Public Document Pack
Alison Stuart Head of Legal and Democratic Services
MEETING : DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE VENUE : COUNCIL CHAMBER, WALLFIELDS, HERTFORD DATE : WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH 2019 TIME : 7.00 PM
PLEASE NOTE TIME AND VENUE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Councillor T Page (Chairman) Councillors M Allen, D Andrews, P Boylan, R Brunton, S Bull, M Casey, B Deering (Vice-Chairman), J Jones, J Kaye, P Ruffles and T Stowe
Substitutes
Conservative Group: Councillors P Ballam, S Cousins, D Oldridge and K Warnell
(Note: Substitution arrangements must be notified by the absent Member to the Committee Chairman or the Executive Member for Development Management and Council Support, who, in turn, will notify the Committee service at least 7 hours before commencement of the meeting.)
CONTACT OFFICER: PETER MANNINGS 01279 502174 [email protected]
This agenda has been printed using 100% recycled paper DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS
1. A Member, present at a meeting of the Authority, or any committee, sub-committee, joint committee or joint sub- committee of the Authority, with a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) in any matter to be considered or being considered at a meeting:
must not participate in any discussion of the matter at the meeting;
must not participate in any vote taken on the matter at the meeting;
must disclose the interest to the meeting, whether registered or not, subject to the provisions of section 32 of the Localism Act 2011;
if the interest is not registered and is not the subject of a pending notification, must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days;
must leave the room while any discussion or voting takes place.
2. A DPI is an interest of a Member or their partner (which means spouse or civil partner, a person with whom they are living as husband or wife, or a person with whom they are living as if they were civil partners) within the descriptions as defined in the Localism Act 2011.
3. The Authority may grant a Member dispensation, but only in limited circumstances, to enable him/her to participate and vote on a matter in which they have a DPI.
4. It is a criminal offence to: fail to disclose a disclosable pecuniary interest at a meeting if it is not on the register; fail to notify the Monitoring Officer, within 28 days, of a DPI that is not on the register that a Member disclosed to a meeting; participate in any discussion or vote on a matter in which a Member has a DPI; knowingly or recklessly provide information that is false or misleading in notifying the Monitoring Officer of a DPI or in disclosing such interest to a meeting.
(Note: The criminal penalties available to a court are to impose a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and disqualification from being a councillor for up to 5 years.) Public Attendance
East Herts Council welcomes public attendance at its meetings and will provide a reasonable number of agendas for viewing at the meeting. Please note that there is seating for 27 members of the public and space for a further 30 standing in the Council Chamber on a “first come first served” basis. When the Council anticipates a large attendance, an additional 30 members of the public can be accommodated in Room 27 (standing room only), again on a “first come, first served” basis, to view the meeting via webcast.
If you think a meeting you plan to attend could be very busy, you can check if the extra space will be available by emailing [email protected] or calling the Council on 01279 655261 and asking to speak to Democratic Services.
Audio/Visual Recording of meetings
Everyone is welcome to record meetings of the Council and its Committees using whatever, non-disruptive, methods you think are suitable, which may include social media of any kind, such as tweeting, blogging or Facebook. However, oral reporting or commentary is prohibited. If you have any questions about this please contact Democratic Services (members of the press should contact the Press Office). Please note that the Chairman of the meeting has the discretion to halt any recording for a number of reasons, including disruption caused by the filming or the nature of the business being conducted. Anyone filming a meeting should focus only on those actively participating and be sensitive to the rights of minors, vulnerable adults and those members of the public who have not consented to being filmed. AGENDA
1. Apologies
To receive apologies for absence.
2. Chairman's Announcements
3. Declarations of Interest
To receive any Members' declarations of interest.
4. Minutes - 13 February 2019 (Pages 7 - 24)
5. Planning Applications and Unauthorised Development for Consideration by the Committee (Pages 25 - 30)
(A) 3/18/2253/OUT - Hybrid Planning application comprising: (i) A full application for 142 dwellings (class C3) including affordable homes, plus associated accesses, landscaping, open space and infrastructure works (development zone A), and a north/south primary route; (ii) An Outline application, with all matters reserved except access, for approximately 608 (Class C3) including affordable homes, a care home (Class C2) , up to 4 hectares of employment land (classes B1, B2, B8 sui Generis (car showroom)), a local centre including up to 1,000 sq m for retail (Class A1), and up to 2,200 sq m for other uses (Classes A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1), a primary school (Class D1) up to 3 forms of entry and including early years facilities, a secondary school (Class D1) up to 8 forms of entry, open space including equipped areas for play, sustainable drainage systems, landscaping and all associated infrastructure and development at Land at Bishop's Stortford South off Whittington Way, Bishop's Stortford (Pages 31 - 208)
Recommended for Approval (B) 3/18/1523/FUL - Development of 200 homes with associated access, landscaping, parking, private amenity space, public open space and allotments at Land At Chalks Farm, South Of West Road, Sawbridgeworth (SAWB3) (Pages 209 - 250)
Recommended for Approval
(C) 3/18/1960/FUL - Proposed three storey extension and internal extension of first floor level within the existing building, together with change of use from former police station, fire station and citizens advice office (Sui Generis) to form new D1 Medical Centre with B1 Office Space and A1 Retail Pharmacy. Enlarged, altered and new ground floor and first floor window openings. Creation of cycle parking shelter at Meade House, 85 High Street, Ware, SG12 9AD (Pages 251 - 266)
Recommended for Approval
6. Items for Reporting and Noting (Pages 267 - 368)
(A) Appeals against refusal of Planning Permission/ non-determination.
(B) Planning Appeals Lodged.
(C) Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing Dates.
(D) Planning Statistics.
7. Urgent Business
To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration and is not likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information. Agenda Item 4
DM DM
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WALLFIELDS, HERTFORD ON WEDNESDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2019, AT 7.00 PM
PRESENT: Councillor T Page (Chairman) Councillors M Allen, D Andrews, P Boylan, R Brunton, S Bull, M Casey, B Deering, J Jones, J Kaye, P Ruffles and T Stowe
ALSO PRESENT:
Councillors A Alder, E Buckmaster, G Cutting, S Rutland-Barsby and J Wyllie
OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Simon Aley - Interim Legal Services Manager Eze Ekeledo - Service Manager (Development Management) Major Applications Terence Flynn - Arboricultural Officer Peter Mannings - Democratic Services Officer William Richards - Principal Planning Officer Jill Shingler - Planning Officer Christine - Project Manager Ogunkanmi
Page 7 DM DM
Nick Reed - Planning Officer David Snell - Service Manager (Development Management) Kevin Steptoe - Head of Planning and Building Control Services
385 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman referred to a number of housekeeping issues in relation to the fire alarm, exits, the need to silence mobile devices and the unisex toilets outside of the Council Chamber.
The Chairman stated that this was Kevin Steptoe’s last meeting as the Head of Planning and Building Control as he had been seconded to the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town Project. He thanked Kevin for his consistent, sound and persuasive advice and for teaching him a lot during the monthly Chairman’s Briefing. The Chairman concluded that Kevin’s job had not been easy but he had always found time to talk to Members in a proactive manner.
386 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor T Page declared non-pecuniary interests in applications 3/18/0432/FUL and 3/18/1922/FUL on the grounds that he was a Member of Bishop’s Stortford Town Council.
Councillor B Deering declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 3/18/0432/FUL on the grounds that he
Page 8 DM DM
was a Member of Hertfordshire County Council.
387 MINUTES - 16 JANUARY 2019
Councillor P Ruffles proposed and Councillor J Kaye seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2019 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.
RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2019, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
388 CONFIRMATION OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO.7 2018 P/TPO 617 AT NORTH ROAD HOUSE, NORTH ROAD, HERTFORD, SG14 1LR
The Executive Member for Development Management and Council support submitted a report inviting Members to consider the objections to the making of the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) received from the Managing Agents for the Neighbouring property Ebenezer Court, 2 North Road.
The Arboricultural Officer stated that Members were being asked to consider the objections and reasons for making the TPO and to determine whether Tree Preservation Order No 7 2018 P/TPO 617 should be confirmed without modification.
Councillor P Ruffles proposed and Councillor J Jones seconded, a motion that Tree Preservation Order No. 7
Page 9 DM DM
P/TPO 617 should be confirmed without modification. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.
The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Executive Member for Development Management and Council Support as now submitted.
RESOLVED – that Tree Preservation Order No 7 2018 P/TPO 617 be confirmed without modification.
389 3/18/0432/FUL - ERECTION OF MULTI STOREY CAR PARK (MSCP) OVER SIX LEVELS PROVIDING 546 SPACES, OPEN AIR SURFACE CAR PARKING FOR 27 SPACES TO THE NORTH OF THE CAR PARK. ERECTION OF A 4 STOREY BUILDING WITH COMMERCIAL USE AT GROUND FLOOR AND 15 RESIDENTIAL FLATS ARRANGED OVER THE UPPER 3 LEVELS, PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE AND ASSOCIATED HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC REALM WORKS. PROVISION OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS BETWEEN ADJACENT YOUTH SERVICES SITE AND LAND TO EXTERNAL PARKING AREA TO NORTH OF MSCP. REMOVAL OF FENCE AND RETAINING WALL AT FOR EHDC CAR PARK AND LAND TO NORTH, NORTHGATE END, BISHOP'S STORTFORD CM23 2ET FOR EAST HERTS COUNCIL
The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/0432/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.
The Principal Planning Officer, on behalf of the Head of
Page 10 DM DM
Planning and Building Control, introduced the report and the reason for resubmission to the Committee following the judicial review process. He detailed the location of the site in the North East corner of the Bishop’s Stortford conservation area. Members were advised of a number minor amendments as detailed in paragraph 1.4 of the report submitted. The Planning Officer advised that the only significant change as a result of amendments following the judicial review process was the deletion of the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA).
Members were advised that the application had been the subject of fresh consultation and Members were advised of the detailed policy background with particular reference to District Plan policy HA4 in respect of the character and appearance of conservation areas. Members were also advised that the proposed 197 spaces was a net gain on a smaller footprint than the current surface level car park.
The Planning Officer commented at length in respect of the material planning issues as well as the planning balance. He referred to what Officers believed was a neutral impact and advised Members that a neutral impact was not harmful and this was backed up by case law. The Head referred to the late representations summary and he advised that, if Members were supportive of the proposals, an additional informative was suggested that the applicant liaise with neighbours in respect of property access and safeguarding issues.
Mr Kratz addressed the Committee in objection to the
Page 11 DM DM
application. Miss Stephens spoke for the application. Councillor J Wyllie addressed the Committee as a local Member.
Councillor D Andrews referred to the need for clarity in respect of the number of parking spaces and the proposed tenure of the affordable housing units. Councillor J Kaye commented that the proposed development did not respect the colours used in nearby buildings. He emphasised that the development would be useful to Bishop’s Stortford but would clearly not be welcomed by the residents of Yew Tree Place.
The Interim Legal Services Manager responded to a query from Councillor R Brunton in respect of the judicial review. He stated that this was essentially the same application with the minor change of the deletion of the MUGA. In his view the report had covered the issues raised by the high court judge.
The Head referred to the proposal for 40% affordable housing with shared ownership intermediate housing as being policy compliant. He reiterated that it was not the role of Members in this Committee to consider alternative sites. The site was located within flood risk zones 2 and 3 and the results of a flood risk assessment had indicated that the proposed mitigation measures would constitute an improvement in flood risk terms. A sequential test in terms of suitable alternative sites in respect of the flood risk had been satisfactorily undertaken.
The Planning Officer stated that the applicant had
Page 12 DM DM
sought to ensure that building materials would be in harmony with the brickwork that had already been used in the area such as that which could be seen in the nearby youth centre. Members were advised that for schemes such as the Old River Lane development proposals, facilities and infrastructure were essential to the success of such proposals.
Members were advised that this corner of the Bishop’s Stortford conservation area was not extraordinary and an argument could be made that a surface level car park had a detracting influence. The Head explained that any harmful impacts had to be balanced against the public benefits of proposed development. He emphasised that Officers felt that the impacts of this application were neutral in respect of the character and appearance of the conservation area.
Councillor M Allen commented on condition 27 and the closure of the Causeway Car Park for public use. In response to comments from Councillors P Boylan, B Deering and J Jones, the Head explained that a ground level car park such as the Causeway was not considered to be an asset in conservation terms.
Members were advised that a neutral impact in respect of the conservation area meant that the proposed development would not harm the conservation area and would therefore at least preserve it. The impact of the proposals in relation to all relevant parts of policy HA4 of the District Plan had been set out in detail in the report.
The Head referred to the location of the nearby car
Page 13 DM DM
dealership making it a prominent building in the public realm. The proposed development car park building would be orientated north to south with narrow area of a visible frontage on the highway compared to the depth of the building. The development would also be stepped down from 6 to 4 storeys adjacent to the Link Road frontage and, to the west, would be partially concealed by the commercial/ residential building.
The Head referred to condition 27 regarding the closure of the Causeway Car Park and explained that the proposed Multi Storey would become the principle car park motorists would be directed to so as to avoid motorists circulating around the town centre road network looking for a parking space and causing resultant congestion.
The Head stated that conservation areas across the district, including Bishop’s Stortford, had been subject to reassessment over the last 4 to 6 years. Their importance was as a result of a mix of attributes and not just the built heritage. The assessment report had not identified this application site location as being one which comprised an individually important site contributing to the character of the area. He advised Members to take a view, in respect of the impact on the conservation area, which considered the quality of it as a whole.
The Interim Legal Services Manager advised that taking a conservation area as a whole, there were a number of ways of looking at a conservation area rather than in terms of simply considering the physical appearance of buildings. Members should consider the application in
Page 14 DM DM
terms of harm and the benefits.
Councillor M Casey proposed and Councillor R Brunton seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/18/0432/FUL, the Committee support the recommendation for approval, subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted and authority being delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control in respect of formulating the conditions going forward.
After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED. The Committee supported the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.
RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/18/0432/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted and authority being delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control in respect of formulating the conditions going forward.
390 3/18/1760/FUL - DEVELOPMENT OF 140 DWELLINGS INCLUDING VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSES, CAR PARKING, OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, AND ASSOCIATED WORKS; AND PROVISION OF LAND TO FACILITATE THE EXPANSION OF MANDEVILLE PRIMARY SCHOOL AT LAND NORTH OF WEST ROAD, SAWBRIDGEWORTH (SAWB2)
The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application
Page 15 DM DM
3/18/1760/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.
The Service Manager (Development Management), on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, referred to paragraph 5.17 of the report submitted and stated this should have read 3FE in respect of Mandeville School. He referred to the master planning process and the adoption of the master plan for this area in July 2018.
Members were advised of the proposed layout and design of the application and were also advised that the Strategic Housing sites work had attached positive weight to this site. The planning balance was in favour of a sustainable form of development and this application had demonstrated a good standard of design and was judged to be sustainable. The Service Manager summarised the recommendation as detailed in the report submitted.
Mr Brudenell addressed the Committee in support of the application. Mr Bowran addressed the Committee in objection to the application on behalf of Sawbridgeworth Town Council. Councillors A Alder and E Buckmaster addressed the Committee in objection to the application as local ward Members.
Councillor J Jones commented on the level of pepper potting of the social housing being less than he considered to be desirable. He expressed concerns about the incomplete highways mitigation and was also concerned about the narrow access via West
Page 16 DM DM
Street.
Councillor P Boylan made reference to the clear level of concern amongst Town Council Members, local Members and Local Residents. He sought clarification with regard to whether there was a Neighbourhood Plan in preparation for the area. He also expressed concerns in respect of access for emergency vehicles.
Councillor T Stowe referred to paragraph 8.28 and the Section 278 agreement. He questioned whether conditions could control the use of the garage spaces on this site. Councillor M Casey commented on whether bungalows could be insisted upon as part of this application.
The Head referred to the master planning process and advised that the output of this process was more generic than planning application proposals. Members were advised that Officers had to judge the extent to which schemes were sufficiently aligned to the requirements of master plans. Members were also advised that West Road was the only viable option for vehicle access to this site.
The Service Manager stated that the proposed highways mitigation and the Section 278 agreement and the suggested highways junction had all been designed to the satisfaction and preference of the highway authority. This was all covered by different legislation to other mitigation conditions and legal agreements.
Members were also advised of the hybrid situation in
Page 17 DM DM
respect of forms of entry for schools. The Service Manager referred to the modelling of strategic sites being carried out by the education authority. He stated that the social housing would be pepper potted around the site and all of the houses would be of a uniform design. The social housing would therefore be indistinguishable from the market housing and the housing Officer was satisfied with this approach.
The Head summarised conditions 15 and 16 and stated that the site had been configured with emergency vehicles in mind in that the site had been designed to accommodate refuse vehicles which were about the same size as a fire engine. Members were also advised that all developers involved with Sawb 2 and 3 were committed to providing high speed fibre optic broadband.
Councillor D Andrews emphasised that fibre provision should mean to every household and not just a street cabinet. He commented on the illegal and dangerous practice of driving on the footway. He sought clarity in respect of electric vehicle charging points and the conditions and commented on the discharge of surface water.
Councillor J Jones expressed concerns that the NHS Section 106 contribution had not identified any specific project for the suggested contributions. The Head commented that the local NHS authority simply did not indicate specific local projects when requesting Section 106 contributions.
The Service Manager detailed the intended operation
Page 18 DM DM
of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Solution (SUDS). The Head responded in detail to a query form Councillor Andrews in respect of the bullet points on page 8.30 on page 252 of the report submitted. The Head referred in particular to conditions that could be amended to be clearer in respect the provision of car charging points.
Members were advised that the suggested drainage scheme stipulated that all surface water drainage would be absorbed on site except in cases of a 1 in 100 year flood event resulting in a discharge into the wider water system. The Service Manager referred to a number of flood attenuation measures included as part of the application.
Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor M Casey seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/18/1760/FUL, the Committee support the recommendation for approval, subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.
After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED. The Committee supported the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.
RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/18/1760/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to a legal agreement and subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted; and
(B) the Head of Planning and Building Control be granted delegated authority to finalise the
Page 19 DM DM
detail of the Legal Agreement and conditions.
At this point (9.53 pm), the Committee passed a resolution that the meeting should continue until the completion of the remaining business on the agenda.
