Agenda item

Recommendation for Refusal.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/17/2216/OUT, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head summarised the application and detailed the relevant planning history.  Officers had recommended approval of the application in a report that had been withdrawn by Officers from the Agenda for the Committee meeting held on 31 January 2018.  The Annual Monitoring Report that was published in February 2018 had since indicated that the Council was able to demonstrate 6.2 years of housing land.

The Head emphasised that prior to February 2018, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had stipulated that sustainable developments should be approved unless the harm significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.  Officers had therefore recommended the application for approval back in January as, at that time, the lack of a 5 years’ supply of housing outweighed the harm.

The Head stated that this judgement was no longer relevant and had fallen away.  The test of significant and demonstrable harm was no longer relevant.  The development plan comprised the current Local Plan and the emerging District Plan which was currently at a very advanced stage of pre adoption.

The site was located outside of the identified village boundary in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the District Plan.  This incursion into the wider countryside area and the harm that would still be caused coupled with the ability of the Authority to demonstrate more than 5 years’ supply of housing were the main reasons for the change in the recommendation now in front of the Committee.

Councillor S Bosson addressed the Committee as the Chairman of Thundridge Parish Council.

Councillor D Andrews referred to the application site being beyond the village boundary.  He commented on the concerns of residents in respect of flooding and the unsuitability of the estate style of the proposed development for High Cross.  He and local residents were also concerned in respect of the siting of the access opposite a school.

Councillor Andrews stated that a bus service that started late, finished early and did not run on Sundays did not constitute a sustainable transport service.  The other village services fluctuated in that the village had lost a pub and had gained a shop.  He concluded that there were a raft of other issues but Officers were absolutely correct in their recommendation for refusal for a site that was outside the village boundary and was in the rural area beyond the Green Belt.

Councillor D Oldridge commented on whether the appeal decision at North Road had changed the situation regarding this application since the January meeting of the Committee.  He queried whether there had been any official discussions with the primary school or whether a single governor had stated their own personal views.

The Head stated that the appeal for the application on North Road had had no significant bearing on this application.  Members should focus on the relevant policy considerations to this application, when making a decision.

The Head advised that the education points had not been explored further although the appeal had resulted in some additional development that would no doubt generate some additional children for the primary school.  Members were advised that this application might generate an as yet unquantified number of potential pupils for the school.

The Head confirmed to Councillor D Andrews that GBC policies had been applied as the site was located beyond the boundary of the village.  He further confirmed that, if Members were minded to support the recommendation, Policy VILL2, as referred to by Councillor D Andrews, could be included in the reasons for refusal on that basis that the application was not in accordance with this policy.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor M Allen seconded, a motion that the Committee support the recommendation for refusal, subject to the inclusion of policy VILL2 in the refusal reasons on the basis that the application was not in accordance with this policy.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED. 

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted subject to the inclusion of policy VILL2 in the reasons for refusal.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/17/2216/OUT, planning permission be refused for the following amended reasons:

1.           The proposed development would be sited outside the village boundary of High Cross within the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt and would result in harm to the rural landscape.  As a result the proposals are contrary to Policies GBC3, GBC14 and OSV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, Policies GBR2, DES1 and VILL2 of the emerging East Herts District Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 planning objections to this application could be satisfactorily resolved within the statutory period for determining the application. However, for the reasons set out in the decision notice, the proposal is not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development in accordance with the Development Plan and the National Planning Framework.