Agenda item

The Director for Place recommended that in respect of application 3/25/1097/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented a series of drawings, plans and visualisations of the proposed development. He summarised the details of application 3/25/1097/FUL and set out the location of the site.

 

Members were advised that the site comprised an undeveloped field with small pockets of trees in a location that was predominantly to the east of the village of Much Hadham, largely outside the village boundary.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the majority of the site lies within the rural area beyond the Green Belt and he provided a summary of the existing development in the surrounding area. Members were advised that the applicant’s transport statement identified a range of village facilities within walking distance, including a health centre, a local shop and post office, and the primary school to the north of the site.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that bus stops on Tower Hill provided access to the service operating between Hertford and Bishop’s Stortford. It was also noted that Public Footpath 025 run along the southern boundary of the site, while Public Footpath 022 lies close to the north?western corner and was currently mapped as passing through the school grounds.

 

Members were advised that the proposal included the provision of new pedestrian connections to improve linkages and to provide an alternative east–west route between Tower Hill and Aldor Lane. The site was identified in the Much Hadham Neighbourhood Plan as a reserve housing site intended to meet potential future housing needs and was therefore subject to Policy MH10.

 

The scheme proposed a low density of 21.8 dwellings per hectare and the development would be concentrated within the central and southern parts of the site, with public open space located to the north.

 

Members were advised that the scheme would deliver 40% affordable housing (12 units), with a tenure split of 83% affordable rent and 17% shared ownership. The size and tenure mix has been informed by a local housing needs survey, which identified a need for 17 affordable units within the parish.

 

Members were advised that no affordable housing had been delivered in Much Hadham in recent years and the site lies within Landscape Character Area 93 (the Hadham’s Valley) and adjacent to Landscape Character Area 87 (the Middle Ash Valley).

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that the landscape and visual impact of the proposal, including effects on priority views identified in the Neighbourhood Plan, had been fully assessed within the committee report.

 

The site was located within the Much Hadham Conservation Area and in proximity to several listed buildings, including the Grade II listed Hill House and The Arms Houses on Tower Hill. The impact of the development on the conservation area and on the setting of these heritage assets had been assessed and was considered to be acceptable.

 

Members were advised that vehicular access would be taken from Tower Hill, with no objection raised by the Highway Authority. Parking provision was broadly in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that the proposal would retain all high and moderate?quality trees, including the woodland area in the south?western corner of the site. Limited removal of low?quality trees would be offset by the planting of 129 new trees. The scheme would overall deliver a biodiversity net gain of 16.883%, primarily through new tree, shrub, and wildflower planting.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that flood zones 2 and 3 extended into a small area of the site in the southeastern corner. The reminder of the site was within flood zone and was therefore at low risk of flooding. The surface water drainage would be managed through permeable paving, pipes, and attenuation basins, with controlled discharge to the River Ash. Foul water drainage would connect to a diverted existing sewer.

 

The Principal Planning Officer set out in detail the policy considerations pertinent to the Much Hadham Neighbourhood Plan. He said that this plan was part of the development plan and sat alongside the district plan. Members were advised that the minimum housing target of 54 new homes for the village was out of date and was derived from an out?of?date district plan development strategy.

 

The report set out that the weight attributed to the strategy within the Much Hadham Neighbourhood Plan to meet the minimum housing target should be reduced. The Principal Planning Officer said that the proposed development complied with Policy MH10 when read as a whole.

 

Members were advised that no objections had been received from statutory consultees and that officers had considered comments received from the Parish Council and local residents.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that, on balance, it was considered that the benefits of the scheme attracted significant positive weight, while the adverse impacts carried moderate negative weight, and that the harms did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

 

Members were advised that, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement, Officers recommended that planning permission be granted. The Principal Planning Officer drew the attention of Members to the late representation summary.

 

Alexandra Willmore and Emily McKenzie were invited to address the committee in support of the application. They were asked questions by the committee.

 

Mr Ian Hunt addressed the committee on behalf of Much Hadham Parish Council.

 

Members asked questions regarding the public rights of way and the Principal Planning Officer advised that the existing public right of way would not be affected or obstructed, as it did not run through the development site.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the permissive footpath was not a public right of way and would be incorporated within the school grounds as part of the development.