391 3/18/1922/FUL - LANDSCAPE REDESIGN OF THE TOWN CENTRE PARK, INCLUDING PROTECTIVE CONSERVATION WORK TO WAYTEMORE CASTLE (GRADE 1 LISTED AND DESIGNATED SCHEDULED MONUMENT), CLADDING THE STEPS UP THE SIDE OF THE CASTLE MOUND, REMOVING CONCRETE CAPPING ON WELL AND REPLACE WITH GLASS COVER, NEW PATHS AND REVISED PATH NETWORK, REMOVAL OF EXISTING BRIDGE AND 2 FOOTBRIDGES, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BRIDGE AND FOOTBRIDGE, REFURBISHMENT OF THE BUILDINGS, DEMOLITION OF GARAGES, RELOCATION OF THE TENNIS COURTS, EXPANSION OF THE TEENAGE RECREATION SPACE, RIVERBANK RE-GRADING, RELOCATION OF A VICTORIAN DRINKING FOUNTAIN, CHANGES TO TREES AND SHRUBS, IMPLEMENT NEW LIGHTING SCHEME. PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND CHANGE OF USE OF COMMUNITY BUILDING TO CAFE (A3 USE CLASS) WITH AN ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY ROOM, CONSTRUCTION OF ASSOCIATED TERRACE AND CHANGE OF USE OF TOILET BLOCK TO A COMMUNITY ROOM AT CASTLE GARDENS, WAYTEMORE CASTLE, THE CAUSEWAY, BISHOP'S STORTFORD, CM23 2EL
The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/1922/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.
Page 20 DM DM
The Principal Planning Officer, on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control, summarised the application and detailed a number of elements of the proposed development including alterations to the park and opening up of the area around Waytemore Castle, improvements to the formal gardens around the war memorial and the introduction of a pontoon in the River Stort.
Members were advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority had not objected to the application and had submitted further comments as detailed in the additional representations summary. The Planning Officer advised that a further objection had been received from a resident and this was also detailed in the representations summary.
Members were advised that the tennis courts were to be moved away from the setting of Waytemore Castle and changes to the Markwell Pavilion included the demolition of the Elsie Barrett Room. A change of use of the disabled toilet block and removal of garages next to the pavilion was proposed along with a raised terrace area.
The Principal Planning Officer detailed the main planning issues for Members to consider. She referred in particular to the War Memorial as well as the improvements to the setting of the Listed Building. There would be no significant harm to the ecology of the area and bats would not be harmed by the proposed lighting as there were no roosting bats in the castle.
Page 21 DM DM
Members were advised that the improvements to the site outweighed the harm and flood risk would be mitigated by a sustainable drainage solution. The scheme was in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and would enhance the character and appearance of the area so was recommended for approval. Councillor J Wyllie addressed the Committee by reading out a statement on behalf of Mrs Mione Goldspink in objection to the application. He stressed that he was himself supportive of the application.
Councillor R Brunton proposed and Councillor P Boylan seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/18/1922/FUL, the Committee support the recommendation for approval, subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.
After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED. The Committee supported the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.
RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/18/1922/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted; and
(B) the Head of Planning and Building Control be granted delegated authority to add any further conditions, as might be required, with regard to flood risk and land drainage as a result of further response from the Lead Local Flood Authority.
Page 22 DM DM
392 3/18/2653/LBC - INTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO OUTBUILDING TO CREATE SHOWER ROOM AT WALLFIELDS, PEGS LANE, HERTFORD, SG13 8EQ
The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/2653/LBC, subject to the outcome of referral to the Secretary of State, listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.
Councillor M Allen proposed and Councillor M Casey seconded, a motion that in respect of application 3/18/2653/LBC, subject to the outcome of referral to the Secretary of State, the Committee support the recommendation for approval subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.
After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED. The Committee supported the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.
RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/18/2653/LBC, subject to the outcome of referral to the Secretary of State, listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report submitted.
393 ITEMS FOR REPORTING AND NOTING
RESOLVED – that the following reports be noted:
(A) Appeals against refusal of planning
Page 23 DM DM
permission / non-determination;
(B) Planning Appeals lodged;
(C) Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing dates; and
(D) Planning Statistics.
The meeting closed at 10.10 pm
Chairman ......
Date ......
Page 24 Agenda Item 5
EAST HERTS COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – 20 MARCH 2019
REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING
PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE
WARD(S) AFFECTED: As identified separately for each application and unauthorised development matter.
Purpose/Summary of Report:
To enable planning and related applications and unauthorised development matters to be considered and determined by the Committee, as appropriate, or as set out for each agenda item.
RECOMMENDATION FOR DEVELOPMENT MANGEMENT COMMITTEE That: (A) A recommendation is detailed separately for each application and unauthorised development matter.
1.0 Background
1.1 The background in relation to each planning application and enforcement matter included in this agenda is set out in the individual reports.
2.0 Report
2.1 Display of Plans
2.2 Plans for consideration at this meeting will be displayed outside the Council Chamber from 5.00 pm on the day of the meeting. An Officer will be present from 6.30 pm to advise on Page 25 plans if required. A selection of plans will be displayed electronically at the meeting. Members are reminded that those displayed do not constitute the full range of plans submitted for each matter and they should ensure they inspect those displayed outside the room prior to the meeting.
2.3 All of the plans and associated documents on any of the planning applications included in the agenda can be viewed at: http://online.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/wphappcriteria.di splay
2.4 Members will need to input the planning lpa reference then click on that application reference. Members can then use the media items tab to view the associated documents, such as the plans and other documents relating to an application.
3.0 Implications/Consultations
3.1 Information on any corporate issues and consultation associated with this report can be found within Essential Reference Paper ‘A’.
Background Papers The papers which comprise each application/ unauthorised development file. In addition, the East of England Plan, Hertfordshire County Council’s Minerals and Waste documents, the East Hertfordshire Local Plan and, where appropriate, the saved policies from the Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, comprise background papers where the provisions of the Development Plan are material planning issues.
Contact Member: Councillor Suzanne Rutland-Barsby – Executive Member for Development Management and Councillor Support.
Contact Officer: Sara Saunders – Head of Planning and Building Control, Tel: 01992 531656. [email protected] Page 26 Report Author: Sara Saunders – Head of Planning and Building Control, Tel: 01992 531656. [email protected]
Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank ESSENTIAL REFERENCE PAPER ‘A’
IMPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS
Contribution to Priority 1 – Improve the health and wellbeing of our the Council’s communities. Corporate Priorities/ Priority 2 – Enhance the quality of people’s lives. Objectives (delete as Priority 3 – Enable a flourishing local economy. appropriate): Consultation: As detailed separately in relation to each matter if any are appropriate.
Legal: As detailed separately in relation to each matter if any are appropriate.
Financial: As detailed separately in relation to each matter if any are appropriate.
Human As detailed separately in relation to each matter if any Resource: are appropriate.
Risk As detailed separately in relation to each matter if any Management: are appropriate.
Health and As detailed separately in relation to each matter if any wellbeing – are appropriate. issues and impacts:
Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5a
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – 20 MARCH 2019
Application 3/18/2253/OUT Number Proposal Hybrid Planning application comprising: (i) A full application for 142 dwellings (class C3) including affordable homes, plus associated accesses, landscaping, open space and infrastructure works (development zone A), and a north/south primary route; and (ii) An Outline application, with all matters reserved except access, for approximately 608 (Class C3) including affordable homes, a care home (Class C2) , up to 4 hectares of employment land (classes B1, B2, B8 sui Generis (car showroom)), a local centre including up to 1,000 sq m for retail (Class A1), and up to 2,200 sq m for other uses (Classes A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1), a primary school (Class D1) up to 3 forms of entry and including early years facilities, a secondary school (Class D1) up to 8 forms of entry, open space including equipped areas for play, sustainable drainage systems, landscaping and all associated infrastructure and development. Location Land at Bishop’s Stortford South off Whittington Way, Bishop’s Stortford Parish Bishop’s Stortford CP (part) Thorley CP (part) Ward Bishop’s Stortford South
Date of Registration of 19 October 2018 Application Target Determination Date 7 December 2018 Reason for Committee Major application Report Case Officer Jenny Pierce
RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be GRANTED subject to a legal agreement/ the conditions /the reason(s) set out at the end of this report.
Page 31 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the Legal Agreement and conditions.
1.0 Summary of Proposal and Main Issues
1.1 The site forms part of the development strategy in the East Herts District Plan 2018 as detailed in Policies DPS1, DPS2 and DPS3, and Bishop’s Stortford Policies BISH1 and BISH5. The site is allocated for residential-led mixed use development of around 750 units.
1.2 The application is a hybrid application which proposes a full application for the construction of 142 dwellings plus associated accesses, landscaping, parking and private amenity space as well as infrastructure works necessary to serve the first phase of the overall site known as Development Zone A. This area lies between Whittington Way and the Hertfordshire Way and will form the northern gateway into the site. In addition, the north/south primary spine route is included in full in this part of the application.
1.3 The application also seeks Outline permission, with all matters reserved, except for the access (which is included in the full application), for approximately 608 homes, care home, employment land, a local centre, land for a primary school of up to three forms of entry, land for a secondary school of up to eight forms of entry, open spaces and landscaping and all infrastructure including sustainable drainage systems.
1.4 The application submission follows from the decision of Council on 25th July 2018 to agree the Masterplan Framework submission for the site as a material consideration for development management purposes.
1.5 The main issues for consideration are:
The delivery of the District Plan housing strategy; Compatibility with the Masterplan Framework; Housing mix, density and affordable housing provision; Highway impact, mitigation and parking provision; Page 32 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Design and layout; Healthy and safe communities, community infrastructure; Education facilities; Other proposed uses; Flood risk management and sustainable drainage Contamination and pollution; Natural environment; Infrastructure delivery; Overall sustainability.
1.6 Members will need to consider the overall planning balance and whether the proposal will result in a sustainable form of development having regard to the above considerations.
2.0 Site Description
2.1 The site comprises of open land currently in agricultural use, situated to the south of Whittington Way. To the east, the site is adjacent to residential properties on London Road. To the west, the site is bounded by Obrey Way. To the south, the site is bounded by the St James Way distributor road, beyond which lies open agricultural land and the Green Belt.
2.2 The overall size of the site is approximately 53ha in area, of which 21.10ha is to be developed for housing.
2.3 Planning History
2.4 The following planning history is of relevance to this proposal:
Page 33 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Application Proposal Decision Date Number Comprehensive development comprising
1. The change of use of land from agricultural to educational use (Use Class D1) with a combined maximum total gross external floorspace of 32,000 square metres.
2. Related works including: a) The construction of an internal access road, car and coach parks, servicing and dropping off facilities, cycle sheds, cycleways and footways. b) The construction of a floodlit multi-use games 3/08/1117/OP Withdrawn 03.12.2008 area. c) The formation of grass playing fields plus hard and soft landscaping, wildlife habitats, balancing ponds, drainage ditches and boundary fencing.
3. The formation of new roundabouts at the Whittington Way /Bishops Avenue and Whittington Way /Pynchbek junctions providing direct vehicular access to the proposed schools site.
4. The provision of cycleway and footway links plus enhanced bus stopping Page 34 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
facilities within highway land in the vicinity of Whittington Way and Thorley Lane. Comprehensive development comprising the change of use of land to educational use (Class D1) and the erection of buildings with a combined total gross external floorspace of 26,000 square metres plus related site works consisting of the construction of an internal road, car parking areas; a temporary construction access onto Refused 04.10.2010 Obrey Way; a floodlit multi- 3/10/1012/OP use games area and all Dismissed 10.09.2012 weather pitch; formation of on appeal playing fields and associated drainage works. Associated infrastructure works to Whittington Way to include; construction of 2 new roundabouts; provision of cycleway and footway links, and enhanced bus stop facilities at Land South of Whittington Way, Bishops Stortford.
3.0 Main Policy Issues
3.1 These relate to the relevant policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the East Herts District Plan 2018 (DP) and the Bishop’s Stortford: All Saints, Central, South and Part of Thorley Neighbourhood Plan (NP).
Page 35 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Main Issue NPPF DP policy NP policy Delivery of the District Section 5 INT1, HDP1 Plan housing strategy DPS1, DPS2, DPS3, BISH1, BISH5 Compatibility with the DES1 Masterplan Framework Housing mix, density Section 5 HOU1, HOU2, HDP4, and affordable housing HOU3, HOU6, HDP5 provision HOU7, HOU8 Highway impact, Section 9 TRA1, TRA2, HDP3, GIP5 mitigation and parking TRA3 TP1, TP2, TP3, TP4, TP5, TP5a, TP7, TP8, TP10, TP11, BSS4 Design and layout Section BISH5, HDP3, 12 DES1, DES2, BSS2, DES3, DES4, GIP4, GIP5 DES5, DES6, CC1, CC2 Healthy and safe Section 8 DES5 HDP5, CI, communities, including CFLR1, CFLR3, GIP3, GIP6 community CFLR7, CFLR9, HP1, HP2, infrastructure CFLR10 SLCP1, SLCP2, BSS3 Education facilities BISH5 EP1, EP2, EP3, CFLR10 EP4, EP5, EP6, EP7 Other proposed uses Section 6 ED1 BP1, BP2, BP5 Section 7 RTC5 DES5, CFLR1, CFLR3 CFLR7, CFLR9 CFLR10 Flood risk Section WAT1, WAT2 HDP3, management, 14 WAT3, WAT4 GIP7 including climate WAT5, WAT6 Page 36 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
change, water CC1, CC2 efficiency and quality Contamination and Section EQ1, EQ2 TP2 pollution 15 ED3, EQ4 Natural environment Section DES2 GIP3, GIP4, 15 NE1, NE2 GIP5, BSS5 NE3, NE4 Heritage impact Section HA1, HA2 HDP9 16 Infrastructure delivery Section 2 DEL1 CI and planning Section 4 DEL2 obligations Overall sustainability Section 2 Chapter 1 INT1
Other relevant issues are referred to in the ‘Consideration of Relevant Issues’ section below.
4.0 Summary of Consultee Responses
4.1 HCC Highway Authority recommended permitting the proposed development subject to conditions, the proposed mitigation measures and Section 106 contributions, as specified in their response. The full comments of the Highway Authority are attached Essential Reference Paper ‘A’.
4.2 The methodology for the preparation of the Transport Assessment was agreed with the applicant via a number of pre-application
4.3 meetings. This includes details relating to trip generation, distribution and the scope of the assessment.
4.4 Lead Local Flood Authority requested more evidence be provided with regards to draw-down times and the overall capacity of the sustainable drainage network which has been provided and approved. The drainage strategy caters for all rainfall events up to and including 1 in 100 year events plus a contingency of 40% to take Page 37 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
into account future climate change. Greenfield run-off rates are achieved.
4.5 EHDC Engineering Advisor requested more information regarding the potential palette of sustainable drainage features. After a signposting exercise, the Engineer was satisfied that sufficient information was provided and a suitable condition could be added to any grant of permission to ensure the most appropriate method of sustainable drainage is used across the site, in consultation with the Local Planning Authority.
4.6 Thames Water identified an inability of the existing foul water network infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the development and therefore requested a condition be added to any grant of permission which will ensure that upgrades to the network will be completed prior to the occupation of development. Further comments requested that the proposal incorporates measures to mitigate storm conditions and indicated that permits may be required where discharging ground water to the public network. Following the provision of more information from the applicant, Thames Water advised that provided the application follows the sequential approach to the disposal of surface water, they have no objection.
4.7 Affinity Water advised that the site is located within an Environment Agency defined Groundwater Source Protection Zone corresponding to Sawbridgeworth Pumping Station. The construction works and operations of the development should therefore be done in accordance with relevant British Standards in order to reduce groundwater pollution risks. If pollution is found at the site, monitoring and remediation works will need to be undertaken. Affinity Water therefore recommend the addition of an informative condition which minimises any risks from construction works.
4.8 EHDC Housing Development Advisor requested further information be provided with regards to the location of affordable units on the plan, which was subsequently provided. She commented that the Page 38 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
scheme proposes 142 units of which 56 will be affordable, which complies with the affordable housing requirement of 40%. The tenure split of 84% rent and 16% shared ownership complies with the requirements of the District Plan.
4.9 EHDC Conservation and Urban Design Advisor commented that the layout of Development Zone A is reasonable and the parameters in the Masterplan Framework which will guide later phases of development also provide a good basis for the determination of later detailed applications. He notes that the site has been the subject of extensive pre-application advice provided by Allies and Morrison, an independent urban design practitioner commissioned by the Council. The urban design advice informed the detailed elements of Development Zone A as well as the Masterplan Framework subsequently agreed by the Council in July 2018.
4.10 HCC Historic Environment Unit stated that the site has been subject to comprehensive geophysical survey and trial trenching, which have identified that the levels of preservation of the archaeological remains on the site are good and are therefore of at least regional importance. This means that there may be more to discover in the area that will help archaeologists understand the history of settlements and human activity in the area. It is therefore recommended that further archaeological work be undertaken prior to the development which will be secured by condition. This will enable the monitoring and recording of findings, and if necessary ensure the protection of important features. It will also make provision for the display of finds for educational purposes.
4.11 EHDC Landscape Advisor sought the submission of an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan prior to the determination of the application. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been submitted in response to this request. The Landscape Officer recommended that the application be refused due to the location of two dwellings (plots 24 and 25), but indicated that suitable amendments should overcome the concerns raised. There is no objection to the Outline element of the application.
Page 39 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
4.12 Herts Ecology provided comments to the application throughout the pre-application stage and in response to matters raised by the Manchester Airport Group (see below), but did not comment on the submitted application. The Ecologist is satisfied that the submitted surveys represent sufficient information to enable the assessment of impacts. Given the limited ecological value of the current intensive arable fields, the proposed green infrastructure will enhance the biodiversity across the site and therefore a Biodiversity Impact Calculator would not be necessary for either on-site or off- site mitigation, compensation or enhancements.
4.13 Natural England and the National Trust advised that there may be recreational impacts on the Hatfield Forest SSSI and National Nature Reserve. They have therefore requested a condition be added which ensures that a further assessment be carried out on the potential recreational impact arising from this site on the forest and if necessary, that this site contributes financially to mitigation measures identified in consultation with Natural England and the National Trust.
4.14 HCC Growth and Infrastructure Unit requested financial planning obligations towards education, child care, primary education, secondary education, youth provision, library provision and the provision of fire hydrants.
4.15 HCC has modelled the level of primary and secondary pupil yield which is expected to occur as a result of the cumulative development of allocated sites within Bishop’s Stortford. This will require the full delivery of a three form entry primary school and the expansion of the Bishop’s Stortford High School and the Herts and Essex High School and Science College, which will be secured via the Section 106 Agreement.
