ground 4
4.24
Following the quashing of the 2010 decision in July 2011, the
Communities department subsequently made requests for information and
invited representations.
4.25
The first round of communications was limited calls for information and
representations, and successive cross representations. The matter of a
legal Unilateral Undertaking pursuant to s106 of the Town and County
Planning Act 1990, that the other landowners had executed, particularly
concerned the County Council and the Communities department
specifically requested “Whether or not Hertfordshire County Council is
prepared to join as a party to the Undertaking”. The Communities letter
and the reply provided by the Chief Legal Officer, sent via the Local
Planning Authority, are provided as appendix 4 and appendix 5.
4.26 The letter of reply by the County Council, being a responsible body, set
out the position at that time, including the position regarding an application
for an SRFI scheme at Colnbrook, and said “I also confirm that the County
Council would negotiate in good faith to enable the County Council to
consider joining into a s106 Undertaking if the Secretary of State was in
8
fact minded to grant planning permission.”.
4.27 The Communities department later went on to explore a possible course of
action to re-open the Public Inquiry into the Radlett scheme and to conjoin
that with a Public Inquiry into the appealed application for the Colnbrook
scheme. That proposal resulted in very strongly opposed representations
on behalf of both the Radlett and Colnbrook applicants, and they are
provided at appendix 6 and appendix 7. Slough Borough Council also
opposed such a process. The City & District of St Albans Council was in
favour of it. The County Council has remained neutral on the process.
4.28 The Secretary of State reached the conclusion that, on the basis of what
he had received, there were no substantive issues that required him to reopen the appeal Inquiry and so not to conjoin it with a Colnbrook Inquiry,
and he decided to re-determine the application on the basis of all the
evidence and the representations. He advised that his decision would be
issued on or before 5 April 2012.
4.26 Whilst those actions have been in train, three major national planning
policy documents have been made:
a) Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Policy Guidance (November 2011);
b) Logistics Growth Review (November 2011); and
c) National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) – the NPPF
4.27
Paragraph 31 of the NPPF is relevant:
“Local authorities should work with neighbouring authorities and transport
providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure
necessary to support sustainable development, including large scale
facilities such as rail freight interchanges, roadside facilities for motorists
or transport investment necessary to support strategies for the growth of
ports, airports or other major generators of travel demand in their areas.
The primary function of roadside facilities for motorists should be to
support the safety and welfare of the road user.”
4.28
The Communities department issued the latest consideration by the
Secretary of State of the appealed application by way of a ‘minded to
approve’ planning permission letter dated 20 December 2012.
5.
The ‘Minded to Approve’ planning permission letter
5.1
The letter dated 20 December 2012 is addressed to the applicant’s agent
and is provided at appendix 8.
5.2
The letter with the Inspector’s Report attached are published at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
9
file/41783/12-12-20_Radlett_Comb_MTA___IR.pdf
5.3
The letter advises that the Secretary of State has come to the conclusion
that he now agrees with the Inspector that there is a ‘very special
circumstances’ justification for granting planning permission for the
development in the Green Belt. Also that the various harms to the Green
Belt that would occur from implementation of the scheme can be properly
controlled by way of planning conditions and a s106 planning agreement
or a s106 unilateral undertaking completed by all of the land owners [to
include the County Council].
5.4
The reasons for the ‘minded to approve’ are set out in the letter, as are the
proposed conditions that would be attached should planning permission
be given.
5.5
The letter and Inspector’s report refer to a Unilateral Undertaking dated 17
December 2009 completed by the applicant and the other two landowners.
That undertaking and the two plans attached to it are provided as
appendix 9.
5.6
It may be expected that both the proposed planning conditions and the
terms of the unilateral undertaking meet the requirements for such
conditions and undertakings as are set out in the relevant government
guidance.
5.7
The overall conclusions section of the letter states:
“43. In conclusion, the Secretary of State has found that the appeal
proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that,
in addition, it would cause further harm through loss of openness and
significant encroachment into the countryside. In addition the scheme
would contribute to urban sprawl and it would cause some harm to the
setting of St Albans. The Secretary of State has attributed substantial
weight to the harm that would be caused to the Green Belt. In addition he
has found that harms would also arise from the scheme’s adverse effects
on landscape and on ecology and that the scheme conflicts with LP
policies 104 and 106 in those respects.
44. The Secretary of State considers that the factors weighing in favour of
the appeal include the need for SRFIs to serve London and the South
East, to which he has attributed very considerable weight, and the lack of
more appropriate alternative locations for an SRFI in the north west sector
which would cause less harm to the Green Belt. He has also taken
account of the local benefits of the proposals for a country park,
improvements to footpaths and bridleways and the Park Street and
Frogmore bypass. He considers that these considerations, taken together,
outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other harms he has identified
including the conflicts with the development plan and that they amount to
very special circumstances. The Secretary of State has considered
whether the scheme would comply with the NPPF. In the light of his
conclusions above, he is satisfied that the scheme would give rise to
10
no adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh
the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken
as a whole.