 

Members asked about the conflict between the application and policy MH10 of the Neighbourhood Plan. They referred to paragraph 10.4 of the officer report and the principle of the development being supported by the Much Hadham Neighbourhood Plan. They also asked about the NPPF and paragraph 14.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said Officers considered that the proposals complied with policy MH10 of the Much Hadham Neighbourhood Plan and due to this compliance as a whole, paragraph 14 of the NPPF was not engaged.

TheInterim Team Leader (Strategic Applications) provided a detailed explanation of the key elements of the MH10 policy for the committee. He said that the first part of the policy referenced in a table in the report set out that the development met the need for the provision of future additional market housing, and in particular affordable housing.

 

Members were advised that the submission of a planning application represented an equally appropriate means of bringing a site forward for development.

 

The Principal Planning Officer acknowledged the concern raised regarding the high demand for two- and three-bedroom houses within the district. However, Members were advised that the proposed housing mix accords with the identified need in Much Hadham, as set out in the housing needs survey.

 

The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications) advised that the local housing needs survey was specific to Much Hadham and had identified a requirement for smaller units. Officers had afforded this more up-to-date evidence greater weight than the District Plan policy.

 

It was further noted that the second element of Policy MH10 requires development to preserve priority views and to ensure that any adverse effects on the landscape, the conservation area, and the historic environment were minimised.

 

The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications) confirmed that the proposed development would not fully preserve Priority View 6 and would lead to a degree of change to this view. However, having carefully reviewed the technical findings of the landscape assessment, officers concluded that the resulting effects on the wider landscape character and the historic environment of the conservation area would be acceptable in planning terms.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that a tree survey and arboriculture impact assessment had been submitted with the application. These identified a number of low-quality (Category C) trees and confirmed that higher quality trees would be retained.

 

The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications) referred to the nominations policy and the criteria for allocating tenants to affordable housing. He highlighted the housing needs survey and advised that location, alongside other criteria, was considered. He further advised that Planning Officers did not have the policy tools within the planning process to influence allocations, which are governed through the Section 106 legal agreement.

 

Members asked questions in relation to trees, surface water drainage, and parking provision, with particular reference to the Neighbourhood Plan and the Council’s parking standards.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the development would provide for the planting of 129 new trees and confirmed that all higher quality Category A and B trees located centrally within the site would be retained. It was further noted that the surface water drainage strategy had been reviewed by the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency, neither of which had raised objections.

 

The Principal Planning Officer also confirmed that the scheme would provide 70 off-street parking spaces, compared to a requirement of 71 spaces under the Council’s parking standards. Members were shown the proposed garage layout, and it was noted that driveway parking had been incorporated into the scheme.

 

The Section 106 Programme Manager responded to a number of questions relating to the legal agreement, including childcare provision and the contribution from Hertfordshire County Council.

 

Members commented on the proposed boundary treatment for Hill House and Elm House, particularly in relation to the entrance road and its width. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the access arrangements complied with highway requirements, including the provision of a 5.5-metre-wide carriageway. It was also noted that the scheme included a footway, hedgerow, and new tree planting.

 

Officers considered that the proposed boundary treatment, together with the native hedgerow indicated on the submitted plans, was acceptable and would respect the rural character of the area while delivering biodiversity enhancements.

 

Members requested clarification regarding the status of the open amenity land and the education site. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Section 106 Agreement secures the transfer of the education land to the school. It was further confirmed that the public open space will be publicly accessible and will be maintained by a management company responsible for the wider development.

 

The Legal Adviser said that Section 106 legal obligations run with the land and were binding on any successors in title and ownership. Any landowner including a management company were liable to adhere to the obligations for the lifetime of the development unless and until the obligation was varied by application to the local planning authority.

 

Councillor Thomas proposed and Councillor Dunlop seconded, a motion that application 3/25/1097/FUL 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 3/25/1097/FUL be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

 

At 20:31 (8:31 pm) Councillor Watson proposed and Councillor Buckmaster seconded a motion that there be a brief adjournment for a comfort break. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED – that there be a brief adjournment for a comfort break.