Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

James Cartwright addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Katie Wray spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that subject to the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of application 3/14/1627/OP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor M Newman commented on whether this application would count towards the housing target identified in the emerging District Plan.  The Director confirmed that, in terms of identifying the remaining housing need, any planning permissions would be taken into account in the next available draft of the 2011 to 2031 District Plan.

The Director also advised however, that the Authority could decide to amend the housing totals that were applied to each settlement in East Herts or to change the categorisation for a settlement in the District Plan.  The Authority could decide that a certain number of houses could be allocated to a settlement or to spread the same allocation across the whole District.

Councillor M Alexander commented on the security of the applicant’s offer of 40% affordable housing given that this was an outline application.  The Director stated that government guidance stipulated that policy requirements should not impact on the viability of deliverability of a planning application.

The Director reminded Members that the economics of development were constantly changing which presented difficult challenges for Officers.  There were no absolute guarantees but should Members approve the application on the basis of 40% affordable housing they could change their position in future should the offer of 40% be reduced at a later date.

Following a further query from Councillor Alexander in respect of how much of the application’s sustainability had been based on the 40% affordable housing provision, the Director confirmed that the provision of affordable housing was a key policy aspiration and Officers had given this issue considerable weight.  Officers had considered the full spectrum of infrastructure issues such as the visual and environmental impact as well as highways matters.

The Chairman referred to the objection from Standon Parish Council as well as the 42 letters of objection.  She commented that she had not seen any reference to a dedicated route for construction traffic.  She referred to the view of the Highway Authority that construction traffic should be routed via the A10 and the A120 and access through Puckeridge should be avoided.

The Chairman also highlighted that the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) had objected to the application as the application site was outside of the boundary of the village and was therefore contrary to Local Plan Rural Area policy.

Councillor G Williamson commented on the sustainability of the application given the limited public transport and the limited opportunities for employment.  He referred to the view of the Landscape Officer that the non–development of this site was crucial in respect of the containment of Puckeridge through the prevention of ribbon development and further expansion of the village boundaries.

Councillor P Moore queried whether it was premature to approve this application until the results of flood investigation works for sites in Puckeridge had been received.  She commented on whether the application could be deferred on that basis.  Councillor D Andrews stated that the site was outside the Puckeridge Village boundary and probably constituted ribbon development.

Councillor Andrews referred to the unsatisfactory access to the site and the likely increase in traffic in Puckeridge due to the dangerous egress in the vicinity of the A120/A10 roundabout.  He referred to the prospect of construction traffic attempting to negotiate the narrow medieval roads in the village.

Councillor Andrews stated that £24,000 for bus stops would be of limited value if there were no extra buses.  He concluded that he was extremely concerned that that this was an inappropriate site for such development.  The Director stated that the emerging District Plan included a strategy that sought to spread a range of development across areas that were less well served by public transport and where there were limited employment opportunities.

The Director reminded Members that the District Plan could only be given limited weight and it would be difficult to sustain an argument in reference to this document.  Members were advised that, in respect of the issue of prematurity and flooding, this could not be given significant weight as the Environment Agency were satisfied that the issue of flooding had been taken into account.

The Director also commented that the Authority would not be supported if Members refused the application on the basis that this site was beyond the village boundary, as the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 was outdated and the Authority could not currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land.

In response to a query from the Chairman regarding how far the £15,004 for health care provision would stretch in improving provision, the Director confirmed that the modest amount reflected that the fact that this was a modest housing development. 

Councillor Alexander stated that the application hardly met any of the sustainable development tests detailed at paragraph 7.19 on page 240 of the report.

Councillor G Williamson proposed and Councillor P Moore seconded, a motion that application 3/14/1627/OP be refused on the grounds that the proposed development represented unsustainable development due to the poor public transport connections, lack of local facilities and employment opportunities and also on the basis that the application could not be approved whilst the results of flood mitigation investigations were unknown.  The proposed development would also represent a form of ribbon development which would be to the detriment of the rural character of the surrounding landscape and the containment of the settlement of Puckeridge.

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 3/14/1627/OP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed development would represent an unsustainable form of development contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, by reason of the sites poor public transport connections; lack of local facilities and employment opportunities and reliance on the use of the private motor vehicle.  The proposal thereby represents inappropriate development in the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt contrary to policies GBC2 and GBC3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

2.    The proposed development would represent a form of ribbon development and would result in the loss of open space between the built up part of the settlement of Puckeridge and Standon Hill (the A120), which would be to the detriment of the rural character of the surrounding landscape and the containment of the settlement of Puckeridge.  The proposal will thereby be contrary to policies GBC14 and ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and national guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.    The Local Planning Authority is yet to be satisfied that the development of the site would not compromise the provision of flood mitigation measures on or in the vicinity of the application site which may be identified through the current investigations being undertaken by the Environment Agency.  The development may therefore prejudice the implementation of appropriate flood prevention measures and is therefore contrary to policy ENV19 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and national guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012, 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.