4.16 Public Health Hertfordshire considered that the proposal is well thought through and has the potential to promote good health and wellbeing. Conditions are recommended to ensure that the proposal continues to adhere to the Masterplanning Principles and Building for Life design principles. Conditions are also Page 40 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
recommended regarding the management of public open spaces, the design of streets to encourage physical activity rather than being dominated by vehicles, regarding air quality and regarding measures to encourage mode shift to sustainable transport.
4.17 EHDC Environmental Health Advisor recommended that a number of conditions will be required should the Council be minded to grant planning permission. These relate to noise attenuation and the need for a Construction Management Plan for the first phase of the development; and regarding noise, construction management, contamination and remediation, odour, air quality and lighting for the Outline element of the application to cover all possible land uses proposed.
4.18 EHDC Operations set out details in relation to the specification of the circulation route to be used by refuse vehicles. The team also set out detailed requirements in relation to bin storage for flats and collection points for houses. A condition will be recommended which will secure a waste collection strategy is prepared in consultation with the Local Planning Authority.
4.19 Herts Police Crime Prevention Advisor notes that the documents have been amended and show a commitment to meeting the Police preferred minimum security standard that is ‘Secured by Design’. He recommends the addition of gates to help provide security for car parking areas, and now feels able to fully support the proposal.
4.20 Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust (HMWT) supported the overall strategy towards the provision of green infrastructure and achieving net gains to biodiversity. However, it objects to the application because a Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator has not been completed.
4.21 Manchester Airports Group (MAG) advised that there is a potential conflict with aerodrome safeguarding criteria relating to birdstrike avoidance. The proposed sustainable drainage features within the green infrastructure corridor could provide attractive features for birds which may increase the risk of birdstrike to aircraft using Page 41 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Stansted Airport. Following a meeting with the Safeguarding Officer it was agreed that amendments to the Landscape Strategy and Sustainable Drainage Strategy will provide a design solution which will make the resultant features less attractive to large flocking birds. They recommend a condition which will require a Bird Hazard Management Plan to be submitted to detail proposed mitigation measures. This condition would apply to the Outline element of the application and would also apply to the proposed education facilities.
4.22 Ramblers Society do not support in principle, where a Right of Way is dissected by a road, and therefore request the provision of safe crossing points. They request that all Rights of Way have continual visibility along their length with no buildings to obscure long views; and in order to retain the rural feel of routes there should be a 15 metre width dimension to green routes. They also request that improvements are made to green spaces beyond the application site such as within the Stort Valley corridor and the Southern Country Park.
4.23 Bishop’s Stortford and District Footpaths Association objected to the hybrid approach to the application. They raise concern about the need for a boundary treatment to the secondary school grounds in the context of retaining unobstructed long distance views from the Hertfordshire Way. They highlight the requirements set out in the Neighbourhood Plan Policy BSS5 which requires a three metre wide footpath and a ten metre wide wildlife corridor on either side of the footpath. Furthermore, they request further information regarding improvements to the cycling network, in particular the proposed route awareness strategy. Concern is also raised about the number of access points to the first phase of the development in terms of the safe crossing of pedestrians and cyclists.
4.24 Sport England has requested that confirmation is provided regarding the scale of off-site contributions and the proposed projects towards which these will be directed. Sport England support the use of school land for sports and recreation secured by a Community Use Agreement, but highlight the limitations of such Page 42 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
agreements in terms of being able to meet the community football needs as identified in the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy. Furthermore Sport England recommends that open spaces provided beyond the education sites are designed to facilitate informal outdoor sports and recreation.
(Note: EHDC, East Herts District Council; HCC, Hertfordshire County Council)
5.0 Town/Parish Council Representations
5.1 Bishop’s Stortford Town Council comments are summarised as:
The Town Council objects to the application in principle and in particular the provision of new access points onto Whittington Way. The Town council questions the need for the development and consider the site fails to meet Neighbourhood Plan policy requirements. They also request further justification for the proposed care home and car showroom elements.
The full comments of the Town Council are attached as Essential Reference Paper ‘B’.
5.2 Thorley Parish Council comments are summarised as:
The Parish Council objects to the application on the grounds of the proposal being contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan, not adhering to ‘Garden Village’ principles, being contrary to Policy VILL3, uncertainty over future green belt boundaries and being contrary to the District Plan and County Councils Local Transport Plan 4 policies. The Parish Council are concerned about the proximity of the site to Stansted Airport and the impact of noise on the new uses and occupants.
The full comments of the Parish Council are attached as Essential Reference Paper ‘B’.
Page 43 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
6.0 Summary of Other Representations
6.1 1,411 responses were received in response to the consultation, of these 1,392 object. The responses object to the proposals on the following grounds summarised as:
An increase in traffic congestion, in the immediate area and within the town centre of Bishop’s Stortford; A lack of sustainable transport measures such as bus routes and cycle networks as a means of mitigating the increase in traffic; Train line to London cannot cope; A lack of parking within the town centre; Impact of diversionary traffic through rural roads to the east of the town such as Pig Lane; Need for a south-eastern bypass; Development is on Green Belt land or land that was formerly Green Belt; A lack of infrastructure (including community infrastructure such as schools, GPs and hospital) which will be exacerbated by this site and cumulative development; Additional shops will add congestion and pollution; Town centre is failing and cannot support new growth; Development is not needed because of development to the north of the town; Loss of countryside, agricultural fields, green space, tranquil walking and bridle way routes; Impact on protected wildlife species; Recreational pressure on Hatfield Forest and Southern Country Park; Concern about increased flooding; Opposition to car showroom; Concern about proximity of flightpath; Lack of renewable energy in designs.
Page 44 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
6.2 11 responses have been received supporting the proposals on the following grounds:
Support for new secondary school; Support for new homes.
6.3 Local Ward Members Cllr Wyllie and Cllr Stainsby objected to the application.
6.4 Bishop’s Stortford Civic Federation objected to the site in principle on the grounds of loss of Green Belt, lack of sustainable transport infrastructure, impact on community facilities, being contrary to Policy VILL3 given its location in Thorley parish and being contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan due to access on to Whittington Way. They also suggest that housing need is far less than planned for in the District Plan negating the need for development.
6.5 They raise concern that there will be insufficient education facilities to accommodate needs and it will take too long before new facilities are ready for use, that the site is too far from community facilities including local shops and that there is a need for a new GP surgery. The Federation also raise concern that the design of the homes proposed are standard design and pay no regard to local vernacular.
6.6 They also raise concern about the transport assessment and modelling undertaken, in particular impacts on the Hockerill junction and congestion in other parts of the town with a lack of mitigation measures.
6.7 The full comments of the Civic Federation are attached as Essential Reference Paper ‘D’.
6.8 Old Thorley and Twyford Park Residents Association reiterated comments made by the Civic Federation and Thorley Parish Council and in addition, feel that the consultation and engagement has been insufficient to date as it excluded the association.
Page 45 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
6.9 The full comments of the Residents Association are attached as Essential Reference Paper ‘E’.
7.0 Consideration of Issues
Delivery of the District Plan housing strategy
7.1 The objections of residents, the Town Council and Thorley Parish Council are noted. However, the site forms part of the District Plan development strategy for housing growth in the District as detailed in policies DPS1, DPS2, DPS3, and BISH1. Policy BISH5 allocates the site for residential-led mixed-use development of around 750 new homes. As a result of the allocation, the site is no longer part of the Green Belt and Policy VILL3 Group 3 Villages is not relevant. Whilst it is acknowledged that Bishop’s Stortford South falls largely in Thorley Parish, it is being planned as an urban extension to Bishop’s Stortford. As such, there is no ‘in principle’ reason to restrict development.
7.2 Policy BISH5 allocates the site for the delivery of 750 homes between 2018 and 2027. The application has therefore been submitted as a hybrid proposal which seeks the approval in Outline for the site as a whole, whilst at the same time seeks approval of the first phase of the development in detail, known as Development Zone A. Included in the detailed application is the northern and southern main access points and the spine road infrastructure. This approach facilitates the delivery of the first 142 homes whilst expediting the delivery of the key infrastructure for the site as a whole. Development can therefore begin in tandem with further engagement on the detail of the later phases of the development. The early delivery of the main spine road and supporting utilities infrastructure is required to unlock the central area of land earmarked for the relocation and expansion of the Bishop’s Stortford High School and the delivery of the primary school. The County Council and school governing body have aspirations to open the new secondary school in September 2021. This therefore carries significant positive weight. Page 46 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
7.3 The Outline application will provide 40% affordable housing in each development zone along with a wide variety of house types and sizes including apartments. The Masterplan Framework for the Outline application makes provision for a care home of up to 80 beds to be located in the southern development zone along with self-build/custom-build plots, which will be secured via the Section 106 Agreement. The application contributes to the creation of sustainable communities by providing an employment area, local retail units and community facilities on site, and creating and contributing towards sustainable transport modes including bus, pedestrian and cycling networks. This therefore carries significant positive weight.
Compatibility with the Masterplan Framework
7.4 Policy DES1 of the District Plan provides that all significant proposals will be required to prepare a Masterplan setting out the quantum and distribution of land uses, sustainable high quality design and layout principles, necessary infrastructure, the relationship between the site and adjacent land uses, landscape and heritage assets and other relevant matters. The Masterplan will be prepared collaboratively with the Council, town and parish councils and other relevant stakeholders.
7.5 The masterplanning process for the site commenced in 2016 through the preparation of the Local Plan which involved a series of meetings with Officers, followed by the Bishop’s Stortford South Steering Group in 2017 to the current day. The Steering Group comprises Officers, local ward Members and representatives from Thorley Parish Council and the Old Thorley and Twyford Residents Association.
7.6 The Masterplan Framework was developed in consultation with Officers through extensive pre-application discussions. This process was supported by the attendance and receipt of detailed advice from Allies and Morrison (an independent urban design consultant). The applicant responded positively to this advice and this has been Page 47 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
carried forward into the detailed elements of the planning application and the preparation of the Masterplan Framework for the site as a whole. Two public exhibitions have also been held in December 2017 and February 2018.
7.7 In addition, further meetings were also held with Officers of the Highway Authority, Officers of the Lead Local Flood Authority and Officers of the Education Planning Authority.
7.8 The Masterplan Framework differs from a ‘Masterplan’ in that it does not provide full details of all aspects of the design and layout. Instead it sets out a clear vision for the development and the key masterplanning principles that the site as a whole will meet. The Masterplan Framework sets out the proposed areas for different land uses along with clear parameters over building heights and density and the approach to landscaping and green infrastructure, movement and accessibility across the site as a whole. The proposals for both Development Zone A and the Outline application are in accordance with the Masterplan Principles and the Masterplan Framework that has been adopted by the Council on 25 July 2018 as a material consideration for development management purposes.
7.9 The Outline application and the detail of Development Zone A are in accordance with the Masterplan Framework and therefore carries positive weight.
Housing mix, density and affordable housing provision
7.10 The detailed element of the application proposes 142 units for Development Zone A in the following mix:
Page 48 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Market housing
Type Number % SHMA % One bed flat 0 6 Two bed flat 0 7 Two bed houses 4 5 12 Three bed houses 55 64 46 Four bed houses 27 31 23 Five bed houses 0 6 Total 86
Affordable housing
Type Number % SHMA % One bed flat 18 32 19 Two bed flat 9 16 11 Two bed houses 14 25 29 Three bed houses 13 23 34 Four bed plus houses 2 4 7 Total 56
7.11 The proposed housing mix for Development Zone A provides a reasonable mix of property sizes. However, compared to the housing mix identified in the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) the first phase provides more three and four bed houses and considerably more affordable one bed flats. Whilst this therefore carries some negative weight, it reflects the current market and meets the principle of providing family-sized accommodation. Development Zone A provides a policy compliant split for the affordable units in terms of the units that will be available for affordable rent (84%) and intermediate affordable shared ownership (16%). This therefore carries positive weight.
7.12 The proposed affordable housing units will be satisfactorily distributed within Development Zone A. The proposal therefore accords with Policy HOU3.
Page 49 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
7.13 Policy HOU7 requires that all dwellings are to meet the Building Regulations Requirement M4(2) Category 2 – Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings. All units apart from the upper floors of the apartment buildings, which are accessible only by stairs, will be meet this requirement. In addition, 12.5% of affordable units in the first phase will meet M4(2) Category 3 - Wheelchair User Dwellings. Whilst the wheelchair user provision is considered to be reasonable, the fact that not all units in Development Zone A are accessible should be given some negative weight. However, it should be recognised that the costs of providing and maintaining elevators within small affordable apartment blocks can be prohibitive to Registered Local Landlords, and therefore carries neutral weight overall.
7.14 The Masterplan Framework sets clear parameters for providing a greater variety of character areas and densities within the site as a whole. This will facilitate a wider housing mix being delivered, including the delivery of homes for older and vulnerable people in accordance with Policy HOU6 and BISH5. Each Reserved Matters application for later phases will be required to deliver a policy- compliant housing mix.
7.15 The provision of Self-Build and Custom-Build housing within subsequent phases of development will be secured via the Section 106 Agreement to ensure compliance with Policy HOU8.
7.16 The provision of housing and affordable housing on this strategic allocated site in accordance with the District Plan development strategy is necessary to ensure that housing land supply is maintained should be attributed significant positive weight.
Highway impact, mitigation and parking provision
7.17 A Transport Assessment has been submitted. The methodology and scope for the preparation of the Transport Assessment was agreed by the Highway Authority via a number of pre-application meetings and scoping notes prior to the submission of the application. Following further assessment of the submitted planning application, Page 50 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
HCC recommend permitting the development subject to mitigation conditions.
7.18 The detailed element of the application includes the main central spine road and its northern and southern access points on Whittington Way and St James Way respectively in full. Throughout the pre-application process, the principle of securing access only from the two existing roundabouts on St James Way was explored. Not only was there inadequate space to facilitate the creation of additional arms on the existing roundabouts but this was considered to prejudice the creation of an enhanced passenger transport network which would run through the site. It would also remove the opportunity to design a neighbourhood hub with a local centre and area of new employment land in an accessible location which would be served by the provision of an enhanced passenger transport service which runs through the site towards the town centre, as required by Policy BISH5 of the District Plan.
7.19 The proposed Travel Plan for the Outline application as a whole sets out how three existing bus routes will be diverted into the site to ensure new homes are within a short distance of bus stops, with routes that will take them to the town centre, the station and beyond to Stansted Airport. The Travel Plan sponsors this diversion for a number of years (to be agreed through the discussion with Arriva and the Highway Authority), and furthermore, new households will be entitled to apply for two free annual season tickets as part of travel packs provided. Separate provision will also be made for the employment uses on the site, the details of which will be set out in the Reserved Matters applications for these development phases. The provision of a sustainable transport route which serves the employment area, neighbourhood hub and educational facilities in addition to the residential areas has significant positive weight.
7.20 The first phase of the development includes three residential access points on to Whittington Way. The main spine road will include a bus only section where the road crosses the Hertfordshire Way Footpath. This is to give priority to the sustainable transport routes Page 51 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
as well as to limit the impact of the development on Whittington Way to just the homes delivered in Development Zone A. This is in accordance with Policy BSS4 of the Neighbourhood Plan which requires access points to be designed to minimise extra traffic flows through the residential area of Thorley Park. This is also in accordance with District Plan Policies TRA1 and TRA2.
7.21 The proposal has been amended through the Masterplanning Steering Group process and through the initial public consultation. The amendment removes the western-most Obrey Way access to Development Zone A. Concerns were raised about the northern section of Obrey Way being too narrow and potentially hazardous. The removal of this access results in a simpler internal layout and facilitates the provision of a new footpath around the north-west corner of the site to improve the pedestrian environment in the vicinity of the Obrey Way/Pynchbeck/Villiers-Sur-Marne roundabout. This footpath will connect to the new east-west green corridor and to a crossing on Obrey Way which links to existing pedestrian routes between Abbotts Way and Dove Close.
7.22 The bulk of the residential development and other proposed uses provided in the Outline application will access the site from the main spine road at the southern access, with a secondary access on Obrey Way, south of Church Lane. The details of this south-western access will be determined through the Reserved Matters stages.
7.23 Some respondents raised concern that vehicle speeds along St James Way are too high. The creation of a new roundabout will help reduce speeds along what is otherwise a long straight section of the distributor road. Similarly with Whittington Way, new features such as signal controlled crossing points, lighting and signage will passively reduce vehicle speeds. This carries positive weight.
7.24 A key ambition of both the District Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan is to ensure opportunities for walking and cycling to and through the site are maximised. This is of particular importance for the education facilities which will both be required to establish and monitor the effectiveness of Green Travel Plans. Considerable Page 52 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
discussions were held throughout the pre-application stage and as a result a four metre shared cycleway and footpath will be created between the schools and the north of the site, continuing west along Whittington Way to ensure connectivity with the existing built up area of the town. And to ensure priority is given to cyclists and pedestrians at each of the new access junctions, the give-way lines for vehicles will be set back as illustrated on Drawing GA1 Rev21.
7.25 Two pedestrian-controlled crossing points will be installed on Whittington Way to ensure safe connections are made, which align with pedestrian desire-lines (mapped by a consideration of the postcodes of current school pupils in their Green Travel Plan). This will ensure that there are clear and safe connections for pedestrians and cyclists between the new and existing residential areas. This is in accordance with Neighbourhood Plan Policies BSS3 and BSS4 and District Plan Policies BISH5, TRA1 and TRA2.
7.26 Much consideration has been given towards the appropriate type of junction to be used at the northern spine road access during pre- application discussions. A new roundabout will ensure that vehicles, including buses benefit from being able to flow freely and will improve the egress of vehicles from Bishop’s Avenue to the north of the site. However, a key aspiration of the District Plan and the County Council’s Local Transport Plan 4 is to maximise connectivity and accessibility to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore the roundabout, which gives priority to vehicles has been designed to slow vehicle speeds through using tight radii, and is complemented by the new shared cycleway and footway and by new crossing points across Whittington Way.
7.27 Similarly, improvements are proposed to the existing cycle network within the town through improved signage and crossing connections. The Highway Authority has recommended the upgrading of a key part of the National Cycle Network in the vicinity of the site in order to improve connections between the site and the station and town centre. This will be secured in the Section 106 Agreement. This project is also identified in the Bishop’s Stortford
Page 53 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Town Council Cycling Strategy. The improvement of this key off-road route carries positive weight.
