31-home housing development at Land To The Rear Of Hill House, Tower Hill, Much Hadham

What was proposed

The application proposed 31 homes, affordable housing, a new Tower Hill access, open space, play areas, school land, parking and landscaping.

“This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 31 dwellings (use class C3), together with a new vehicular access from Tower Hill, internal access roads, landscaping works, drainage features, car parking areas and cycle storage facilities. The scheme would also provide an area of public open space, which would incorporate pedestrian routes and two small informal areas for play. In addition, the proposal includes the change of use of a parcel…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a 3.47-hectare field with woodland, mostly outside Much Hadham’s boundary, near the school, footpaths, Oudle Lane and the River Ash.

“The application site measures approximately 3.47 hectares in area and is predominantly made up of an undeveloped field, together with small pockets of woodland. This field is situated to the east of Much Hadham, which is designated as a group one village in the East Herts District Plan (2018). The site is largely outside of, but adjacent to, the village boundary of Much Hadham.”

“The site is located to the east of Tower Hill (B1004), which is the main route running through Much Hadham. The field is however set-back from this road, as it sits to the rear of several properties that front onto Tower Hill (B1004). Directly to the south of the site is a public footpath (Much Hadham 025) and beyond this there are houses on Ash Meadow, as well as several protected trees.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history, but three pre-application discussions considered an earlier 34-home scheme and concerns about its design and impacts.

“The initial 2024 pre-application submission proposed the delivery of 34 new homes on the site. The site layout for that pre-application is shown in the image below. Officers questioned several elements of this pre-application scheme, including the density of the development, the lack of landscaping, potential impacts on views, possible effects on heritage assets, the materiality, the roof forms and the number of accessible homes.”

“Within their submitted Design and Access Statement and Planning Statement the applicant has sought to explain how the scheme has evolved throughout the pre-application process. In addition, these documents set out how, in the applicant’s view, the final scheme responds to the comments made by officers at pre-application stage.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the benefits of housing, affordable homes, open space and school land outweighed the identified landscape, heritage and other harms.

“Given the above assessment, officers consider that the benefits of the scheme (principally the delivery of housing, the provision of affordable housing, the creation of public open space and the provision of land to the school), taken cumulatively, should attract significant positive weight. Whereas, the adverse impacts arising from the development should, cumulatively, be assigned moderate negative weight.”

Officer report

What residents said

Across three consultation rounds, 83 responses objected, 10 were neutral and one supported the application, with concerns including traffic, flooding, wildlife and housing mix.

“Across three rounds of consultation, 94 responses have been received from local residents and other third parties. 83 of these…”

“Highways and Parking • There is concern regarding increased traffic. • Increased traffic would lead to air pollution. • There are highways safety concerns, given the position of the site close to a school. • Visibility from the access would be restricted by parked cars. • Vehicular access should be provided from Oudle Lane or Ash Meadow. • The access is not safe for use by refuse vehicles. • There is concern regarding emergency vehicle access.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two speakers addressed the committee in support, and a speaker addressed it on behalf of Much Hadham Parish Council.

What members discussed

Members questioned the Neighbourhood Plan, housing mix, affordable housing allocations, trees, drainage, parking, boundaries, public access and school land.

“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.”

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

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Thomas proposed approval, Councillor Dunlop seconded it, and the motion was carried.

“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.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions set out in the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED – that application 3/25/1097/FUL be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.”

Minutes