Agenda item

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/24/1457/OUT, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report, and subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

The Principal Planning Officer highlighted the location of the site adjacent to but outside of the village boundary of Standon and Puckeridge, which was designated as a group one village in the District Plan. Members were advised that the location of the site outside of the village boundary meant that the land was part of the rural area beyond the green belt.

The Principal Planning Officer presented a series of plans, visuals, and detailed elevation drawings. He set out the services and facilities that were available in the vicinity of the site and explained that the site was screened by vegetation along the highway verge of the A120 and was also screened by vegetation along the southern site boundary.

The Principal Planning Officer detailed the key features of the application and talked about the changing land levels within and around the site. He detailed the location of the proposed vehicular access and emergency vehicular access and talked about biodiversity net gain and flood risk.

The Principal Planning Officer detailed the relevant planning history and said that the application would deliver a new and upgraded shared footway and cycleway. He set out in detail the key issues for Members to consider when determining the application and referred the Committee to the published late representations summary.

Lorea Johnston addressed the committee in support of the application. Jacqueline Veater addressed the committee on behalf of Standon Parish Council. Members asked questions and points of clarification of the speakers.

Councillor Bull asked about how the public and private transport infrastructure was to be improved in that particular development. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the heads of terms of the Section 106 legal agreement had identified £250,000 to go towards bus services.

Matthew Armstrong, Hertfordshire Highways, said that the £250,000 was to improve bus services in the vicinity, and this figure was calculated on the basis of £50,000 per year over 5 years and the idea was to enhance weekend services.

Councillor Copley asked for some clarity as to the viability of the cycle path. George Fermer, Hertfordshire Highways, explained that the existing lane was only to South Road. He said that following discussions with the developer, this path would go from the development site to South Fields and there would be drop kerb crossings over the side roads and there would be a buffer zone between the highway, the kerb and the cycle way and this buffer would range from minimum of 0.5m up to a 1m buffer zone. Members were advised that there would be a pedestrian rail at the emergency access to prevent access to the highway. There would also be a grass verge and a foliage adjacent to the A120, and the cycleway would link to local facilities in the town.

Matthew Armstrong, Hertfordshire Highways, explained that the proposed works to the cycle lane did comply with the department for transport good practice cycle guidance (LTN120). He said that Officers were satisfied that this was a suitable safe provision.

Councillor Carter mentioned the traffic pressure on the A120 and the need for more than a grass verge buffer should a vehicle leave the road. She asked about the width of the A120 carriageway in this location. George Fermer, Hertfordshire Highways,er said that there was no design for how wide or narrow a carriageway is on the basis of a buffer zone. He advised that buffer zones were implemented based upon the speed of the road. Members were advised that all the buffer zones for the speed limits for the A120 had been met in respect of LTN120, the road was straight with no overtaking allowed.

Councillor Stowe referred to the drawings and the access from Barley Mead Way as not actually finalised. He commented on whether the emergency access would have to be used if the main access was not agreed with the landowner. The Principal Planning Officer said that the emergency access would be just an emergency access, and this was conditioned. Members were advised that the approved plans included a plan that showed the access from Barley Mead Way into the site.

The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) confirmed that Members were being asked to approve the point of access to the development site. Members were not being asked to consider and approve a detailed highways plan.

Councillor Estop said that this site had not been allocated in the District Plan from 2018 and questioned why this land had not allocated as there had been some in principle agreements and road ready to be used. The Principal Planning Officer said that the District Plan had identified enough housing to meet the need in 2018. He said that matters had moved on since 2018 and the NPPF had been updated. Members were advised that a new standard method had been implemented that had increased the housing need in East Herts and the titled balance was engaged as there was not currently a 5-year housing land supply and the titled balance was engaged.

The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team)said that there was a hierarchy of development in the 2018 District Plan, and this promoted development in sustainable locations within the towns and limited development in the villages.

Councillor Stowe asked about the arrangements for the bollards at the emergency access in terms of how the bollards could be removed for emergency access. Matthew Armstrong, Hertfordshire Highways, explained that the bollards were of a type where emergency services had the key to remove them. He explained that the look of the access would make it clear that it was not the main access.

Councillor Burt referred to the biodiversity uplift and the orchard and the green spaces, and asked who would be maintaining these spaces and owning that land. The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) explained that there would be a management company to look after the open spaces. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the Section 106 legal agreement included details of the stewardship and maintenance of the landscaped areas.

Members were advised that Standon Neighbourhood Plan contained policies that required open spaces to be maintained by a management company on new developments. The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) explained that the service charges would have to be set at an affordable level for the affordable housing.

The Section 106 Programme Manager explained that East Herts Council no longer adopted play areas and open spaces, and this would be down to a stewardship scheme to maintain those spaces. The Legal Advisor said that there was RICS national institute guidance about how estate service charges were calculated. She said that purchasers of new units would be alert to how this regime would work.

Councillor Estop expressed a number of concerns regarding this being an outline application. She said that the extensive objections related to the reserved matters stage of the process. The Legal Adviser said that the Committee must determine the application that was before them. She said that in law and statute procedure, outline applications had to be determined as they were submitted.

Councillor Dunlop commented on the loss of good grade agricultural land and referred to the carbon impact of importing produce and the increase of 7 tonnes of carbon dioxide per crop. He referred to the declared climate emergency.

The Principal Planning Officer said that he had acknowledged the loss of agricultural land and officers had attributed some negative weight to this in the planning balance. He said that the carbon footprint impacts of losing agricultural land were not covered in the District Plan.

Councillor Watson proposed, and Councillor Marlow seconded, a motion that application 3/24/1457/OUT be granted planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of the report.

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

RESOLVED – that application 3/24/1457/OUT be granted planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of the report.

At this point in the meeting (20:11), Councillor Watson proposed, and Councillor Dunlop seconded, a motion for a 5-minute adjournment. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that the meeting be adjourned for 5 minutes from 8:11 pm to 8:16 pm.

The meeting reconvened at 8:20 pm.