7.28 The submitted Transport Assessment proposes a number of other mitigation measures that will improve the wider road network, in particular on London Road. These have been approved by the Highway Authority and will be managed via conditions and the Section 106 Agreement. Measures include installing bus priority signals on key junctions and relocating bus stops on London Road by a short distance to enable smoother passing traffic. The Highway Authority recommends a programme of annual monitoring which will ensure the early identification of any problems arising directly from the construction or occupation of the development, including the ability to negotiate further mitigation if required.
7.29 In addition, the application makes provision for a wider Smarter Choices Campaign’ which encompasses not only the proposed new households, but existing homes within the vicinity of the site. This includes the production of information packs detailing sustainable options of travel to help create a culture of travel by non-car means. This programme of monitoring and commitment to providing off- site improvements to the local road network, with the additional Smarter Choices Campaign carry positive weight.
7.30 A comprehensive assessment has been undertaken for the access and movement of service vehicles and for the collection of waste for Development Zone A. These have been approved by the Highway Authority and will be secured by a condition. For the Outline application, these details will be agreed through subsequent Reserved Matters and a condition will require the submission and approval of a Servicing and Delivery Plan.
7.31 The site is within Accessibility Zone 4 (as defined within the Car Parking Supplementary Planning Guidance 2005), and an accessibility reduction of up to 25% may be applicable, providing a parking provision range of 254 to 338 spaces. The detailed application for Development Zone A proposes 60 garage spaces, 35 car barns and 195 allocated spaces; a total allocated provision of Page 54 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
290 allocated spaces. In addition, 32 unallocated visitor spaces are provided in bays distributed around the site. This provision is considered to be satisfactory given the proposed Smarter Choices Campaign, Travel Plan and sustainable transport investment.
7.32 Within Development Zone A, several properties have tandem parking. In these instances, on-road spaces are provided in order to prevent parking overspill and in order to ensure unobstructed passage of service vehicles. Garages and car barns meet current design standards and are of sufficient size to accommodate bike and bin storage. External electricity sockets will ensure opportunities are available to charge electric vehicles. The same parking standards have been applied to affordable homes as to market homes. This is considered acceptable. Detailed parking plans will be provided as part of the Reserved Matters applications for each development phase in due courses.
7.33 In summary, the following sustainable transport measures are proposed:
Pedestrian/cycle routes through the development and connections to the existing urban area of Bishop’s Stortford, linking the development to Southern Country Park, the Stort Valley Corridor, the town centre and station; Sustainable transport corridor through the site; Improvements to London Road/Whittington Way, including bus priority measures; Green Travel Plan, Business Travel Plan and a Smarter Choices Campaign, including a period of monitoring; Free annual bus tickets for new households; Improvement of the Rights of Way (Thorley 001, Thorley 003, Thorley 004 and Bishop’s Stortford 34). Improvement to the National Cycle Network using funds secured through the Section 106 Agreement.
Page 55 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Design and Layout
7.34 The layout of the Development Zone A is in accordance with the Masterplan Framework principles which were formulated during the masterplanning process and subsequently adopted by the Council on 25 July 2018 as a material consideration in determining the planning application.
7.35 Having regard to the characteristics of the site and the surrounding area, the density of Development Zone A, at approximately 31.5 dwellings per hectare (dph), is considered to be acceptable. The Masterplan Framework sets parameters for different densities across the site, with higher densities around the neighbourhood centre, and lower densities towards the south-western and north- western edges of the site. Of the 53ha site, 22.10ha will be residential development, resulting in an average residential density of 34dph. Across the site as a whole, taking into account all other land uses proposed, the overall gross density will be in the region of 14dph. Given the large land take afforded to the schools and employment area, this is considered acceptable and in accordance with District Plan Policy DES4.
7.36 A number of Public Rights of Way traverse the site east-west, notably the Hertfordshire Way which runs through the north of the site, to the south of Development Zone A. The potential impacts on this key east-west footpath were considered in great depth during the preparation of the Masterplan Framework, the parameters of which have been largely led by the desire to minimise impacts on the route, in accordance with District Plan Policy CFLR3 and Neighbourhood Plan Policy BSS5.
7.37 The current footpath currently runs through arable fields, which in the eastern part of the site is limited to a narrow undefined route. The western part of the route is bounded to the north by unmanaged hedgerow. The proposal will enhance this route by providing a clearly defined path with appropriate surfacing and new landscaping. A new focal point will also be created where the Hertfordshire Way intersects the proposed bus-only section of the Page 56 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
spine road, marking where the footway becomes integrated into the urban fabric heading towards London Road. The application also proposes new connections to the footpath from Development Zone A, facilitating access to the longer distance route from the new and existing urban areas. These measures are set out in the submitted Landscape Strategy, the implementation of which will be managed through a condition.
7.38 The proposed parameter plans for the Outline application element seek to maintain the current long views afforded from the footpath in a southerly and south-easterly direction by locating built development at the lowest topographic points from the footpath in accordance with Neighbourhood Plan Policy BSS2 and District Plan Policy BISH5. The Masterplan Framework locates the outdoor sports and recreation facilities of the schools and public green space immediately to the south of the footpath, the building heights of the school and employment buildings will be also be limited, and the incorporation of street trees will provide visual breaks within the built parts of the site.
7.39 Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be a change to the views experienced from the Hertfordshire Way, the Masterplan Framework and submitted Landscape Strategy seek to minimise these impacts, and the proposed improvements to the width and surface treatment of the footpath will be an enhancement from its current condition, making the route more suitable for less able- bodied users. This carries positive weight.
7.40 The continuity of Public Rights of Way is important in order to maintain east-west accessibility across the site. The Outline application therefore proposes to enhance the existing routes through the south of the site by incorporating them within an east- west green corridor, which will connect to the Southern Country Park to the west and London Road and beyond to the River Stort Valley to the east. Where these routes are dissected by Obrey Way and the new north-south spine road there will be safe crossing points installed. The Reserved Matters applications will set out the detail of these crossing points, but these principles are contained Page 57 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
within the Masterplan Framework and will be conditioned. The proposed enhancements to the Public Rights of Way carry positive weight.
7.41 The Outline application intends to deliver a total of 12.02ha of formal public open space, comprising: 2.49ha of parks and gardens and amenity green space; 9.07ha of natural and semi-natural green space; and 0.16ha of attenuation pond space. These spaces will comprise a mix of formal and informal spaces, orchards and new grassland and wetland habitats created by integrating sustainable drainage features into the green spaces. Within these spaces there are opportunities for circular walks and trim trails, social events and interaction with wildlife as well as for informal sport in accordance with Sport England’s advice. These features will contribute positively to the health and wellbeing of residents.
7.42 The Outline application proposes 0.30ha of provision for children and young people. The proposed spaces for children and young people will provide play equipment suitable for a variety of ages including natural play opportunities. The management of the wider Landscape Strategy will be set out in more detail at the Reserved Matters stage, which will also need to set out how the proposed school boundary features will be designed to ensure the provisions of Neighbourhood Plan Policies GIP5, BSS2 and BSS5 and District Plan Policies BISH5 and CFLR3 are met.
7.43 Street trees will form a key part of the street scene of both Development Zone A and within the Outline element. However, a number of existing trees will need to be removed, some due to their decayed condition and some in order to create the new cycleway and footpath routes and access roads. However, the Landscape Strategy describes how lost trees will be replaced with a planting scheme that will create a net gain to biodiversity in accordance with Neighbourhood Plan Policies HDP3 and GIP4 and District Plan Policies DES3 and NE3.
7.44 The new homes in Development Zone A will be predominantly two storeys in height, with some dwellings fronting the Hertfordshire Page 58 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Way and northern green space being two and half storeys. There are three apartment blocks within Development Zone A of three storeys as indicated on Drawings 14-84-P-10 and 1484-P-11. These are used to create focal points adjacent to the northern green space and on either side of the main spine road at the intersection of the bus-only section and the Hertfordshire Way. This is in accordance with the Masterplan Framework, Neighbourhood Plan Policy BSS2 and District Plan DES4.
7.45 The proposed dwellings in Development Zone A incorporate traditional external design and materials of brick and white and buff render with white and black weather-boarding used at focal points. These are reflective of the predominant traditional architecture found in this part of Bishop’s Stortford. There are a variety of house designs and street layouts, including mews-style lanes and set- backs, with an emphasis on permeability for pedestrians and cyclists along streets designed to slow vehicular movement. A mixture of single storey garages and car barns are also proposed. This is in accordance with the Masterplan Framework, Neighbourhood Plan Policy BSS2 and District Plan Policies BISH5 and DES4 and carries positive weight.
7.46 Appropriate distances are proposed between properties in Development Zone A and the existing property of Thorley House adjacent to the Whittington Way, London Road junction, which is a Grade II Listed Building. In addition, the Masterplan Framework describes how appropriate buffers will be designed along the eastern edge of the later phases of development in order to ensure a satisfactory relationship between existing properties on London road, including Highland Road and Hawthorn Rise. The detail of these measures will be set out at the Reserved Matters stage and will include a limit on the height of buildings to two storeys as well as an enhanced landscape belt. This is in accordance with the Masterplan Framework, Neighbourhood Plan Policy BSS2 and District Plan Policies BISH5 and DES4 and carries positive weight.
7.47 Having regard to climate change adaptation and mitigation (Policies CC1and CC2) and the building design requirements of Policy DES4, Page 59 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
the application is supported by a Sustainability and Energy Statement. The Statement comprehensively assesses the advantages and disadvantages of different renewable energy solutions. The applicant’s preferred approach, and one that is in line with the Council’s policy approach and energy hierarchy, is to employ what is known as a ‘fabric-first’ approach. This essentially means that the design of new homes achieves consistently high energy efficiency in order to achieve low CO2 emission rates, through the choice of construction materials, levels of insulation and internal design to reduce the need for mechanical heating and cooling, rather than relying on the use of bolt-on renewable energy technologies. This will result in building design specifications that exceed the requirements of Building Regulations.
7.48 In summary, the following measures are incorporated to reduce energy consumption within the buildings:
Homes designed to promote passive solar gains, maximise natural daylight, sunlight and ventilation with the majority of homes orientated towards the south; New homes and buildings which optimise natural daylight with suitable window sizes relative to living spaces and bedrooms; Installation of high efficiency gas boilers with thermostatic control and programmable timers; Installation of high efficiency, low energy lighting; External walls designed to be resilient to exposure and climate change; Passive control measures such as windows with low g-values to limit solar gains on internal temperatures in summer; Installations of A-rated appliances where possible; Use of low embodied energy materials during construction; The pre-fabrication of components where possible.
7.49 The Sustainability and Energy Statement concludes that the development will achieve a reduction in CO2 emissions when compared to the target values set out in Building Regulations. This is in accordance with District Plan Policies CC1 and CC2 and DES4 and carries positive weight. In addition, the application makes provision Page 60 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
for broadband infrastructure to be installed, facilitating changing working patterns and reducing the need to travel.
7.50 Overall, it is considered that the design and layout of buildings in Development Zone A is of good quality. The Outline application is supported by a number of parameter plans, an overall Landscape Strategy and the Masterplan Framework. It is therefore considered that the parameters set out in the endorsed Masterplan Framework provide a good basis upon which to determine future Reserved Matters applications for the remainder of the site, secured by appropriate conditions.
Healthy and Safe Communities, including community infrastructure
7.51 There are a small number of parking courts within Development Zone A. Following initial concerns raised, the design of the parking courts has been slightly amended so that they are now accessed via under-crofts, which will define private spaces, and each courtyard and area of parking is overlooked by neighbouring properties providing natural surveillance. In order to increase security further a condition will be applied which will require the installation of gates where necessary. In order to prevent blank facades often found in parking courts, there is a combination of parking spaces, car barns and garages. The applicant confirms that the scheme will comply with Secured by Design standards in accordance with District Plan Policy DES5 and as such the Police Crime Prevention Officer fully supports Development Zone A and the principles set out for the Outline element of the application. This carries positive weight.
7.52 The Outline element of the application provides for a substantial level of public open space across the site including a Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play, a Super Equipped Area for Play, Local Equipped Areas for Play along with informal and formal open spaces. Within these spaces there are opportunities for circular walks and trim trails, social events and interaction with wildlife as well as for informal sport and recreation. These features will contribute positively to the health and wellbeing of residents. These principles are set out within the Masterplan Framework Page 61 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
parameter plans and the Landscape Strategy, however, the detail of each space will be provided in Reserved Matters applications in due course.
7.53 As part of the Outline application, in accordance with Policy CFLR10, there will be a Community Use Agreement secured via the Section 106 Agreement to make provision for the use of the secondary school sports facilities and outdoor pitches outside of school operation times. Sport England highlight that such agreements can have limitations. It is therefore proposed that financial contributions are dedicated to enhancing the school sports facilities beyond those required to meet education only standards where appropriate. This will be secured via the Section 106 Agreement and discussions are ongoing with the education authority regarding the education requirements, potential projects and costs.
7.54 It is acknowledged that there will be additional demand arising from new development in terms of sports and recreation and the application will contribute financially to making improvements to existing facilities in order to increase their capacity and/or improve their facilities. The demand for football pitches goes beyond what this site can reasonably be expected to accommodate given that it is allocated for residential-led mixed-use development. In addition to the school land, there will be opportunities within the green infrastructure and open space provision to enable informal sports and recreation. Notwithstanding this, the Council is working with the Bishop’s Stortford Community Football Club to help them identify land solely for their current needs as well as to meet potential future needs. Their aspiration is to consolidate the club’s activities into one ‘hub’ site where they are able to accommodate sufficient numbers of pitches, a club house and spectator facilities. This application will therefore contribute towards meeting these needs through off-site contributions in accordance with Neighbourhood Plan Policies CI and BSS3 and District Plan Policy CFLR7.
7.55 In addition to the education facilities, the Outline application makes provision for community facilities, local retail units and employment land at a neighbourhood centre. The NHS has not responded to the Page 62 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
application at the time of writing, and while it is anticipated that an off-site contribution will be made towards the enhancement of the Thorley Park branch of Church Street Surgery, there is scope within the local centre to accommodate a healthcare facility if a need is later identified. It is further proposed to enhance the Old School House in London Road which is home to a local Scout group. These contributions towards community facilities will be secured via the Section 106 Agreement and carry positive weight.
7.56 The site as a whole will be maintained and managed by a charitable trust, The Land Trust, ensuring a high quality stewardship of the scheme in accordance with District Plan Policy DES4. A Landscape and Ecology Management Plan will be secured via a condition. This carries positive weight.
Education Facilities
7.57 In accordance with Neighbourhood Plan Policies EP1, EP2, EP3, EP4, EP5 and EP6, and District Plan Policies BISH5 and CFLR10, the application will deliver land available for both primary (including early years) and secondary education.
7.58 In relation to primary education, HCC has modelled the yield which will arise not only from the application site as a whole, but also arising as a result of the development of other allocated sites in the town. The application at Bishop’s Stortford South makes provision for sufficient land to accommodate a three form entry primary school. Pupil yield modelling has indicated that approximately 2.05 forms of entry would arise from the application proposals as a whole. However, HCC has requested that a three form school is delivered in order to accommodate the additional yield expected to arise from the other allocated sites. As such, a commensurate proportion of financial contributions will be sought from this application site and each of the allocated sites in turn. This will be secured via the Section 106 Agreement.
7.59 At secondary education level, the Outline element of the application makes provision for a secondary school of up to eight forms of Page 63 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
entry. Pupil yield modelling has indicated that approximately 1.98 forms of entry would be expected to arise from the site as a whole, half of which would be male (0.99FE). It is intended that the current Bishop’s Stortford High School will relocate to the site from their current London Road premises with an immediate expansion of 0.8FE from 5.2FE to 6FE. This leaves 0.19FE of male yield which will be met via the future expansion of the Bishop’s Stortford High School up to 8FE, and 0.99FE of female yield which will be met through the expansion of The Herts and Essex High School and Science College by up to 2FE.
7.60 In terms of cumulative yield arising from other allocated sites, these developments will be required to contribute towards the further expansion of up to eight forms of entry at the Boy’s School and towards the future expansion of the Girl’s School in due course.
7.61 The provision of new and improved education facilities at both primary and secondary level is of significant positive weight.
Other Proposed Uses
Employment and retail
7.62 The Outline element of the application makes provision for 4.01 hectares of employment land alongside a neighbourhood centre which will include up to 1,000sq.m of A1 retail floorspace and up to 2,200sq.m of other uses (Classes A2, A3, A4 A5 and D1). Although no healthcare facility is currently envisaged at the local centre, there is scope within the above Use Classes for part of the floorspace provided to be used for a healthcare facility should this need be identified in the future.
7.63 Within the employment area, a range of uses are proposed (B1, B2, B8 and Sui Generis), this is to ensure flexibility in attracting occupants and investors. The applicant is committed to partaking in and contributing towards a study being commissioned by the Council, which will be looking at the types of employment uses that are suitable and viable for new employment land in the town within Page 64 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
the strategic sites of Bishop’s Stortford North and Bishop’s Stortford South. The principle of employment uses will be determined through granting of this Outline application. However, the detail of the proposed uses will be determined in due course through the Reserved Matters applications. There are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the design of any proposals will meet the expectations of the Masterplan Framework.
7.64 The Masterplan Framework locates these areas within the south- eastern corner of the site close to the southern access, where they will be accessible to the strategic road network and will benefit from a separate access off the main spine road to avoid conflicts with residential uses. This is in accordance with Neighbourhood Plan Policy BSS4 and District Plan Policy TRA2.
7.65 The Outline proposal makes provision for a range of community infrastructure uses as well as local retail facilities within the neighbourhood centre. The relocation and expansion of the secondary school and creation of a new primary school and care home will also provide new job opportunities in addition to those provided in the retail and employment uses. The provision of new employment-generating uses on-site should be attributed significant positive weight.
Flood risk management, including climate change, water efficiency and quality
7.66 The site as a whole lies within Flood Zone 1 and there is therefore no risk from fluvial flooding. The proposal is supported by a comprehensive drainage strategy, and subject to conditions, the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has no objection to the grant of permission.
7.67 There is a small seasonal brook which runs north-west to south-east through the southern part of the site. The Masterplan Framework and Landscape Strategy incorporate this watercourse into the wider green infrastructure and sustainable drainage network for the Outline element of the site, enhancing this habitat within a wider Page 65 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
green corridor. This will have the benefit of storing and cleaning surface water on-site before it is released through managed discharge towards the river Stort, which lies beyond London Road to the east of the site. The integration of sustainable drainage features within the wider Landscape Strategy is in accordance with Neighbourhood Plan Policies HDP3 and GIP4 and carries positive weight.
