Up to 95 homes at Land To The East Of High Road, High Cross

What was proposed

An outline scheme sought up to 95 homes, access, landscaping, open space, transport links, drainage and land for cemetery, education and allotments.

“This application seeks permission for the erection of up to 95 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access. The proposal also includes the provision for associated landscaping, open space, pedestrian and cycle linkages, internal roads, drainage and sewerage (including SUDS) and associated infrastructure, together with land for cemetery, education and allotment uses.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is agricultural land outside High Cross’s settlement boundary, beside existing development, the A10 and heritage assets, and lies in Flood Zone 1.

“To the north is Sutes Farm, including the Grade II* Farmhouse barn and associated buildings. To the south and west is the village boundary of High Cross. The High Road bounds the site to the west and provides the existing access to the site. The road is lined to the east by 2 storey…”

“The site is outside of but adjacent to the defined settlement boundary of High Cross and lies within the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt. The land is not within any local or statutory landscape or heritage designation.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history on the site, while a nearby application for up to 36 homes was awaiting completion of a legal agreement.

“The following application at land west of High Road, in High Cross (nearby to the application site) is pending issue of approval subject to completion of the S106 agreement:”

“3/24/0284/OUT - Outline planning permission for the erection of up to 36 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because housing and affordable housing benefits, contributions and community improvements outweighed policy conflict, transport reliance, landscape and heritage effects.

“As detailed above, the proposal will result in less than substantial harm at the lower end of the scale to the setting of nearby listed buildings. This harm is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposals (comprising the provision of housing including affordable homes, the provision of burial ground, allotments and the additional school area, and transport improvements in the area along with the sustainable transport contribution and the contribution towards bus…”

“Given the above assessment, officers conclude that the benefits of the proposal, principally housing delivery and affordable housing provision, should attract significant positive weight. Whereas the adverse impacts arising from the development including its location outside of a defined settlement and on rural land beyond the green belt should be assigned moderate negative weight…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, flooding, archaeology, conservation, environmental health and landscape consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while infrastructure bodies requested contributions.

“HCC (Hertfordshire County Council) Highway Authority: Raise no objection subject to the imposition of conditions, highway improvements and 106 infrastructure contributions.”

“EHDC Environmental Health (Noise and light): No objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions relating to sound insulation, construction and lighting.”

Officer report

What people said

The parish council and most respondents objected over countryside development, sustainability, traffic, flooding, infrastructure, character, heritage and ecology; some respondents supported housing and facilities.

“The proposal is contrary to the East Herts District Plan and the Thundridge Neighbourhood Plan. • The proposal would fall outside of the village boundary, encroach on the countryside and have an urbanising impact on the character of the village and designated heritage assets. • The proposal does not represent sustainable development.”

“Submission is not detailed enough • Housing market will pick up and more houses will be delivered • elsewhere • The site is not identified for housing in the Neighbourhood Plan • Para 14 of NPPF takes precedence over Local plan • Conflict with policy for rural area beyond green belt – GBR2 • The proposal is not sustainable development • Will set precedent for other development • No benefit to local community • There has already been too much additional development • Need…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a supporter and a representative of Thundridge Parish Council addressed the committee, with the supporter and parish representative answering questions.

What members debated

Members questioned links, highway access, agricultural vehicles, density, sustainability, flooding, archaeology and the weight given to heritage impacts.

“Members commented on the access for agricultural vehicles to the farm site. Concerns were expressed regarding the access for increasingly larger tractors. The Principal Planning Officer set out the position of the highway authority as the technical consultee in terms of volume and the passage of agricultural traffic.”

“Members raised concerns about the sustainability of the site and the potential archaeological impact of the proposed development. In particular, they queried the degree of negative weight that should be applied in relation to heritage impacts.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted to extend the meeting until 10:30 pm.

“At this point in the meeting 21:50 (9:50 pm), Councillor Watson (Chair) proposed, and Councillor Thomas seconded, a motion that the meeting continue for 30 minutes past 10 pm, until 10:30 pm.”

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

Minutes

The decision

The officer recommendation was to grant permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement.

“That planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the imposition of conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.”

Officer report