Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Ms Veater addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Davis spoke for the application.  Councillor P Boylan, as the local ward Member, addressed the Committee in respect of a number of detailed concerns regarding the outline application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/15/2081/OUT, planning permission be granted subject to a legal agreement and the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head explained that this was an outline application with all matters reserved apart from the access to the south west corner of the site onto Cambridge Road.  He detailed the legal position regarding outline applications and advised that a range of conditions could be applied as detailed in the report as well as a Section 106 legal agreement.

The Head set out the policy context with particular reference to the fact that the Council was unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.  He referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) test of whether the harm was significantly and demonstrably and whether it outweighed the benefits of 160 new homes.

The Head referred to the shortcomings highlighted by objectors and Officers had acknowledged the validity of some of the concerns.  Officers had also considered a range of technical advice.  Members were reminded that the highways impact had to be judged as severe before permission could be refused on that basis.

Highways Officers and the applicant’s highways consultant plus a consultant engaged by the Council had all concluded that the impact was acceptable in terms of highways safety and the capacity of the Cambridge Road/A120 junction.

Members were advised that the weight that could be given to the emerging District Plan and the local Neighbourhood Plan had to be tempered by the fact that there were unresolved objections.  The Head concluded by referring to national policy and the substantial weight that had to be given to housing delivery.  He detailed a number of relevant points detailed in the additional representations summary.

Councillor D Andrews highlighted the views of the highway authority and the consultants in terms of highways safety and the capacity of the Cambridge Road/A120 junction.  He referred to the importance of a robust travel plan and expressed concerns regarding pedestrian safety.  He commented on the damage to the pedestrian refuge and the evidence of vehicles having skidded before hitting this refuge.

Councillor D Andrews disagreed with the consultant’s views that the junction had a good safety record.  He referred to the 85^th percentile speed and the view that motorists at this speed would only stop in time if a vehicle had started to turn out of Cambridge Road if they reacted immediately.  He stated his concerns regarding the motorists who exceeded this speed.

Councillor D Andrews referred to the significant walk to bus stops and the difficulties of accessing the bus stop on the south side of the A120.  He detailed the public transport options for commuting and other general travel out of the village.  He summarised the village amenities and the considerable walks required to access them.

Councillor D Andrews concluded that on balance this scheme was too early and there were too many questions and issues to be resolved by planning conditions.  He commented on the possibility that the concerns of the Environment Agency and Thames Water could be resolved by engineering solutions.

Councillor J Goodeve commented on the lack of further information from the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) regarding the justification for the £417,532.80 contribution detailed in paragraph 10.58 of the report.  Councillor K Warnell referred to policies GBC2 and GBC3 and the issue of inappropriate development in the green belt.  Councillor B Deering referred to unanswered questions regarding sustainability and a number of other uncertainties in the report.

Councillor R Brunton referred to other large strategic sites in the emerging District Plan.  He stated that he was having trouble supporting this application in its current format as there were too many unknowns as referred to in paragraphs 10.9 and 11.2 of the Officer’s report.  He concluded that the applicant should consider the Neighbourhood Plan and bring forward a more detailed scheme.  Councillor M Casey expressed his surprise regarding the south westerly access onto Cambridge Road.  He referred to the possible closing of the Cambridge Road/A120 junction with access onto the A10.

Councillor D Andrews commented on the numbers of new homes with the benefit of planning permission in the area around Standon.  He stated that a rough total was getting quite close to the total number of new homes detailed in the District Plan for Standon and Puckeridge.  He also referred to the significant work that had gone to the Neighbourhood Plan.

The Head responded to the point raised by Councillor J Goodeve in respect of health services as well as the query regarding policies from the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 raised by Councillor K Warnell.  He also responded in detail to Members’ queries regarding transport sustainability, highways and pedestrian safety and the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor B Deering seconded, a motion that application 3/15/2081/OUT be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to policies ENV1, ENV2, OSV1 and OSV2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007; policies DES1, DES2, DES3 and VILL1 of the pre-submission District Plan 2016; and the NPPF.  The proposals were also contrary to the aims of policies TR1 and TR4 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007; policies TRA1 and TRA2 of the pre-submission District Plan 2016 and section 4 of the NPPF.

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 3/15/2081/OUT, outline planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.        The proposal, by reason of the location of new development on the elevated eastern end of the site, would result in a harmful visual impact in the wider landscape and views from the south and west. The harm identified cannot adequately be mitigated and the proposal is thereby contrary to policies ENV1, ENV2, OSV1 and OSV2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007; policies DES1, DES2, DES3 and VILL1 of the pre-submission District Plan 2016; and the NPPF.

2.        The location of the site, with limited opportunities for future residents to make significant use of sustainable and active means of transport and because of the scale of development proposed, is such that it performs poorly in transport sustainability terms with limited prospect that the harm caused as a result of this can be mitigated.  As a result, the proposals are contrary to the aims of policies TR1 and TR4 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007; policies TRA1 and TRA2 of the pre-submission District Plan 2016 and section 4 of the NPPF.

3.        The proposal would result in additional vehicular movements at the junction of Cambridge Road/A120, which is already perceived to operate poorly in highway safety terms, thereby exacerbating the harm to both vehicular and pedestrian highway users. The proposal is thereby contrary to the aims and objectives of national planning policy set out in the NPPF and policies TRA1 and TRA2 of the pre-submission District Plan 2016.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, East Herts Council has considered, in a positive and proactive manner, whether the planning objections to this proposal could be satisfactorily resolved within the statutory period for determining the application. However, for the reasons set out in this decision notice, the proposal is not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development in accordance with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.