7.68 The Flood Risk Assessment takes account of 1 in 100 year storm events and makes 40% uplift provision for climate change resilience. Comprehensive calculations have been provided for the site as a whole and detailed diagrams provided for Development Zone A, which have been agreed by the Lead Local Flood Authority. The range of sustainable drainage measures proposed across the site is sufficient to accommodate increases in surface water, including during extreme events. The attenuation of water within the SuDS network on-site will enable the filtration and cleaning of surface water through reed bed systems, and will also ensure flows are managed to prevent flooding downstream within the Thorley Flood Pound SSSI. Detailed designs will be required for subsequent Reserved Matters applications for the Outline elements in due course. The submitted assessments and drainage strategy are considered to meet the requirements of Neighbourhood Plan Policy HDP3 and District Plan Policies WAT1 and WAT3 and therefore carries positive weight.
7.69 In terms of water efficiency, District Plan Policy WAT4 requires that developments achieve a target consumption rate of 110 litres per person per day. The Sustainability and Energy Statement states that this target will be met through the use of a range of water efficiency measures such as dual flush WCs; water meters, Low-flow fittings and, provision of external water butts and where appropriate, water efficient appliances. This carries positive weight.
Contamination and pollution
7.70 EHDC Environmental Health advised that the reports submitted in respect of contamination and noise impact are satisfactory and Page 66 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
conditions are recommended to ensure that potential issues relating to piling operations are managed appropriately in accordance with Policy EQ1 of the District Plan. Conditions are also recommended to ensure appropriate noise and odour mitigation measures are utilised where necessary. Conditions are also recommended to address air quality mitigation and external lighting.
7.71 Of particular local concern is the potential impact of aircraft noise on the amenity of new properties, and in particular on the proposed education facilities. A Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment has been undertaken for the site as a whole, which takes into account the potential noise impacts associated with current and permitted levels of aircraft movements. The results indicate that the south- eastern corner of the site is closest to, but lies beyond the outer noise contour thresholds. This indicates that while this area of the site may be affected by aircraft noise, the occupants should not experience significant daytime annoyance or adverse sleep disturbance effects. The Masterplan Framework locates employment uses within this part of the site rather than residential uses.
7.72 Regardless of the results of the assessment, the conditions recommended by Environmental Health Advisers will ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are in place. Such mitigation measures can include landscaping, acoustic fencing and walls, building orientation and internal layout amendments, triple glazing, insulation and trickle ventilation if required. Full details will be provided alongside the Reserved Matters applications for the later phases of development in due course.
Natural environment
7.73 The site as a whole lies within Area 85 Thorley Uplands of the East Herts Landscape Character Assessment and comprises open farmland.
Page 67 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
7.74 Herts Ecology has not responded to the application, but has provided detailed pre-application advice to the applicant and Officers. Given the current use of the site as intensive arable farmland, there are few features of ecological significance on the site. Submitted ecological surveys do however confirm evidence of protected species within and in the vicinity of the site. The site is in the vicinity of the Thorley Flood Pound SSSI and within the Zone of Influence for Hatfield Forest Special Area of Conservation. Natural England and the National Trust has requested financial contributions towards the mitigation of possible recreational impacts on the forest which is agreed in principle, subject to the results of visitor surveys which quantify potential impacts, the identification of projects and compliance with CIL Regulations.
7.75 The proposed on-site mitigation measures detailed in the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment are reasonable and proportionate. The proposals will satisfy local and national policy to deliver biodiversity gain and therefore carries positive weight. However, a condition is recommended to secure the production of a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan to ensure these mitigation measures are implemented.
7.76 In summary, proposed mitigation for the site as a whole includes:
The creation of a green corridor through the site which integrates SuDS to create a diverse species-rich riparian environment; The creation of informal open space with a variety of ground flora, grassland, trees and hedgerows; The retention and enhancement of trees and hedgerows during construction and occupation (unless agreed in the Landscape Strategy); The removal of dead, diseased and dying trees with replacements where suitable; The integration of bat and bird boxes; A sensitive lighting scheme; New species surveys.
Page 68 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
7.77 Whilst the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust object to the lack of a biodiversity metric, they consider that the proposal will provide net gains to biodiversity. This is endorsed by Herts Ecology advice to Officers which states that a calculator is required in this instance given the current ecologically poor environment and the mitigation measures proposed. Comprehensive surveys have been undertaken and their findings considered sound, therefore both the Outline application and detailed application for Development Zone A comply with the requirements of Neighbourhood Plan Policy GIP4 and District Plan Policies NE1, NE2 and NE3.
Heritage impact
7.78 There are two Listed Buildings along London Road to the east of the Development Zone A: Thorley House and Thorley House Sparrows Nest. However, the proposed buildings in Development Zone A are limited to two storeys in height, are located a sufficient distance from the buildings, and will be set behind a current landscaping belt of dense hedgerow and mature trees. As such it is considered that Development Zone A will not give rise to any heritage impact in accordance with District Plan Policy HA7.
7.79 There are a number of other Listed Buildings along London Road that will be considered at the subsequent Reserved Matters stages in due course. However, the Masterplan Framework sets clear parameters and principles to ensure appropriate relationships are created between the new development and existing properties and in particular to the Listed Buildings.
7.80 Beyond the site to the south-east, the Scheduled Monument of Wallbury Camp lies on elevated ground approximately 750m from the south-eastern corner of the site. A Heritage Impact Assessment has been undertaken accompanied by representatives of Historic England. A series of visual impact assessments were undertaken using the proposed maximum building height parameters, the results of which identify no harm to the Scheduled Monument. This is in accordance with District Plan Policies BISH5 and HA1 and carries positive weight. Page 69 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
7.81 Beyond the site to the south-west, Thorley Church is an important local landmark. Policy BISH5 requires the development to facilitate views towards the church. This will form part of the consideration of Reserved Matters for later phases in due course.
7.82 The site has been subject to a number of geophysical surveys and trenching through previous applications which were extended to cover the extent of the Outline application. There has been a long history of human activity and settlement in the area and surveys have uncovered finds which may be of ‘at least regional importance’. The HCC Historic Environment Adviser therefore recommends a pre-commencement condition to undertake further investigation to assist in the understanding of human activity and to ensure that any finds are appropriately recorded and displayed where necessary. This has been agreed with the applicant. This is in accordance with Policy HA3 of the District Plan.
8.0 Infrastructure/Planning Obligations
8.1 HCC request financial contributions towards nursery education, childcare, primary education, secondary education, youth provision, library provision and the provision of fire hydrants:
Secondary education £9,864,502.00 Primary education £10,000,551.00 Childcare £96,176.00 Youth facilities £30,420.00 Library facilities £121,690.00
8.2 The Highway Authority request £100,000 towards sustainable transport measures which will be used for the improvement of the National Cycle Network. Contributions will also be sought toward the cost of the diversion of bus routes through the site (sum to be agreed), £50,000 toward the provision of bus activation devices at two London Road junctions, and £6,000 Evaluation and Support Fee per Travel Plan towards the administrative costs of monitoring the objectives of the Travel Plan and engaging in any Travel Plan Review. Page 70 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
8.3 In addition, the Highway Authority request that the applicant enter into a Section 278/38 Agreement to make provision for high quality bus stops within the proposed development.
8.4 The NHS has not responded to the application. However, evidence of correspondence between the NHS and the applicant has been submitted to the application which indicates that contributions will be directed towards the Thorley Park branch of Church Street Surgery. Using previously agreed calculations as a basis, it is estimated that this sum will be in the region of £465,660.
8.5 The Local Plan Planning Obligations SPD dates from 2008. A replacement Open Space, Sport and Recreation SPD currently being prepared now that the District Plan has been adopted. In respect of this application, in recommending financial planning obligations, Officers have had regard to the categories of provision that are likely to form the basis of the new SPD. Obligations are to be sought in respect of health and fitness, indoor sport, outdoor playing pitches, allotments and cemetery capacity, subject to the identification of projects and compliance with the CIL Regulations, estimated as follows;
Health and fitness £210,491.00 Indoor sport and recreation £765,835.00 Playing pitches £538,352.00 Allotments £72,579.00 Cemeteries £12,700.00
8.6 However, Members are advised that planning obligations relating to open space, sports and recreation and community facilities are subject to ongoing discussion relating to the identification of projects and in particular whether some of these contributions could be diverted to the secondary school, subject to compliance with the CIL Regulations.
8.7 Members are advised that the planning obligations relating to the site are substantive due to the education mitigation costs arising. As Page 71 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
there may be changes to the number of homes proposed in other strategic allocations across the town, the proportionate costs assigned to this site may also change. The financial obligations are therefore subject to ongoing discussions. Planning conditions may also require amendment. Officers therefore request delegated authority to finalise these matters.
9.0 Planning Balance and Conclusion
9.1 The detailed application of Development Zone A will deliver 142 dwellings as part of the District Plan development strategy, including 56 (40%) affordable units. The Outline application also proposes approximately 608 dwellings, a care home, up to 4ha of employment land, a local centre, a primary school of up to three forms of entry with an early years facility, a secondary school of up to eight forms of entry, and associated community facilities and infrastructure. This carries significant positive weight.
9.2 The proposal delivers land for the relocation and expansion of The Bishop’s Stortford High School and the creation of a new primary school to accommodate the child product of the site (including the cumulative needs arising from the development strategy). This carries significant positive weight.
9.3 Overall, it is considered that the design of the layout and buildings for Development Zone A is of good quality, such that it complies with the policy aspiration for the strategic sites. The site was subject to extensive pre-application discussions and the collaborative masterplanning process. The density of the site at 31.5dph is appropriate and there is a variety of character and design approaches across the site. The drainage strategy provides for the use of good quality SuDS. The fabric of the buildings demonstrates an appropriate reduction in CO2 emissions and water usage. The overall design characteristics of the development carry positive weight.
9.4 The Outline application is supported by a Masterplan Framework with clear parameters and principles, and will be managed through Page 72 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
the submission of subsequent Reserved Matters applications in due course.
9.5 The proposal provides for satisfactory access to the development, an appropriate level of parking provision and the required highway mitigation measures. The highway impacts of the development are therefore considered to be neutral.
9.6 Subject to conditions, the heritage, contamination and pollution impacts of the development are regarded as neutral.
9.7 Subject to conditions, the ecological impacts of the development are regarded as positive.
9.8 The proposal delivers appropriate levels of financial contribution towards infrastructure. This is assigned positive weight.
9.9 The comments of Bishop’s Stortford Town Council and Thorley Parish Council in respect of compliance with specific District Plan policies are noted. However, the scheme’s compliance with Neighbourhood Plan and District Plan policy requirements is addressed above. Officers are satisfied that the scheme complies with District Plan and Neighbourhood Plan policy.
9.10 Overall, the scheme is considered to be of good design quality and a sustainable form of development.
RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be GRANTED, subject to a legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of this report.
That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the Legal Agreement, the contributions to be contained therein and conditions.
Page 73 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Draft Legal Agreement
The provision of 56 units of affordable housing (84% affordable rent and 16% intermediate affordable housing);
The provision of land for the relocation of the Bishop’s Stortford High School;
HCC expansion of the Bishop’s Stortford High School to 6FE
£4,778,970.00
HCC expansion of the Bishop’s Stortford High School beyond 6FE
£158,975.00
HCC expansion of the Herts and Essex High School and Science College
£4,926,557.00
The provision of 2.95ha of land for a new three-form entry primary school, including nursery education;
HCC New Three-Form Entry Primary School and nursery
£10,000,551.00
HCCSustainable transport £100,000.00
HCC Travel Plan monitoring £6,000.00 x 3
HCC Childcare Services £96,176.00 Youth facilities £30,420.00 Library facilities £121,690.00 The provision of fire hydrants Page 74 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
NHS – financial contribution to off-site expansion (Sum to be agreed)
Arrangements for the future maintenance and stewardship of the public realm/public open space and play equipment.
EHDC (subject to the identification of projects and compliance with CIL Regulations)
Health and fitness £210,491.00 Indoor sport and recreation £765,835.00 Playing pitches £538,352.00 Allotments £72,579.00 Cemeteries £12,700.00 Financial contribution towards the renovation of the Scout Centre, Old School, Thorley Lane (Sum to be agreed)
Draft Schedule of Conditions
1. Three Year Time Limit The part of this development for which full planning permission has been granted shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this notice.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to ensure the timely implementation of the development in accordance with Policy DPS1 and BISH5 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
2E10 Approved plans The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this Decision Notice.
Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Page 75 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
2. Outline permission time limit - OUTLINE Applications for the approval of the Reserved Matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than 3 years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted in Outline form shall be begun not later than 5 years from the date of this permission, or not later than one year from the date of approval of the last Reserved Matters, whichever is the later.
Reason: To prevent the accumulation of unimplemented permissions, to comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and to ensure the timely implementation of the development in accordance with Policies DPS3, DPS4 and BISH5 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
3. Details of Reserved Matters No development, in relation to that part of the site for which Outline planning permission is granted, apart from enabling works, earthworks and access works, shall commence before detailed plans showing the layout, scale and external appearance of the buildings to be constructed and landscaping to be implemented (hereinafter referred to as "the Reserved Matters") on that part of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out as approved.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 92 of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 and the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 and to ensure that high standards of urban design and a comprehensively planned development are achieved in accordance with the NPPF.
4. Provision of Self-Build/ Custom-Build Plots As part of the submission of any Reserved Matters application relating to the residential part of the site, there shall be submitted details of the provision to be made for self-build plots, including the timing of that provision. Once agreed as part of the Reserved Matters approval, those plots identified for self-build purposes shall Page 76 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
be made available for that use in accordance with the agreed timescale.
Reason: In order to ensure that appropriate provision is made in accordance with policy HOU8 of the East Herts District Plan 2018).
5. Submission of Phasing Plans Prior to the commencement of any works on the site, a site wide Phasing Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Phasing Plan shall set out the details of the proposed sequence of development across the entire site and the extent and location of individual development phases. Once approved, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan. The Phasing Plan shall include details and relative timescales of the provision of the following matters in relation to each Phase:
a) Major infrastructure including roads, footpaths and cycleways; b) Green and landscaped spaces, including areas for play; c) The location and timing of provision of land for the education facilities; d) Measures to be implemented to ensure wayfinding for both occupiers of the site and for those travelling through it.
Reason: To ensure proper management of the phasing of the development and the provision of relevant infrastructure at appropriate times throughout the development in the interests of the amenity of occupiers and users of the site and in accordance with the requirements of Policies DPS3, DPS4 and BISH5 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
6. Submission of a Construction Management Plan Prior to the commencement of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), a detailed Construction and Traffic Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the construction of the development shall only be
Page 77 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
carried out in accordance with the approved plan. The plan shall include the following:
a) The construction programme and phasing; b) Hours of operation; c) Details of any highway works necessary to enable construction to take place; d) Details of any works to the Public Rights of Way, in accordance with Highway Informative AN6; e) Details of servicing and delivery, including details of site access, compound, hoarding, parking, loading, unloading, turning areas and materials storage areas; f) Where works cannot be wholly contained within the site, a plan should be submitted showing the site layout on the highway, including extent of hoarding, pedestrian routes and remaining road width for vehicle movements and proposed traffic management; g) Management of construction traffic and deliveries to reduce congestion and avoid school pick up/drop off times, including numbers type and routing; h) Control of dust and dirt on the public highway, including details of wheel washing facilities and cleaning of site entrance adjacent to the public highway; i) Details of public contact arrangements and complaint management j) Construction waste management proposals k) Mechanisms to deal with environmental impacts such as noise and vibration, air quality and dust, light and odour. l) Details of any proposed piling operations, including justification for the proposed piling strategy, a vibration impact assessment and proposed control and mitigation measures. m) Post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas and temporary access to the public highway.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the control of environmental impacts, and in order to protect the amenity of existing and future residents during the course of the development in accordance with policies TRA2, CFLR3, EQ2, EQ3 and EQ4 of the Page 78 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
East Herts District Plan 2018 and Policies 5, 12, 17 and 22 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan 2018.
7. Detailed Highways Plans Prior to the commencement of each Phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved) full details (in the form of scaled plans and / or written specifications) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to illustrate the following:
a) Roads, footways; b) Cycleways; c) Foul and surface water drainage; d) Visibility splays; e) Access arrangements, including temporary construction access; f) Parking provision in accordance with adopted standard, including cycle storage; g) Loading areas; h) Turning and circulation areas.
Reason: To ensure suitable, safe and satisfactory planning and development of the site in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).
8. Vehicular Access Prior to commencement of the development for which full planning permission has been granted, the vehicular accesses shall be provided and thereafter retained at the position shown on the approved in principle drawing number GA1 revision 21. With the access roads provided 5.5 metres wide for at least the first 20 metres complete with 8.0 metres radius kerbs thereafter the access roads shall be provided at least 5.0 metres wide to the current specification of Hertfordshire County Council and to the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction. Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.
Page 79 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Reason: To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material or surface water from or onto the highway.
9. Waste Collection Routes and Specification The development for which full planning permission has been granted (Development Zone A) shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Refuse Plan (Drawings 1484-P08, 1484-P-09 and E3796-790K dated 4th March 2019).
Prior to the commencement of each subsequent phase of development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), further details of the circulation route for refuse collection vehicles have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The required details shall include a full construction specification for the route, and a plan defining the extent of the area to which that specification will be applied. No dwelling forming part of the development phase in question shall be occupied until the refuse vehicle circulation route has been laid out and constructed in accordance with the details thus approved, and thereafter the route shall be maintained in accordance with those details.
Reason: To facilitate refuse and recycling collections.
10. Maintenance of Streets Prior to commencement of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved) full details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in relation to the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development. (The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a Private Management and Maintenance Company has been established).
Page 80 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Reason: To ensure satisfactory development of the site and to ensure estate roads are managed and maintained thereafter to a suitable and safe standard.
11. Details of Hard Surfacing Materials Prior to commencement of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), details of all materials to be used for hard surfaced areas within the site, including roads, drainage details, driveways and car parking areas shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that internal roads, drainage and parking areas are built to Highway Authority standards and requirements.
