Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

The Director for Place recommended that in respect of application 3/24/0284/OUT, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

The Principal Planning Officer summarised the late representations that had been received and set out the designation of High Cross as a group two village. Members were advised that the application had been reassessed under policy GBR2, and it was of note that the site was not within the village boundary. A number of amendments to the report were summarised by the Principal Planning Officer.

The Principal Planning Officer summarised the application for outline planning permission with all matters reserved apart from access. She presented a series of parameter plans and slides that covered the location of the site in the context of the surrounding area. Members were advised of the main planning issues that were pertinent to the application. Of particular note was that the site was rural land beyond the green belt and there were no landscape designations on the site.

Members were shown an indicative masterplan for the site and a plan showing the bridleways and public rights of way that were referenced in the landscape and visual impact assessment. The heritage context of the site was also set out for the committee.

Members were reminded that landscape, layout, appearance and scale were not for consideration at this stage. The committee were able to consider the access to the site as well as the pedestrian access to the school.

Jacqueline Veater addressed the committee in objection to the application. She was asked a number of questions by the Development Management Committee.

Thaddaeus Jackson-Browne and David Baker-Brook addressed the committee in support of the application.

Councillor Andrews addressed the committee as the local ward Member. He was asked questions by the Development Management Committee.

Questions were asked regarding whether the site had been submitted to the call for sites, and also in relation to the identified local need and whether the housing was for local needs and also whether lower end of substantial harm meant substantial.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the situation was ever changing in respect of the call for sites. She said that in terms of local need the need was across the district as a whole and there was no request specifically that this site be reserved for local needs. Members were advised that the harm was less than substantial harm otherwise the scheme would more likely have been recommended for refusal.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the site was not part and parcel of the listed buildings, and the expanded comments of the conservation officer were helpful in that regard. The site was in the wider locality of the village church and the school but was not part of what made the character of those buildings special.

Members were advised that the open space and the proposed SUDS provisions to the south of the site would now provide a very large gap between a barn and the site. It was confirmed that this location was in the call for sites.

Concerns were expressed regarding how the privately run bus service was going to be improved and a question was asked about the size of the school in terms of forms of entry. The Section 106 Programme Manager explained the bus contributions went directly to the county council and the sustainable transport team allocated funds to the routes as a potential subsidy to encourage more buses per hour.

Members expressed a number of concerns regarding the unsustainable nature of the site with a particular reference to the poor bus service and the lack of facilities in the village. The Principal Planning Officer said that both the locationality of the site and the location of local services in relation to the village had been considered. High Cross as a group two village had been assessed as having very good levels of accessibility due to the bus service, pavements and lighting and how close it was to other settlements. The appropriate level of harm had been identified as moderate, and this had been weighed up in the planning balance.

The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications) explained that Members should have regard to the location of High Cross in the context of Wadesmill and Thundridge. Members should consider that in broader terms there were more services that were walkable or easily accessible between the three villages. The matter of the tilted balance was also highly relevant and less than full weight should be assigned to district plan policies as there was not a 5-year supply of deliverable sites.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to a query regarding archaeological work and explained that there would be appropriate reporting and recording of any findings and this would not stop development on the site.

A concern was expressed regarding the sterile nature of the proposed development adjacent to a warm and attractive settlement that had grown organically over the years. Members also made a number of points in respect of the lack of a five-year housing land supply and the allocation of sites in the district plan.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to a question about protected views and said that she had very thoroughly considered the views from Marshalls Lane. She presented a series of views from the PowerPoint slides including views extracted from the Neighbourhood Plan. A concern was expressed regarding the landscape parameter plans and the lack of information regarding the impacts of the scheme.

The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications) said that Members had to consider the detail in the parameter plans pertinent to this application and the conditions that were set out in the report. Details in respect of archaeology, buffer treatments and design would all come forward later and there was clear evidence that this site was deliverable within a five-year period. Members were advised that the NPPF was a significant material consideration in respect of the titled balance.

The Legal Adviser said that Members had a duty to determine applications that were submitted and validated by the local planning authority, and as a matter of law the committee could not ask the applicant to withdraw an application. She reiterated that, as regards the titled balance, considerable weight must be afforded to housing delivery and for an application to be refused in the tilted balance, there would have to be substantial and significant harm in the context of all of the policies of the NPPF as a whole.

A query was raised regarding the possibility of improvements to cycle ways due to the short distances between High Cross and Wadesmill and this being a natural cycle journey but too far to walk. The Principal Planning Officer said that the walkable/cyclable reference was an inference in relation to the lit pavement access to the villages. This matter was not raised by Hertfordshire Highways, or active travel and a priority had been given to bus travel due to the scale of the development and the nature of the location in High Cross.

The Principal Planning Officer said that in reply to the comments from the committee on Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and flooding, this was a highly technical matter that had been covered in the report along with a summary of the comments of the lead local flood authority (LLFA). She said that there would be an improvement of the current situation on site regarding surface water flooding and no harm in that regard.

Councillor Watson proposed and Councillor Copley seconded, a motion that application 3/24/0284/OUT be granted planning permission subject to 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 3/24/0284/OUT be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.