Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Bonner addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Moult spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, subject to the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/13/1399/OP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor J Ranger, as a local ward Member, highlighted the numerous opinions that had referred to this site as being the wrong place to build houses.

Councillor Ranger requested that, if Members were minded to approve the application, the third bullet point of the Section 106 planning obligation should be amended to include the £10,000 requested by Aspenden Parish Council for the upgrading and upkeep of the proposed playground and recreation facilities.

Councillor Ranger stated that Aspenden Road was inadequate and was far too narrow in 3 locations.  He referred to clear evidence of vehicles mounting the pavement or leaving tracks on the verge in order to pass other vehicles.

Councillor Ranger concluded that the decision of Hertfordshire Highways not to object had to be queried and Section 106 funding should go to County Council Highways so that Aspenden Road could be widened at the 3 pinch points.

Councillor J Jones, also as a local ward Member, referred to the correspondence Members had received in respect of this unwanted and inappropriate planning application.  He stated that the site was inappropriate and Aspenden Road was also inadequate as an access road.

Councillor Jones stated that part of the site was in flood zone 2 and was adjacent to flood zone 3.  He concluded that Buntingford needed applications for employment rather than inappropriate speculative applications for housing development.

Councillor S Bull stated that there were many reasons why this application should be refused and he agreed with the comments of Councillors J Ranger and J Jones.  He read out a letter from a local neighbour who had 20 years experience as a chartered town planner.

Councillor P Moore was advised by the Director that no part of the site was located in the Green Belt.  Councillor Moore stated that she had visited the site 3 times and walked the field where the proposed play area was to be located.  She commented that the field had clearly flooded recently and Aspenden Road had also been flooded in January 2014.

Councillor Moore commented that Environment Health’s suggestion for acoustic fencing and mechanical ventilation implied that residents would not be able to open windows due to the close proximity of the A10.  She referred to the issue of odours and the 60 metre buffer zone suggested by the developer.

Councillor Moore queried whether families would ever be comfortable with children playing outside due to the river running though the site and also the grass bank leading directly to the crash barrier for the A10.  She concluded that the site was unsuitable and inappropriate for housing development and was unsuitable for families.

The Director referred to the Additional Representations Summary.  Members were advised that condition 12 should be amended to refer to Aspenden Road being widened to 5.5 metres and not 4.8 metres.

Members were referred to Officers’ responses to a number of additional representations that had been received since the report had been published, in particular the response to the letter from the Town Council highlighted by Councillor S Bull.

The Director acknowledged that Aspenden Road was narrow but Members must consider whether the proposed development of 56 dwellings would make this situation materially worse. 

The applicant could not be required to correct existing deficiencies in the highway network where the development did not materially worsen that situation and Hertfordshire Highways had stated that the application was acceptable in terms of visibility and traffic generation.

Members were reminded that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stipulated that applications should only be refused if the likely highways impact was judged to be severe.  Members were also advised that the widening of Aspenden Road would require the compulsory purchase of land to the North of the site, as this land was not within the control of the applicant.

The Director emphasised that County Highways had not objected to the application so was therefore unlikely to initiate compulsory purchase proceedings to widen the pinch points on Aspenden Road.

Members were advised that an appeal inspector had commented that Buntingford could accommodate 800 additional dwellings and this application, if approved, would bring the current total recently approved to 496.

The Director believed that there was no evidence that Buntingford could not accommodate this application.  Members were advised that refusing the application on the grounds of prematurity would leave the Authority at risk of a costs award if there was an appeal. 

Members were reminded of the lack of a 5 year housing land supply in East Herts.  The Director stated that applications should be approved unless there was evidence that there would be significant or demonstrable harm.

Members were advised that the open space area was located within flood zone 3 and it was expected that this area would flood in an extreme flood event.  The area identified for housing had not, however, flooded recently and was not expected to do so.

The Director concluded that, in terms of noise and odour control, he believed that these issues could be successfully mitigated by the conditions detailed in the report.

Councillor M Alexander stated that the highways assessment on this application was flawed, especially as it was not currently known what size of dwellings would be brought forward as part of the reserved matters application.  He referred to the impact of emergency and refuse vehicles.

Councillor S Bull proposed and Councillor P Moore seconded, a motion that application 3/13/1399/OP be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to policies ENV1 and TR20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, on the basis that the proposed development would generate a significant increase in traffic on Aspenden Road and would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and on the basis that the proposed development would be located within close proximity to the A10 where future occupiers would be exposed to harmful traffic noise and poor levels of internal amenity.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that, in respect of application 3/13/1399/OP, outline planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.           The proposed development would generate a significant increase in traffic on Aspenden Road, which is poor in width and alignment, and would thereby have a detrimental impact on the users of that highway and the character and appearance of the surrounding area that is not satisfactorily mitigated by the highway improvements proposed. The proposal would thereby be contrary to policy TR20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

2.           The proposed development would be located within close proximity to the A10 where future occupiers would be exposed to harmful traffic noise, and the reliance on mechanical ventilation as a mitigation measure would result in poor internal amenity levels. The development would thereby fail to provide for adequate residential amenity and would be contrary to policies ENV1 and ENV25 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended).  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.