12. School Land Specification 2.95ha of land shall be made available for the provision of a three form entry primary school as set out in the Hertfordshire County Council Primary School Land Specification. Prior to the commencement of development, details regarding the internal school layout in terms of materials to be used for hard surfaced areas including roads, cycleways, footpaths, public rights of way and car parking areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that all highway areas relating to the education facilities are constructed to adoptable standards.
13. School Land Specification – Secondary 12.64ha of land shall be made available for the provision of a secondary school of up to eight forms of entry, as set out in the Hertfordshire County Council Secondary School Land Specification. Prior to the commencement of the development of the secondary school, details regarding the internal school layout in terms of materials to be used for hard surfaced areas including roads, cycleways, footpaths, public rights of way, car parking areas and bus Page 81 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
waiting and turning areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that all highway areas relating to the education facilities are constructed to adoptable standards.
14. Monitoring and Management of Highway Impacts Prior to the commencement of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), a Highway Impact Monitoring and Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This will be agreed in collaboration with the Highway Authority and will set out a mechanism of continual review of the transport impacts of the development to include (but not be restricted to) the installation of traffic counters upon each access, travel plan monitoring and regular dialogue between Developer, Local Planning Authority and Highway Authority. The findings of this work shall be shared between all interested parties with a view to remedying any problems arising directly from the construction or occupation of the development. Such mitigation measures may include:
a) Any capacity benefits unlocked within the London Road corridor being locked in for sustainable transport (inclusive of buses). b) Measures to discourage rat-running use of Pigs Lane for traffic travelling from the site to/from the airport and/or to access the M11. c) Additional measures to reduce severance between the site and the town centre. d) Measures to improve the operation of the London Road/Whittington Way and London Road and Thorley Hill junctions - including bus priority which would be linked through the corridor.
Reason: To ensure that the development is appropriately mitigated to ensure impacts are no worse at any time during the construction phase and on completion of the development.
15. Landscape and Ecology Management Plan Page 82 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Prior to the commencement of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The developer shall thereafter secure and implement such measures in accordance with the requirements of the approved scheme. The Plan shall include full details of both hard and soft landscaping including at least the following: a) Proposed finished levels and contours; b) Means of enclosure; c) Minor artefacts and structures (e.g. street furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting); d) Proposed functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines, etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.); e) Description and evaluation of existing soft landscaping features to be retained; f) Schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/ densities where appropriate; g) Implementation timetables, including clearance to avoid nesting periods; h) Preparation of an annual work plan, including monitoring (which shall include for the provision and maintenance of habitats for a period of not less than 10 years from commencement of the development; i) The implementation of Species-specific mitigation measures as set out in the submitted Ecological Impact Assessments, including Appendices, the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan, the Landscape Strategy and the Environmental Statement (as amended).
Reason: This Management Plan is required to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development to secure the protection of and proper provision for protected species and habitats of ecological interest in accordance with Policies NE1, NE2 and NE3 of the East Herts District Plan 2018 and to ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of Page 83 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
landscaping in accordance with the approved design, in accordance with Policies BISH5, DES3 and DES4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
16. 4P05 Tree/hedge retention and protection All existing trees and hedges shall be retained, unless shown on the approved drawings as being removed. All trees and hedges on and immediately adjoining the site shall be protected from damage as a result of works on the site, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with BS5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demoltion and construction, for the duration of the works on site and until at least five years following contractual practical completion of the approved development. In the event that trees or hedging become damaged or otherwise defective during such period, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented. In the event that any tree or hedging dies or is removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority, it shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, by not later than the end of the first available planting season, with trees of such size, species and in such number and positions as may be agreed with the Authority.
Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing trees and hedges, in accordance with Policy DES3 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
17. Tree Replacement If, within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree approved as part of the landscaping details approved, or any tree planted in replacement for it, that tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted in the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written approval to any variation.
Page 84 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by the proper maintenance of existing and/or new landscape features, in accordance with Policy DES4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018)
18. Programme of archaeological work Prior to commencement of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), an Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Each phase of the development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the approved Written Scheme of Investigation and the provision made for analysis and publication where appropriate. The Scheme of Investigation shall include the following:
a) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording b) The programme for post investigation assessment c) Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording d) Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation e) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation f) Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.
Reason: The programme is required to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development to secure the protection of and proper provision for any archaeological remains in accordance with Policies HA3 and BH3 of the East Herts District Plan 2018 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
19. Broadband Infrastructure
Page 85 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Prior to the commencement of any Phase of the development hereby permitted (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved) details of the measures required to facilitate the provision of high speed broadband internet connections to the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include a timetable and method of delivery for high speed broadband for each residential and commercial unit. Once approved, high speed broadband infrastructure shall be implemented thereafter in accordance with the approved details and made available for use prior to first occupation of the residential and commercial to which it relates.
Reason: In order to ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure to support the future sustainability of the development in accordance with policy BISH5 and DES4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
20. Electric Car Charging Points Prior to the commencement of any Phase of the development hereby permitted (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved) details of the installation of and measures to facilitate the provision of electric vehicle charging points to the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include a timetable and method of delivery for residential and commercial uses. Once approved, electric vehicle charging points shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and made available for use prior to first occupation of the residential and commercial to which it relates.
Reason: In order to ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure to support the future sustainability of the development in accordance with policy BISH5 and DES5 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
21. Materials of construction Prior to any above ground construction works being commenced for each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, Page 86 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
once approved), the external materials of construction for the buildings hereby permitted shall submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved materials.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and good design in accordance with Policy DES4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
22. Bird Hazard Management Plan No development, in relation to that part of the site for which Outline planning permission is granted, apart from enabling works, earthworks and access works, shall commence before the submission of and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority of a Bird Hazard Management Plan. This shall include:
a) Building design features which prevent the nesting and roosting of hazardous birds, b) a management regime which includes the monitoring and if necessary removal of gull nests and eggs where necessary. c) Design of green infrastructure and flood attenuation basins to include features that discourage the species of birds that are hazardous to aircraft, including the prevention of bird feeding.
Reason: To ensure the safeguarding of flight safety through birdstrike avoidance in accordance with advice from the Safeguarding Authority for Stansted Airport.
23. Highway Infrastructure Prior to the first use of either school hereby permitted, the following transport infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with a detailed scheme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority:
a) New roundabout upon A1184 with main distributor spine road to school vehicular entrances with adequate turning head;
Page 87 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
b) 4-metre-wide cycleway from school entrances to formal crossing points of Whittington Way to Thorley Lane and Villiers- Sur-Marne Avenue; c) 4-metre-wide cycleway from school entrances to crossing point of Obrey Way; and, d) A scheme of cycle signing to Bishop’s Stortford Town Centre, Bus Station and Railway Station.
Reason: To ensure suitable, safe and satisfactory planning and development of the site in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).
24. 20mph Speed Restriction Zone Prior to the occupation of the primary and secondary schools, provision should be made for the promotion and implementation of a 20mph zone within 50m of any highway entrance / egress.
Reason: To improve safety for children attending these schools.
25. Green Travel Plan Prior to the occupation of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), a Framework Travel Plan, which includes a Residential Travel Plan, a School Travel Plan, a Business Travel Plan and Smarter Choices Campaign for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the Plan shall accord with the Hertfordshire County Council document – Hertfordshire Green Travel Plan Guidance, or any amending document and shall include a timetable for implementation and monitoring arrangements. The Travel Plans shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable.
Reason: To promote the use of non-car modes of transport in accordance Policy TRA1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
26. Public Transport Infrastructure Prior to the occupation of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), provision shall be Page 88 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
made for the operation of public transport infrastructure both within the development site and on the wider routes that the proposed public transport services will travel in order to encourage the patronage of the public transport network. This infrastructure shall comprise of but is not limited to the following:
a) High quality bus stop facilities to include raised height kerbs and shelters; b) Real time information signs at key stops; and c) Bus priority measures where appropriate to ensure that the proposed services avoid congested areas of the network.
Note: The future locations of all bus stops within the development should be determined prior to commencement of works and clearly marked on site during construction of the internal roads to ensure visibility for perspective purchasers.
Reason: To ensure proper management of the revised layout in the interests of highway safety and efficiency.
27. Bus Season Tickets for New Residents Upon first occupation of each dwelling, the provision of two vouchers per dwelling entitling the residents to 12 months free bus travel within the area covered by the Bishop’s Stortford PlusBus season ticket. The vouchers are to be valid for exchange during the first 6 months following the occupation of the respective dwelling unit.
Reason: To ensure propose management of modal shift and encourage use of sustainable transport modes to travel within Bishop’s Stortford and inclusive areas.
28. Cycle Route Prior to the occupation of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), provision of a network of off-carriageway cycle routes shall be made linking all areas of the development with the Rail Station, Bishop’s Stortford town centre, development sites to the north and south, existing Page 89 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
cycle infrastructure (including National Cycle Routes 11 and 16) and crossing points along London Road. These routes shall be appropriately hard surfaced, illuminated and with a minimum width of 3 metres where they are independent of a footway or 4 metres overall where there is a shared use provision with a footway.
Reason: To ensure proper management of modal shift and encourage use of sustainable transport modes to travel within Bishop’s Stortford and surrounding areas.
29. Walking Routes Prior to the occupation of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), provision of a network of footways shall be made linking all areas of the development with the Rail Station, Bishops Stortford Town Centre, development sites to the north and south of the site, and crossing points along London Road, Whittington Way, Obrey Way and the proposed central spine road. These routes shall be appropriately hard surfaced, illuminated and with a minimum width of 2 metres where they are independent of a cycleway or 4 metres overall where there is a shared use provision with a cycleway.
Reason: To ensure proper management of modal shift and encourage use of sustainable transport modes to travel within Bishops Stortford and surrounding areas.
30. Visibility Splays
Page 90 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Prior to the occupation of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), visibility splays measuring 2.4m x 43m shall be provided to each side of each access where it meets the highway and such splays shall thereafter be maintained at all times free from any obstruction between 600mm and 2m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety. To ensure construction of a satisfactory development and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).
31. Noise Attenuation Prior to the occupation of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved) a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from road traffic noise, and noise from nearby industrial and commercial units (both on-site and off- site where applicable) shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall follow the recommendations identified in the Mayer Brown Noise and Vibration Assessment report dated August 2018. None of the dwellings shall be occupied until such a scheme has been implemented in accordance with the approved details, and shown to be effective, and it shall be retained in accordance with those details thereafter. Other noise sources that will need to be taken into account in an updated noise impact assessment to inform the subsequent design and layout of the site, and orientation of dwellings (in accordance with the best practice guidance set out in ProPG 2017), and assessed in accordance with relevant noise standards:
Outdoor Sports Facilities including any Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGA) External fixed plant on commercial premises, including schools, the proposed care home and existing electricity sub-station On-site commercial operations, especially proposed A3, A4, A5, B2 and B8 uses.
Page 91 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
The large-scale earthworks for the construction of an agricultural reservoir at Thorley Hall Farm to the south of the site, which also includes the construction and operation of a materials processing plant on site. A vehicle repair workshop at Thorley Motors to the east of the site.
Reason: In order to ensure an adequate level of amenity for residents of the new dwellings in accordance with policy EQ2 of the adopted East Herts District Plan 2018.
32. 6N01 Noise Attenuation - External Commercial Plant Noise resulting from the operation of external fixed plant on commercial, educational and community buildings shall not exceed the existing background level inclusive of any penalty for tonal, impulsive or other distinctive acoustic characteristics when measured or calculated according to the provisions of BS4142:2014.
Reason: In order to ensure an adequate level of amenity for residents of the new dwellings in accordance with policy EQ2 of the adopted East Herts District Plan 2018.
33. 2E33 Contaminated land survey and remediation No development approved by this Outline permission shall take place until a Phase 3 Remediation Strategy, to address the contamination risks identified in the previously submitted Phase I Contamination Assessment and Phase 2 Geoenvironmental Reports has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall include an options appraisal giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The strategy shall include a plan providing details of how the remediation works shall be judged to be complete and arrangements for contingency action.
Reason: To minimise and prevent pollution of the land and the water environment and in accordance with national planning policy guidance set out in section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and in order to protect human health and the Page 92 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
environment in accordance with policy EQ1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
34. 6N01 Odour Mitigation Prior to any A3, A4 or A5 use commencing on the development, a scheme containing full details of arrangements for internal air extraction, odour control, and discharge to atmosphere from cooking operations, including any external ducting and flues, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works detailed in the approved scheme shall be installed in their entirety before the use hereby permitted is commenced. The equipment shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and operated at all times when cooking is being carried out unless otherwise agreed beforehand in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to ensure an adequate level of amenity for residents of the new dwellings in accordance with policy EQ4 of the adopted East Herts District Plan 2018.
35. 6N01 Air Quality No occupation of any dwellings hereby permitted shall take place until a scheme for protecting and enhancing the air quality of future occupiers of the proposed development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall follow the recommendations identified in the Mayer Brown Air Quality Assessment Report dated August 2018 and associated documentation. None of the dwellings shall be occupied until such a scheme has been implemented in accordance with the approved details and it shall be retained in accordance with those details thereafter.
Reason: In order to ensure an adequate level of amenity for residents of the new dwellings in accordance with policy EQ4 of the adopted East Herts District Plan 2018.
36. External Lighting Details
Page 93 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Prior to the commencement of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), details of any external lighting proposed in connection with the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development, and no external lighting shall be provided without such written consent. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to ensure an adequate level of amenity for residents of the new dwellings and in the interests of the amenity of wildlife, in accordance with policy EQ3 of the adopted East Herts District Plan 2018.
37. Surface Water and Sustainable Drainage Strategy - Zone A The development for which full planning permission has been granted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved documents:
Flood Risk Assessment (665837-FRA and SWD Strategy-Rev 5) 18th February 2019 Strategic Surface Water Drainage Calculations Pack (665837- MLM-ZZ-XX-RP-C-0007-Rev.02-SW_Calcs_Report), Sustainable Drainage Systems Maintenance and Management Report (665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-RP-C-0008_SuDS Maintenance Report Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0001-P10 Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0110-P07 Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0111-P06 Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0112-P06 Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0210-P03 Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0211-P03 Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0212-P03 Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0213-P03 Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0214-P03 Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0215-P03 Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0216-P03 Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0217-P03 Page 94 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Drawing 665837-MLM-ZZ-XX-DR-C-0218-P02 Drawing E3796-502 Exceedance Routes-Sh1 Drawing E3796-503-Exceedance Routes-Sh2 Zone A Microdrainage Simulation Results (Zone A-System 1- Rev0) (Zone A-System 2-Rev0)
The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To prevent risk of flooding in accordance with Policy WAT1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
38. Surface Water and Sustainable Drainage Strategy - Outline No development approved by this Outline permission shall take place until detailed surface water drainage schemes based on the approved drainage strategy and sustainable drainage principles, for each phase of the development (as outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before completion of the development. The scheme shall include:
Detailed engineered drawings of the proposed SuDS features including cross section drawings, their size, volume, depth and any inlet and outlet features including any connecting pipe runs; A detailed Management Plan to include arrangements for the adoption and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.
Reason: In order to ensure up-to-date calculations are undertaken as necessary to prevent flooding in accordance with Policy WAT1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
39. Foul Water Page 95 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Prior to the occupation of each phase of the development (as Outlined in the Phasing Plan, once approved), confirmation shall have been provided to the Local Planning Authority that all waste water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed; or, that a Housing and Infrastructure Phasing Plan has been agreed with Thames Water to allow additional properties to be occupied. Where a Housing and Infrastructure Phasing Plan has been agreed with Thames Water, no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with that Plan.
Reason: The development may lead to sewage flooding and network reinforcement works are anticipated to be necessary to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to accommodate additional flows anticipated from the development. Any necessary reinforcement works will be necessary in order to avoid sewer flooding and/or potential pollution incidents.
40. Building for life 12 principles The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the Secured by Design and Building for Life 12 Standards.
Reason: To ensure a high quality of design and construction in accordance with Policies BISH5, DES4 and DES5 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
41. Energy and Sustainability The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted Energy and Sustainability Statement prepared by Turley Sustainability dated February 2019.
Reason: To promote sustainability and sustainable design and construction in accordance with Policies BISH5, DES4 and WAT4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
Page 96 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
42. 2E20 Withdrawal of P.D. (Part 1 Class A) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, or any amending Order, the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of any dwellinghouse as described in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Order shall not be undertaken without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy DES4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
43. 3V20 Retention of parking space Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, or any amending Order, the areas shown for parking on the approved plan(s) shall be retained for such use.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy TRA3 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
44. 5U10 Vehicular use of garage The garage(s) hereby approved shall be used for the housing of private vehicles vehicles solely for the benefit of the occupants of the dwelling of which it forms part and shall not be used as additional living accommodation or for any commercial activity.
Reason: To ensure the continued provision of off-street parking facilities and to protect neighbour amenity in in accordance with Policies TRA3 and EQ2 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
45. Gates/carriageway In order to provide security for rear parking courts gates should be installed prior to the occupation of any dwellings. Any gates provided within the development hereby approved shall be set back a minimum of 5.0 metres from the edge of the carriageway and shall open inwards into the site.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy TRA2 of the East Herts District Plan 2018 and in the interestsPage of 97 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
security in accordance with Policy DES5 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
INFORMATIVES
1) 01OL Other Legislation This permission does not convey any consent which may be required under any legislation other than the Town and Country Planning Acts. Any permission required under the Building Regulations or under any other Act, must be obtained from the relevant authority or body eg. Fire Officer, Health and Safety Executive, Environment Agency (Water Interest) etc. Neither does this permission negate or override any private covenants which may affect the land.
2) 04AI Archaeological interest The Archaeological Officer at the Environment Dept, County Hall, Hertford, should be contacted regarding relevant planning conditions prior to the commencement of the development. Tel:01992 555241.
3) 08PO Planning Obligation This planning permission is also subject to a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
4) 19SN Street Naming and Numbering The development will involve the numbering of properties and naming of new streets. The applicant MUST consult the Director of Internal Services. Application for this purpose should be made to the Local Land and Property Gazetteer Custodian, East Herts Council, Wallfields, Pegs Lane, Hertford, SG13 8EQ. Tel: 01279 655261.
5) 22PS Public Sewer The site has a public sewer running across or close to it which will be affected by the proposed building works. It may be necessary to divert the sewer and water course and carry out other works to Page 98 protect it and the proposed building works. You should contact Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Thames Water, Development Planning, Asset Investment Unit, Maple Lodge, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, WD3 9SQ Telephone: 01923 898072 about this matter before any site works are commenced.
