Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Rainbird addressed the Committee in objecting to the application.  Jane Orsborn spoke for the application.  Councillor P Boylan addressed the Committee as the local ward Member.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/1218/FUL, subject to a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head stated that the normal considerations applied in respect of a site that was beyond the existing settlement boundary plus the other material consideration of the Council’s current lack of a 5 year housing land housing.  The NPPF was clear in these circumstances, stating that the Authority should support development unless there would be significant and demonstrable harm.

Councillor D Andrews referred to the cumulative effect of applications and access onto the A120 from Cambridge Road.  He stated that the application was overdevelopment and commented that pedestrians or cyclists wishing to cross the A120 with a degree of safety faced a mile and half round trip.

Councillor D Andrews stated that a majority of motorists using cars on the Cambridge Road end of Puckeridge would have to use the A120 junction due to a highways enforced single lane on Cambridge Road giving priority to oncoming traffic.  He stated that he felt there was some work to be done regarding the points raised in paragraph 1.1 of the report.  He also commented in detail regarding the bus service provision in and out of Puckeridge for commuters or young people wishing to access youth services and argued that it was a misnomer to suggest that the bus service was a sustainable mode of transport.

Councillor B Deering queried whether deferral was a possibility on this application.  He referred to paragraph 10.33 and suggested that the proposed parking provision was unacceptable.  Finally he referred to paragraph 10.47 and asked for some rationale why one requirement of the section 106 legal agreement had been removed from the heads of terms solely on the basis of the lack of a response from the relevant local health service.

Councillor M Casey commented on whether there were grounds for deferral in this case with regard to the highways situation and the dangerous junction referred to in the debate.  The Head stated that sustainability in transport terms was one of the areas where negative weight could be assigned and this had been acknowledged by an appeal inspector.

Members were advised that, in general terms, there were very few places in East Herts where development would not be supported in transport sustainability terms.  The Head emphasised that Officers felt that the harm resulting from the proposed development was outweighed by the benefits in this case.

Members were reminded that there was scope for a deferral of planning permission although the applicant had indicated they would appeal non-determination and any future decision would be taken away from the Authority by the planning inspectorate.  Officers could have a dialogue with the local health service regarding the section 106 funding and the heads of terms.

The Head advised that the proposed 64 space parking provision met the current parking standards and was slightly short of the emerging standards.  He felt that there would be modest harm which Officers did not consider to be significant. 

The Head also referred to work that had indicated that the proposed density was acceptable and Members were advised that the traffic scenario of vehicles exiting onto the A120 via Cambridge Road was considered to be acceptable.  The Landscape Officer was content with the application following an amendment to the layout of the proposed development.  He responded to a number of other points raised by Councillor D Andrews.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor M Casey seconded, a motion that application 3/16/1218/FUL be deferred to enable Officers to consider further the issues of additional traffic using the Cambridge Road/A120 junction, the density of development on the site and the local sustainable transport infrastructure.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/16/1218/FUL, subject to a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning permission be deferred to enable Officers to consider further the issues of additional traffic using the Cambridge Road/A120 junction, the density of development on the site and the local sustainable transport infrastructure.