Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Cheadle addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mrs Thompson spoke for the application.  Councillor S Bosson addressed the Committee on behalf of Thundridge Parish Council.  Councillor D Andrews addressed the Committee as the local ward Member.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/17/0251/FUL, subject to a Section 106 agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head summarised the application and detailed the relevant site history.  He referred to the lack of a 5 year supply of housing land and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requirement that this be demonstrated by the Authority.  Applications should be approved if they represented sustainable development and would not result in significant and demonstrable harm.

The Head referred to relevant and prevailing policies and commented on the character of this land as open space.  The site did not have a formal designation in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007or in the emerging District Plan.

The Highway Authority had not sought to restrict the grant of planning permission and Officers had recommended approval based on the views of expert advisors.  The Conservation Officer had acknowledged the impact on the setting of the adjacent listed building but felt that the weight that could be applied meant that the impact would not be unduly harmful.  Members were referred to the comments of the conservation design team detailed in the late representations summary.

Councillor D Andrews referred to the locally significant open space and the listed buildings.  He commented on his concerns regarding the access onto the High Road via North Drive.  He referred in particular to damage to the site lines following improvements to the filling station shop as well as the installation of broadband junction boxes.  He concluded that other opportunities existed for this development and this was not the right site for the proposed development in High Cross.

Councillors D Oldridge and M Casey referred to the current and future categorisation of the village.  They referred to the poor standards of the road and local objections to the increase in size of the village.  They also commented on the disproportionate impact of the proposed development on a small rural village.

There was a lengthy general debate regarding the categorisation of the village and the value of the open space.  Members debated the matter of the standard of local roads and in particular the state of North Drive.  The Head referred to High Cross being a category 1 village in the Local Plan and a group 2 village in the emerging District Plan.  Members were advised that limited infill development could be permitted in High Cross based on the policies of the emerging District Plan.

The Head added a note of caution in that the emerging District Plan could not be given significant weight.  He stated that work was ongoing to advance the District Plan and he referred to the policy position regarding adoption of local roads by Hertfordshire Highways.  He concluded by advising Members regarding adoption of local roads, the conflicting views regarding the value of land as open space and Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs).

The Chairman referred to this being an application for a modest number of dwellings including 7 affordable housing units.  He referred to the need for the Development Management Committee to weigh up all of the issues in reaching a balanced decision.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor M Casey seconded, a motion that application 3/17/0251/FUL be refused on the grounds that the proposed development was located in a currently undeveloped area of land which performed an important function in the settlement by virtue of its historical association with the Church and the Rectory.  The development proposals would result in a significant harmful impact to the function and character of the area and the proposals were therefore contrary to policies OSV1, ENV1 and HSG7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, section 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policies VILL2, DES3 and HA1 of the pre-submission District Plan 2016.

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 3/17/0239/FUL, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.        The proposed development is located in a currently undeveloped area of land which performs an important function in the settlement by virtue of its historical association with the Church and the Rectory located to the north, plays an important role in the setting of those heritage assets and is significant in the formulation of the character of this part of the settlement. The development proposals, utilising much of the undeveloped area of land, will result in a significant harmful impact and change to its function and character, by virtue of the introduction of considerable new built form.  The proposals are thereby contrary to policies OSV1, ENV1 and HSG7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, section 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policies VILL2, DES3 and HA1 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.