6) 28GP Groundwater protection zone The site is located within the groundwater protection zone of Sawbridgeworth Pumping Station. The construction works and operation of the proposed development should be done in accordance with the relevant British Standards and Best Management Practices, thereby significantly reducing the ground water pollution risk. It should be noted that the construction works may exacerbate any existing pollution. If any pollution is found at the site then the appropriate monitoring and remediation methods will need to be undertaken. For further information please refer to CIRIA Publication C532 'Control of water pollution from construction- guidance for consultants and contractors'
7) 33UC Directive - Unsuspected contamination The applicant is advised that any unsuspected contamination that becomes evident during the development of the site shall be brought to the attention of the Local Planning Authority and appropriate mitigation measures agreed.
8) 35CV Clearance of Vegetation The applicant is advised that nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and care should be taken in vegetation clearance works between 1st March and 30th September.
9) 36PS Protected Species The applicant is advised that should bats / reptiles / great crested newts be found during development, works must stop immediately and profesional ecological advice sought on how to proceed. A licence may be required from Natural England who can be contacted on 01206 796666.
Page 99 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
10) HIGHWAY INFORMATIVES HCC recommends inclusion of the following Advisory Notes (ANs) to ensure that any works as part of this development are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 and other relevant processes.
11) Storage of materials: The applicant is advised that the storage of materials associated with the construction of this development should be provided within the site on land which is not public highway, and the use of such areas must not interfere with the public highway. If this is not possible, authorisation should be sought from the Highway Authority before construction works commence. Further information is available via the website: https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and- pavements/business-and-developer-information/development- management/highways-development-management.aspx
12) Obstruction of public highway land: It is an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 for any person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way to wilfully obstruct the free passage along a highway or public right of way. If this development is likely to result in the public highway or public right of way network becoming routinely blocked (fully or partly) the applicant must contact the Highway Authority to obtain their permission and requirements before construction works commence. Further information is available via the website: https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and- pavements/business-and-developer-information/development- management/highways-development-management.aspx
Page 100 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
13) Road Deposits: It is an offence under section 148 of the Highways Act 1980 to deposit mud or other debris on the public highway, and section 149 of the same Act gives the Highway Authority powers to remove such material at the expense of the party responsible. Therefore, best practical means shall be taken at all times to ensure that all vehicles leaving the site during construction of the development are in a condition such as not to emit dust or deposit mud, slurry or other debris on the highway.
Further information is available via the website: https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and- pavements/business-and-developer-information/development- management/highways-development-management.aspx
14) Section 106 Agreement: A Section 106 agreement will be required for the following: A charge for Residential Development based on the HCC Planning Obligation Guidance (2008) for schemes in the local area that accord with the three tests; and An approved Travel Plan, with monitoring fees, in accordance with the current HCC Travel Plan Guidance for Business and Residential Development. The above contributions will come under the auspices of the Planning Obligations Guidance Toolkit for Hertfordshire (2008).
15) Construction standards for works within the highway: The applicant is advised that in order to comply with this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Hertfordshire County Council as Highway Authority under Section 38 and Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. The construction of such works must be undertaken to the satisfaction and specification of the Highway Authority, and by a contractor who is authorised to work in the public highway. Before works commence the applicant will need to apply to the Highway Authority to obtain their permission and requirements. Further information is available via the website noted below:
Page 101 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and- pavements/business-and-developer-information/development- management/highways-development-management.aspx
16) The Public Right of Way should remain unobstructed by vehicles, machinery, materials, tools and any other aspects of the construction during works. The safety of the public using the route and any other routes to be used by construction traffic should be a paramount concern during works, safe passage past the site should be maintained at all times. The condition of the route should not deteriorate as a result of these works. Any adverse effects to the surface from traffic, machinery or materials (especially overspills of cement and concrete) should be made good by the applicant to the satisfaction of this Authority. All materials should be removed at the end of the construction and not left on the Highway or Highway verges.
17) If the above conditions cannot reasonably be achieved then a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order would be required to close the affected route and divert users for any periods necessary to allow works to proceed. A fee would be payable to Hertfordshire County Council for such an order. Further information on the rights of way network is available via the website. Please contact Rights of Way, Hertfordshire County Council on 0300 123 4047 for further information in relation to the works that are required along the route including any permissions that may be needed to carry out the works. https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/recycling-waste-and- environment/countryside-access/rights-of-way/rights-of- way.aspx#DynamicJumpMenuManager_1_Anchor_8
Section 278 Agreement The applicant will be required to enter into a Section 278 to agree any alternations or improvements to the public highway. This includes the proposed new access arrangements and any off site works.
Summary of Reasons for Decision Page 102 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
East Herts Council has considered the applicant's proposal in a positive and proactive manner with regard to the policies of the Development Plan and any relevant material considerations. The balance of the considerations is that permission should be granted.
Page 103 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
KEY DATA
Residential Development – Development Zone A
Residential density 31.5 units/Ha Bed Number of units spaces Number of existing units demolished Number of new flat units 1 18 2 9 3
Number of new house units 1 2 18 3 68 4+ 29 Total 142
Affordable Housing – Development Zone A
Number of units Percentage 56 40%
Non-Residential Development
Use Type Floorspace Education 2.95ha primary 12.64ha secondary Class A1 1,000 sq m Classes A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1 2,200 sq m Employment Area 4.01 ha
Page 104 Application Number: 3/18/2253/OUT
Emerging Parking Standards (endorsed at District Plan Panel 19 March 2015)
Parking Zone 4 Residential unit size Spaces per unit Spaces required (bed spaces) 1 1.50 27 2 2.00 54 3 2.50 170 4+ 3.00 87 Total required 338 Accessibility 25% reduction Resulting 254 requirement Proposed provision 322
Neighbourhood Plan Parking Standards Policy TP8 repeats the 2007 Local Plan standards:
Parking Zone Elsewhere Residential unit size Spaces per unit Spaces required (bed spaces) 1 1.25 22.5 2 1.50 40.5 3 2.25 153 4+ 3.00 87
Total required 303 Proposed provision 321
Page 105 This page is intentionally left blank
Mark Youngman Highways Strategy & Implementation Group Manager Hertfordshire County Council Postal Point CHO242 County Hall Pegs Lane Hertford SG13 8DE
Response to Planning application from Hertfordshire County Council (T and CP GDP Order 2015)
Director of Planning and Property District ref: 3/18/2253/OUT East Herts District Council HCC ref: EH/870/2018 Wallfields HCC received: 22/10/2018 Pegs Lane Area manager: Roger Taylor Hertford Case officer: Lindsay McCauley SG13 8EQ
Location Land at Bishop Stortford South off Whittington Way Bishops Stortford
Application type Outline application
Proposal Hybrid Planning application comprising: (i) A full application for 142 dwellings (class C3) including affordable homes, plus associated accesses, landscaping, open space and infrastructure works (development zone A) , and a north/south primary route; and (ii) An outline application, with all matters reserved except access, for approximately 608 (Class C3) including affordable homes, a care home (Class C2) , up to 4 hectares of employment land (classes B1, B2, B8 sui Generis (car showroom)), a local centre including up to 1000 sq m for retail (Class A1), and up to 2200 sq m for other uses (Classes A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1), a primary school (Class D1) up to 3 forms of entry and including early years facilities, a secondary school (Class D1) up to 8 forms of entry, open space including equipped areas for play, sustainable drainage systems, landscaping and all associated infrastructure and development.
Decision Notice is given under article 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 that the Hertfordshire County Council as Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to the following conditions:
Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) as Highway Authority wish to recommend permitting the proposed development, subject to suitable conditions being applied, the proposed mitigation measures discussed herein and Section 106 contributions to local schemes. The following conditions are recommended by HCC as Highway Authority:
1) Infrastructure
Page 107 Prior to the first use of either school hereby permitted, the following transport infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with a detailed scheme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority:
- New roundabout upon A1184 with main distributor spine road to school vehicular entrances with adequate turning head; - 4-metre-wide cycleway from school entrances to formal crossing points of Whittington Way to Thorley Lane and Villiers-Sur-Marne Avenue; - 4-metre-wide cycleway from school entrances to crossing point of Obrey Way; and, - A scheme of cycle signing to Bishop’s Stortford Town Centre, Bus Station and Railway Station.
2) 20mph Speed Restriction Zone Prior to occupation of the primary and secondary schools, best endeavours should be made for the promotion and implementation of a 20mph zone within 50m of any highway entrance / egress.
Reason: to improve safety for children attending these schools.
3) Detailed Plans No development shall commence until full details (in the form of scaled plans and / or written specifications) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to illustrate the following: i) Roads, footways. ii) Cycleways. iii) Foul and surface water drainage. iv) Visibility splays. v) Access arrangements. vi) Parking provision in accordance with adopted standard. vii) Loading areas. viii) Turning areas.
Reason: To ensure suitable, safe and satisfactory planning and development of the site in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).
4) Construction Traffic Management Plan No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the construction of the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan. The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall include details of:
a. Construction vehicle numbers, type, routing; b. Access arrangements to the site; c. Traffic management requirements d. Construction and storage compounds (including areas designated for car parking, loading / unloading and turning areas); e. Siting and details of wheel washing facilities; f. Cleaning of site entrances, site tracks and the adjacent public highway; g. Timing of construction activities (including delivery times and removal of waste) and to avoid school pick up/drop off times; h. Provision of sufficient on-site parking prior to commencement of construction activities; i. Post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas and temporary access to the public highway;
Page 108 j. where works cannot be contained wholly within the site a plan should be submitted showing the site layout on the highway including extent of hoarding, pedestrian routes and remaining road width for vehicle movements.
Reason: In order to protect highway safety and the amenity of other users of the public highway and rights of way in accordance with Policies 5, 12, 17 and 22 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).
5) Servicing and Delivery Plan Prior to commencement of the development, the applicant shall submit a Servicing and Delivery Plan. This plan is to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Servicing and Delivery Plan shall contain the delivery and servicing requirements (refuse collection has been agreed) for the proposed use, a scheme for coordinating deliveries and servicing for the proposed development, areas within the development site that will be used for loading and manoeuvring of delivery and servicing vehicles, and access to / from the site for delivery and servicing vehicles.
Reason: In the interest of maintaining highway efficiency and safety.
6) Public Transport Infrastructure The provision of infrastructure both within the development site and on the wider routes that the proposed public transport services will travel to facilitate delivery of the strategy. This infrastructure shall comprise of but is not limited to the following:
- High quality bus stop facilities to include raised height kerbs and shelters - Real time information signs at key stops - Bus priority measures where appropriate to ensure that the proposed services avoid congested areas of the network
Note: The future locations of all bus stops within the development should be determined prior to commencement of works and clearly marked on site during construction of the internal roads to ensure visibility for perspective purchasers.
Reason: To ensure proper management of the revised layout in the interests of highway safety and efficiency.
7) Bus Season Tickets for New Residents Upon first occupation of each dwelling, the provision of two vouchers per dwelling entitling the residents to 12 months free bus travel within the area covered by the Bishop’s Stortford PlusBus season ticket. The vouchers are to be valid for exchange during the first 6 months following the occupation of the respective dwelling unit.
Reason: To ensure propose management of modal shift and encourage use of sustainable transport modes to travel within Bishop’s Stortford and inclusive areas.
8) Cycle Routes Provision of a network of off carriageway cycle routes linking all areas of the development with the Rail Station, Bishop’s Stortford town centre, development sites to the north and south, existing cycle infrastructure (including National Cycle Routes 11 and 16) and crossing points along London Road. These routes shall be appropriately hard surfaced, illuminated and with a minimum width of 3 metres where they are independent of a footway or 4 metres overall where there is a shared use provision with a footway.
Page 109 Reason: To ensure proper management of modal shift and encourage use of sustainable transport modes to travel within Bishop’s Stortford and surrounding areas.
9) Walking Routes Provision of a network of footways linking all areas of the development with the Rail Station, Bishops Stortford Town Centre, development sites to the north and south of the site, and crossing points along London Road, Whittington Way and Obrey Way. These routes shall be appropriately hard surfaced, illuminated and with a minimum width of 2 metres where they are independent of a cycleway or 4 metres overall where there is a shared use provision with a cycleway.
Reason: To ensure proper management of modal shift and encourage use of sustainable transport modes to travel within Bishops Stortford and surrounding areas.
10). No development shall commence until full details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in relation to the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development. (The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a Private Management and Maintenance Company has been established).
Reason: To ensure satisfactory development of the site and to ensure estate roads are managed and maintained thereafter to a suitable and safe standard.
11) Prior to the occupation of the development, visibility splays measuring 2.4m x 43m shall be provided to each side of each access where it meets the highway and such splays shall thereafter be maintained at all times free from any obstruction between 600mm and 2m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety. To ensure construction of a satisfactory development and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).
12). Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, the vehicular accesses shall be provided and thereafter retained at the position shown on the approved in principle drawing number GA1 revision 21. With the access roads provided 5.5 metres wide for at least the first 20 metres complete with 8.0 metres radius kerbs thereafter the access roads shall be provided at least 5.0 metres wide to the current specification of Hertfordshire County Council and to the local Planning Authority's satisfaction. Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material or surface water from or onto the highway.
13) Prior to commencement of each phase of the development, details of all materials to be used for hard surfaced areas within the site, including roads, drainage details, driveways and car parking areas shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.
Reason: To ensure that internal roads, drainage and parking areas are built to Highway Authority standards and requirements.
14) Prior to commencement of any development the submission and agreement of a mechanism of continual review of the transport impacts of the development to include (but not be restricted to) the Page 110 installation of traffic counters upon each access, travel plan monitoring and regular dialogue between Developer, Local Planning Authority and Highway Authority. The findings of this work shall be shared between all interested parties with a view to remedying any problems arising directly from the construction or occupation of the development.
Reason: To ensure that the development is appropriately mitigated against to ensure impacts are no worse at any time during the construction phase and on completion of the development.
Mitigation Should the LPA permit the development, HCC would appreciate the opportunity to negotiate the following mitigation:
(i) Any capacity benefits unlocked within the London Road corridor are locked in for sustainable transport (inclusive of buses).
(ii) Measures to discourage rat-running use of Pigs Lane for traffic travelling from the site to/from the airport and/or to access the M11.
(iii) Additional measures to reduce severance between the site and the town centre.
(iv) Measures to improve the operation of the London Road/Whittington Way and London Road and Thorley Hill junctions - including bus priority which would be linked through the corridor.
HIGHWAY INFORMATIVES:
HCC recommends inclusion of the following Advisory Notes (ANs) to ensure that any works as part of this development are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 and other relevant processes.
AN1) Storage of materials: The applicant is advised that the storage of materials associated with the construction of this development should be provided within the site on land which is not public highway, and the use of such areas must not interfere with the public highway. If this is not possible, authorisation should be sought from the Highway Authority before construction works commence. Further information is available via the website: https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways- roads-and-pavements/business-and-developer-information/development-management/highways- development-management.aspx
AN2) Obstruction of public highway land: It is an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 for any person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way to wilfully obstruct the free passage along a highway or public right of way. If this development is likely to result in the public highway or public right of way network becoming routinely blocked (fully or partly) the applicant must contact the Highway Authority to obtain their permission and requirements before construction works commence. Further information is available via the website: https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways- roads-and-pavements/business-and-developer-information/development-management/highways- development-management.aspx
AN3) Road Deposits: It is an offence under section 148 of the Highways Act 1980 to deposit mud or other debris on the public highway, and section 149 of the same Act gives the Highway Authority powers to remove such material at the expense of the party responsible. Therefore, best practical means shall be taken at all times to ensure that all vehicles leaving the site during construction of the development are in a condition such as not to emit dust or deposit mud, slurry or other debris on the highway. Further information is available via the website: Page 111 https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and-pavements/business-and-developer- information/development-management/highways-development-management.aspx
AN4) Section 106 Agreement. A Section 106 agreement will be required for the following: - A charge for Residential Development based on the HCC Planning Obligation Guidance (2008) for schemes in the local area that accord with the three tests; and - An approved Travel Plan, with monitoring fees, in accordance with the current HCC Travel Plan Guidance for Business and Residential Development. The above contributions will come under the auspices of the Planning Obligations Guidance Toolkit for Hertfordshire (2008).
AN5) Construction standards for works within the highway: The applicant is advised that in order to comply with this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Hertfordshire County Council as Highway Authority under Section 38 and Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. The construction of such works must be undertaken to the satisfaction and specification of the Highway Authority, and by a contractor who is authorised to work in the public highway. Before works commence the applicant will need to apply to the Highway Authority to obtain their permission and requirements. Further information is available via the website noted below: https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and-pavements/business-and-developer- information/development-management/highways-development-management.aspx
AN6) The Public Right of Way should remain unobstructed by vehicles, machinery, materials, tools and any other aspects of the construction during works. The safety of the public using the route and any other routes to be used by construction traffic should be a paramount concern during works, safe passage past the site should be maintained at all times. The condition of the route should not deteriorate as a result of these works. Any adverse effects to the surface from traffic, machinery or materials (especially overspills of cement & concrete) should be made good by the applicant to the satisfaction of this Authority. All materials should be removed at the end of the construction and not left on the Highway or Highway verges.
If the above conditions cannot reasonably be achieved then a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order would be required to close the affected route and divert users for any periods necessary to allow works to proceed. A fee would be payable to Hertfordshire County Council for such an order. Further information on the rights of way network is available via the website. Please contact Rights of Way, Hertfordshire County Council on 0300 123 4047 for further information in relation to the works that are required along the route including any permissions that may be needed to carry out the works. https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/recycling-waste-and-environment/countryside-access/rights- of-way/rights-of-way.aspx#DynamicJumpMenuManager_1_Anchor_8
Section 278 Agreement The applicant will be required to enter into a Section 278 to agree any alternations or improvements to the public highway. This includes the proposed new access arrangements and any off site works.
Description of the Proposal The hybrid planning application is for a mixed-use development on greenfield land to the south of Whittington Way, Bishop’s Stortford.
The full planning application is for the construction of 142 dwellings, with associated accesses, landscaping, open space and infrastructure works. A north - south primary route is also proposed as part of the full planning application.
The outline planning application is for the construction of 608 dwellings, a care home, up to four hectares of employment land (classes B1, B2, B8 sui Generis (car showroom)), a local centre with up Page 112 to 1000sqm retail floorspace (class A1) and up to 2200sqm for other uses (classes A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1), a three form of entry primary school, an eight form of entry secondary school and open space. All matters are reserved except for access.