45. Given these conclusions, the Secretary of State is minded to approve
your client’s proposal. However, for the reasons given at paragraphs 41 42 above, he proposes to defer his final decision on the appeal. In view of
his concerns, he wishes to invite your client to provide him with a planning
obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
which binds all those with an interest in the appeal site. The Secretary of
State considers it preferable for the planning obligation to be made by
agreement with the Council. Nevertheless, he is prepared to consider a
planning obligation given by unilateral undertaking. The Secretary of State
wishes to draw your client’s attention to the fact that a duly certified,
signed and dated planning obligation must comply with the relevant
statutory provisions of sections 106 and 106A of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 and the CIL regulations 2010 as amended.
46. The Secretary of State proposes to allow until 28 February 2013 for
the submission of a suitable planning obligation. He then intends to
proceed to final decision as soon as possible. It should be noted that he
does not regard this letter as an invitation to any party to seek to reopen
any of the other issues in it.”
6.
Actions since issue of the letter dated 20 December 2012
6.1
The St Albans City & District Council has sent two letters to the
Communities department, requiring a reply by 25 January 2013.
6.2
The first letter is a Letter before Claim in which the Council indicates that it
considers the decision not to re-open the appeal Inquiry and not to conjoin
it with a Colnbrook Inquiry is flawed and that they intend to seek a judicial
review of that decision. That letter is provided at appendix 10.
6.3
The second letter advised that the St Albans City & District Council
consider that the ‘minded to approve’ planning permission is flawed in its
reasoning and indicates that should an actual decision to grant planning
permission be taken the Council would intend to seek a judicial review of
such a decision. That letter is provided at appendix 11. The specific
request made at this stage is that “the Secretary of State reconsiders his
decision and decides either (a) that it is appropriate to refuse planning
permission given that Colnbrook might be less harmful than Radlett or (b)
that the decision in the Radlett appeal be suspended pending the
conjoining of the Colnbrook and Radlett appeals as has been set out in
the Council’s letter of claim”.
6.4
The applicant has written to the Communities department seeking an
extension of time regarding the request to complete a s106 planning
obligation, from 28 February 2013 to 28 March 2013. The request letter is
11
provided at appendix 12. Communities department has agreed the
request.
6.5
An approach has been received from SEGRO plc, as owner of
HelioSlough Limited, to ascertain the County Council’s position. They
specifically refer to the letter sent by the County Council dated 13 October
2011, see para 4.25 above, and ask whether the County Council will
engage with discussions. They have been advised that a report is to be
made to Cabinet before any reply can be given. Obviously, they wish to
establish whether the County Council is willing to participate in a planning
obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
which binds all those with an interest in the appeal site.
7.
Estate and Financial implications
7.1
The prospect of planning permission for a development of this size and
significance creates the need to establish further information so as to be
able to provide a full report on estate, financial and overall County Council
policy for its land.
7.2
Initially the County Council needs to be able to respond to the request
from SEGRO plc, at para 6.5 above, and to be able to consider the
implications of and events that may flow from the letters sent by the
District Council, at para 6.2 and 6.3 above, and to consider generally all of
the matters that arise from the ‘minded to approve’ letter.
7.3
Information regarding the County Council’s property ownership is provided
at appendix 13 and appendix 14.
7.4
There are financial issues of a confidential and exempt nature that may
arise where information would be needed to enable full consideration of
the matters by the County Council. Preliminary information on those
matters is provided in a report on the Part II agenda for this meeting.
8.
Conclusions
8.1
Whilst the planning applications and appeals regarding a proposed SRFI
development at Radlett, partly on land in the County Council’s ownership,
have been in the public domain for many years, the possibility of grant of
planning permission for such a scheme has only emerged on 20
December 2012.
8.2
For the County Council to be able properly to consider the implications of
the possibility of grant of planning permission, and to be able to respond to
the approach from SEGRO plc and indirectly to provide its own response
to the Secretary of State on the matter of a s106 planning obligation, it
would be appropriate to authorise officers to undertake the actions set out
in recommendations 3 b) and c) above.
12
Documents referred to:
1.
Communities decision letter on 1st appeal dated 1 October 2008
2.
Inspector’s report on 2nd appeal dated 19 March 2010
3.
Communities decision letter on 2nd appeal dated 7 July 2010
4.
Transcript of judgement in HelioSlough Ltd v Secretary of State for
Communities & Local Government 2011 WL 2582652
5.
Communities ‘minded to approve’ planning permission letter on 2nd appeal
dated 20 December 2012
6.
Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Policy Guidance (November 2011)
7.
Logistics Growth Review (November 2011)
8.
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)
13
List of Appendices:
1.
Plan EM13637
2.
Location plan
3.
Landscape Masterplan
4.
Communities letter 15 Sept 2011
5.
HCC letter 13 Oct 2011
6.
CgMs letter 27 Sept 2012 and attached representations
7.
Barton Willmore letter 28 Sept 2012
8.
Communities letter 20 Dec 2012
9a
Unilateral undertaking dated 17 Dec 2009
9b.
Land Ownership Plan
9c.
Landscape Masterplan
10.
SADC letter of claim 18 Jan 2013
11.
SADC letter 18 Jan 2013
12.
CgMs letter 23 Jan 2013
13.
Summary information about HCC’s land ownership
14.
Plan of land benefiting from covenants
14