Up to 36 homes at Land West Of High Road, High Cross

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 36 dwellings, with access considered now and all other matters reserved.

“This application seeks permission for the erection of up to 36 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is uncultivated grassland in equestrian use beside High Road, outside High Cross’s settlement boundary and opposite listed buildings and a school.

“To the north and west of the site are defined agricultural fields. A mature hedgerow is situated along its boundary with High Road. To the east, across High Road is the Puller Memorial Primary School and the Parish Church of Saint John’s High Cross. To the south, there is the High Cross Jet service station and the village’s historic core featuring residential houses.”

“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 landscape or heritage designation but is opposite the Grade II listed St Johns Church and Grade II Puller Memorial Primary School.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier outline permission for 27 dwellings was refused because housing supply was sufficient and the benefits did not outweigh countryside and settlement-location harm.

“Planning permission was refused for outline consent for the erection of 27 dwellings under application reference 3/17/2216/OUT on the basis that the Council could demonstrate a housing land supply of 6.2 years. The development of a site outside of a settlement and the (limited) adverse impact on the rural landscape was not significantly outweighed by any other material planning consideration.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because significant housing and affordable housing benefits outweighed moderate adverse impacts, with conditions and a legal agreement.

“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 should be assigned moderate negative weight.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, drainage, archaeology, conservation, environmental health, landscape and water consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or contributions.

“HCC (Hertfordshire County Council) Highway Authority: Raise no objection subject to the imposition of conditions.”

“EHDC Environmental Health (Land): No objection subject to the imposition of conditions.”

Officer report

What people said

Most representations objected to countryside encroachment, village expansion, unsustainable travel, traffic, flooding, landscape harm and effects on village character.

“The proposal would fall outside of the village boundary, encroach on the countryside and have an urbanising impact on the character of the village. • The proposal does not represent sustainable development. • The benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm. • The Council has a 5 year housing land supply and therefore the proposal should be judged in accordance with the development plan.”

“The proposal will increase the size of the village with no benefit to existing residents • There has already been too much additional development • The proposal will not meet the needs of the community • The proposal breaches the village boundary • Countryside encroachment and loss of green space • Loss of village identity • The proposal is not sustainable development • The proposal will impact on views of the school contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan • Increased traffic…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, two supporters and the local ward member addressed the committee and answered questions.

What members debated

Members discussed transport, local services, housing need, heritage harm, protected views, landscape information, archaeology, drainage and the housing land supply.

“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.”

“495 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.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to grant permission subject to the stated conditions was proposed, seconded and carried.

“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.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions set out for the application.

“RESOLVED – that application 3/24/0284/OUT be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.”

Minutes