Site Description The development site is currently operating as greenfield land and is situated south of Whittington Way in Bishop’s Stortford, East Hertfordshire. The site is bordered to the north by Whittington Way, to the east by Thorley Street, to the south by St James Way and to the west by Obrey Way.
Whittington Way is an unclassified L1 local distributor road, with a speed limit of 30mph. Thorley Street is a numbered classified B secondary distributor road, which is subject to a 30mph speed limit. St James Way is a Principal Road A - Primary Distributor, subject to the national speed limit of 60mph. Obrey Way is an unclassified local access road, subject to a 40mph speed limit from St James Way to just south of Thorley Lane East where it changes to a 30mph speed limit to Whittington Way.
History Pre-application advice for the scheme in the form of meetings and written responses has been provided on several occasions from April 2017.
Analysis As part of the planning application package, the applicant has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) to demonstrate the impact of the proposed development on the local highway network. Submission of a Transport Assessment is in line with the requirements set out in Roads in Hertfordshire: Highway Design Guide (3rd Edition).
A Design and Access Statement (DAS) is required for all planning applications that have an impact on the highway, as outlined in Roads in Hertfordshire: Highway Design Guide (3rd Edition). A DAS has been provided for the proposed development. This is considered appropriate for the purposes of this planning application.
Policy Review The applicant has provided evidence of consideration of the following policy documents in their TA:
- National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); - National Planning Practice Guidance: Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision Taking; - Hertfordshire County Council’s (HCC) ‘Local Transport Plan 3 2011 - 2031’; - East Herts District Council Local Plan; and - Bishop’s Stortford Town Council Neighbourhood Plan for All Saints, Central, South and part of Thorley.
The policy review is considered appropriate for the purposes of this planning application. However, it is noted that the Local Transport Plan 3 was out of date on submission and the applicant should have reviewed Local Transport Plan 4 which was
Residential Trip Generation and Distribution Trip Generation A trip generation profile for the existing site and the proposed changes are provided as part of the TA and are discussed in detail below. The trip generation and distribution was agreed at the pre- application stage.
Existing Situation Page 113 The site at the moment is greenfield land and stands vacant. Therefore, the trip generation for the current land use of the site is considered nil.
Proposed Development Situation The applicant undertook extensive pre-application discusses with HCC as Highway Authority. Trip generation and distribution assumptions were reviewed and agreed through this process. All assumptions that were included in version 1.14 of the Transport Model provided by Mayer Brown. The following trip generations were agreed:
1) Trip generation for the 750 residential units per journey purpose is as follows:
Work - AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00): 48 arrivals, 118 departures and 166 two-way trips - PM Peak: (17:00) - 18:00): 126 arrivals, 77 departures and 203 two-way trips
Primary School - AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00): 18 arrivals, 44 departures and 62 two-way trips - PM Peak: (17:00) - 18:00): 3 arrivals, 2 departures and 5 two-way trips
Secondary School - AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00): 12 arrivals, 29 departures and 41 two-way trips - PM Peak: (17:00) - 18:00): 2 arrivals, 1 departures and 3 two-way trips
Leisure - AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00): 4 arrivals, 9 departures and 13 two-way trips - PM Peak: (17:00) - 18:00): 40 arrivals, 24 departures and 64 two-way trips
Shopping - AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00): 6 arrivals, 14 departures and 20 two-way trips - PM Peak: (17:00) - 18:00): 29 arrivals, 18 departures and 47 two-way trips
Other - AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00): 26 arrivals, 65 departures and 91 two-way trips - PM Peak: (17:00) - 18:00): 76 arrivals, 47 departures and 123 two-way trips
Total - AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00): 113 arrivals, 278 departures and 391 two-way trips - PM Peak: (17:00) - 18:00): 275 arrivals, 169 departures and 444 two-way trips
2) Trip generation with internalisation and the non-car modes adjustment is as follows:
- AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00): 79 arrivals, 196 departures and 277 two-way trips - PM Peak (17:00 - 18:00): 220 arrivals, 135 departures and 355 two-way trips
3) As requested by HCC, for a sensitivity test, the applicant has also provided trip generation figures which factor in the internalisation adjustment but does not include an adjustment made for non-car modes. The trip generation profile is as follows:
- AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00): 94 departures, 233 arrivals and 327 two-way trips - PM Peak (17:00 - 18:00): 255 departures, 156 arrivals and 411 two-way trips
Page 114 4) Net arrival and departure trips for the primary and secondary school are as follows. The applicant has only provided trip generation figures for the AM Peak period as the PM peak period for a school is generally outside of the network peak.
Primary School - Students: 47 arrivals, 26 departures and 73 two-way trips - Staff: 26 arrivals, 1 departure and 27 two-way trips
Secondary School - Existing BSHS - Students: 239 arrivals, 250 departures and 489 two-way trips - Staff: 56 arrivals, 3 departures and 59 two-way trips
Secondary School - New Form of Entry - Students: 41 departures, 23 arrivals and 64 two-way trips - Staff: 19 departures, 1 arrival and 20 two-way trips
Total - 428 arrivals, 304 departures and 732 two-way trips
5) The applicant has assumed that 42% of the four-hectare business park will be used for floor area, which equates to a GFA of 21,000sqm. The resultant trip generation is as follows:
- AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00): 212 arrivals, 39 departures and 251 two-way trips - PM Peak (17:00 - 18:00): 22 arrivals, 170 departures and 192 two-way trips
6) Assumed that 15% of all jobs at the business park will be fulfilled by local residents. As a result, an internalisation adjustment of 15% has been added to the trip rates. The resultant trip generation is as follows:
- AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00): 180 arrivals, 33 departures and 214 two-way trips - PM Peak (17:00 - 18:00): 19 arrivals, 145 departures and 164 two-way trips
7) The proposed development will have a local centre and other land uses, which may generate trips from outside of the site. The TA has not included these land uses in the trip generation assessment, as they will mainly serve the residents of the development.
8) Following the relocation of the high school, the site will be redeveloped to provide 140 residential dwellings. In the previous pre-application advice provided to the applicant, HCC requested that the trips generated by 150 dwellings are included in the Transport Assessment. The trip generation is presented below, which includes an allowance for non-car measures and an internalisation for the onsite Thorley Hill primary school.
AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00): 16 arrivals, 41 departures and 57 two-way trips PM Peak (17:00 - 18:00): 48 arrivals, 29 departures and 77 two-way trips
Impact on the Highway Network Junction Assessments Growth Factors Growth factors and methodology was agreed as part of pre-application discussions. Growth was taken to 2027 horizon year.
Committed Developments
Page 115 As part of the town centre TRANSYT Model, growth was considered to the year 2030 which accounts for much of the committed developments in the area.
Junction Modelling The applicant’s consultant has undertaken a series of junction modelling exercises for the proposed development. The following junction modelling was undertaken:
1. Town Centre impacts were considered using the HCC TRANSYT model. 2. Operation of London Road corridor was modelled using an update to the TRANSYT model 3. Standalone junction assessments were undertaken at the St James Way / Great Hadham Road and London Road / Station Road (Sawbridgeworth) junctions.
Junction modelling review was undertaken by AECOM - a consultant who works alongside and provides support to Hertfordshire County Council. AECOM provided initial comments in the form of a Technical Note on the junction modelling as part of pre-application discussions;
The applicant has provided a response and amendments in line with the issues raised in AECOM’s Technical Note ‘1’. These changes and comments were reviewed by AECOM who have since provided a second Technical Note ‘2’ for consideration by the applicant’s team. HCC have received a response to the outstanding queries / issues highlighted in Technical Note ‘2’. Where a GPS-based selective vehicle detection system is to be proposed.
There are two Bus Activation devices required on the two signalised junctions toward the town centre and these need to be consistent with the traffic control arrangement such the GPS-based selective vehicle detection system being proposed along the London Road at the Goods Yard Development and these were in the order of £25, 000 each, the sum of £50, 000 would need to be inserted into the Section 106 agreement, the exact sum would need to be agreed at the time of drafting the Section 106. Due to the nature of Pig Lane, it is unlikely that traffic calming would be suitable or encouraged for this road.
Mitigation
In the TA, the applicant has provided a series of proposed mitigation measures, detailed as follows:
- Implementation of a Travel Plan and provision of incentives for the uptake of sustainable transport modes; and, - Improvements to London Road / Thorley Hill signalised junction. Improvement suggestions include implementation of peak hour parking restrictions on London Road, and relocation of bus stop further north along London Road to a location where traffic is more free-flowing to minimize impact on the junction. Bus activation on the London Road corridor.
Highway Safety As part of the TA, a review of 5 years of collision data (1st July 2012 - 30th June 2017) obtained from Hertfordshire County Council was provided. This is considered acceptable.
The analysis shows that 34 slight collisions have occurred, with four serious collisions and no fatal collisions. The majority of the collisions occurred on Thorley Street/London Road, while several collisions also occurred on St James Way and Villiers-Sur-Marne Avenue.
The collision data review established that the collisions were predominately due to driver or pedestrian error and that there are no inherent issues with the highway road layout. Therefore, it is considered that the development would not impact on the safety of the local highway network.
Page 116 Highway Layout
Vehicle Access
It is proposed that three new vehicular access points are created. On Whittington Way, a new roundabout will be constructed which will have an adjacent toucan crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. A roundabout will also be created onto St James Way and there will be a priority junction with Obrey Way.
Internal Layout
As part of the planning submission, the applicant has included a General Arrangement drawing GA 1 revision P21 and this is to be considered in conjunction with the drawing E3796/790/K which has tested the access roads by applying a swept path analysis, these drawings demonstrate that large vehicles such as the large waste collection vehicle 12.2 metres long can enter the development and turn around within the internal access roads and egress in forward gear
Pedestrian Access
A toucan crossing will be proposed at the proposed roundabout on Whittington Way. In addition, five pedestrian and cycle crossings will be proposed on Whittington Way and Obrey Way.
A four-metre-wide footway will be provided within the site. The applicant is also proposing to fund the implementation of pedestrian and cycle signage, as well as an improvement strategy for routes throughout the site to key destinations in Bishop’s Stortford.
The Hertfordshire Way, an existing Rights of Way route through the site, will be retained through the development; however, as the link road would sever the existing route, pedestrian crossings are to be provided at the location of the Hertfordshire Way to ensure safe crossing of its users.
Swept Path Analysis
The highway layout shown on the Master Plan drawing number 1484/P/01 has been tested with a swept path analysis for a large waste collection vehicle, shown on drawing numbers E3796/790/K the access to these areas and complies with the requirements for waste storage and collection contained in Manual for Streets.
The proposed offsets from the site access road can accommodate the large waste collection vehicles in current use, the manoeuvring space for waste collection and emergency vehicles meet the requirements contained in Manual for Streets.
Refuse and Service Delivery A servicing and delivery plan will be required for the site to coordinate servicing, delivery and refuse collection for residential dwellings, schools and business elements of the scheme.
Road Safety Audit The applicant will be required to provide a Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit (RSA) to support the proposed accesses to the site. This would be required as part of the Section 278 Agreement stage.
Parking Car Parking Provisions
Page 117 The applicant has not provided any car parking provision details for the proposed residential development, as this is an outline application, this is considered acceptable. The car parking provisions should be in accordance with East Hertfordshire District Council’s parking standards.
Cycle Parking Provisions The applicant has not provided any cycle parking provision details for the proposed residential development, as this is an outline application, this is considered acceptable. The cycle parking provisions should be in accordance with East Hertfordshire District Council’s parking standards.
Accessibility Public Transport The nearest bus stops to the site are located on Whittington Way to the north. The bus stops are served by route 306, which is operated by Trusty Bus. This is a school service which connects Wicken Bonhunt to St Mary’s Catholic High School.
Bus stops are also located to the east of the site on London Road. Three services use the stops, all of which are operated by Arriva Bus. The services connect Harlow to Stanstead Airport. Each service follows a similar route at a frequency of one service every 10-15 minutes.
The nearest railway station is located approximately 1.5km north in Bishop’s Stortford and can be accessed via London Road. The station is managed by Greater Anglia and is located on the West Anglia Mainline. Regular services are provided to London, Stratford, Cambridge and Stanstead Airport.
Due to the size of the development the Arriva 508/509/510 services would need to be diverted at a gross cost (before revenue) of £150,000 per additional vehicle required, per annum. To determine the amount time that funding support is required the developer should liaise with Arriva and Hertfordshire County Council.
To ensure that the bus provides an attractive opportunity bus priority should be implemented at the junction north of the site where London Road and Wittington Way in addition to the bus priority within the site. This junction experiences delays, therefore bus priority would allow the bus to avoid delays when turning right onto Whittington way and left onto London Road, promoting sustainable transport usage in line with Local Transport Plan 4 policy 1.
As part of the S278/38 agreement the developer should make provision for high quality bus stops in the proposed development to a specification agreed with Hertfordshire County Council. As appropriate real-time information facilities should be provided at key bus stops.
Bus stops must be located no more than 400m away from all areas of the development.
As part of the development, the applicant is proposed diversion of services 508, 509 and 510 through the site from London Road to make the use of bus as a means of transport more attractive to users of the site.
The site is 1.5 miles north of the proposed development, taking approximately 35 minutes to walk, with the nearest station being Bishops Stortford. The railway station currently has journeys to Cambridge, Cambridge North, London Liverpool Street, Stansted Airport and Stratford (London). All services operate at an off-peak frequency of 2 trains per hour and peak services ranging from 3 - 4 trains per hour.
Walking and Cycling
Page 118 Footways are not provided along Whittington Way or St James Way. There are footways on both sides of the Thorley Street carriageway and on the north-east side of the Obrey Way.
There are no formal cycling facilities in the vicinity of the site. St James Way may not be suitable for cyclists as speed limit for the road is 60mph, however there are narrow shoulders on both sides of the carriageway.
It is vital for key walking and cycling links to be provided to connect the development and promote active travel in line with the county council’s Local Transport Plan 4 with consideration to the transport user hierarchy. With the railway station located at a 35-minute walk, cycling and public transport should also be a focus for connectivity to the rail station and the town.
Travel Plan The applicant has provided a draft Residential Travel Plan (TP) and Business Travel Plan for the proposed development. The following comments are required to be considered as part of any future submission:
As this development is a large mixed-use development with multiple occupants a Framework travel plan will be required. The Framework Travel Plan should set overall outcomes, targets and indicators for the entire site.
The housing development (C3) will require a full travel plan and £6,000 Evaluation and Support Fee should be secured by Section 106 agreement in accordance with Hertfordshire County Council’s Travel Plan Guidance for Business and Residential Development. This should incorporate measures to promote sustainable transport, an appointed travel plan co-ordinator and an appropriate monitoring programme. Full guidance is available at: www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/travelplans, or for more guidance contact: [email protected]
Once the size of each employment site, schools and care home is known, may also be required to submit Full Travel Plan or a Travel Plan Statement, subject to meeting Hertfordshire County Council thresholds. Each will require an accompanying travel plan (or statement) evaluation and support fee, as appropriate, in line with the guidance.
Travel plans that are created for schools are for nursery, primary, middle, secondary and independent schools. For further information on school travel plans please contact [email protected].
A Travel Plan for the residential and business developments, consisting of a written agreement with the County Council setting out a scheme to encourage, regulate, and promote green travel measures for owners, occupiers, and visitors to the Development in accordance with the provisions of the County Council’s ‘Travel Plan Guidance for Business and Residential Development’, which is subject to a sum of £6,000 per Travel Plan towards the County Council’s costs of administrating and monitoring the objectives of the Travel Plan and engaging in any Travel Plan Review.
Construction A Construction Traffic Management Plan would be required to ensure construction vehicles would not have a detrimental impact on the vicinity of the site and a condition would be required to provide adequate parking for construction vehicles on-site to prevent on-street conflict and impacts to the highway safety. A Construction Traffic Management Plan would be required for all phases of the construction, including excavation and construction of all elements of the development. Due to the congestion surrounding the proposed development site, it would be expected that an assessment of
Page 119 the impacts of construction traffic on the operation and safety of the local highway network is considered.
Planning Obligations / Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
Contributions will be sought via a Section 106 agreement using HCC’s Planning Obligations Toolkit. Please refer to information sent on behalf of Hertfordshire County Council with regards to planning obligations.
A Section 106 contribution of £100, 000 would be sought towards the national cycle route to support improvements including:
Project 1: Northern section of North/South route - mainly as approved in Waterside Stortford - Enabling BS North, NW and NE to access town and station - Providing a key leisure facility for Health Walks, Park Run and enjoyment of green space
Contributions would also be sought toward the cost of diversion of bus routes through the site, as outline above. Further details of this are to be agreed with Arriva and Hertfordshire County Council.
Two Bus Activation devices required on the two signalised junctions toward the town centre and these need to be consistent with the traffic control arrangement such the GPS-based selective vehicle detection system being proposed along the London Road at the Goods Yard Development and these would be in the order of £25, 000 each, the sum of £50, 000 would need to be inserted into the Section 106 agreement, the exact sum would need to be agreed at the time of drafting the Section 106.
A Travel Plan for the residential and business developments, consisting of a written agreement with the County Council setting out a scheme to encourage, regulate, and promote green travel measures for owners, occupiers, and visitors to the Development in accordance with the provisions of the County Council’s ‘Travel Plan Guidance for Business and Residential Development’, which is subject to a sum of £6,000 per Travel Plan towards the County Council’s costs of administrating and monitoring the objectives of the Travel Plan and engaging in any Travel Plan Review.
Summary HCC as highway authority has reviewed the application submission and wish to recommend permitting the proposed development subject to aforementioned planning conditions and the proposed mitigation measures and Section 106 Agreement contributions specified herein.
Signed
Date 01/03/2019
Page 120 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE HELD ON 29th OCTOBER 2018 AT 7.30PM
* Cllr D Abbott Cllr Mrs J Duggan * Cllr G Cutting (ex-officio) * Cllr R Gilbert Cllr P Demonti (Vice Chairman) * Cllr S Stainsby Cllr Miss H Drake (Chairman) * Cllr J Wyllie
Substitute Members * Cllr Ms A Baptista
* Denotes present ** Denotes present part time
In attendance: Sim Richardson (Assistant to Chief Executive Officer) One Member of the Press
P64. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies were received from Cllr Miss H Drake, Cllr P Demonti (personal) and Cllr Mrs J Duggan.
In the absence of both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman it was AGREED that Cllr J Wyllie would chair the meeting.
P65. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 8th OCTOBER 2018 It was RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 8th October 2018 be accepted as a true record and be signed by the Chairman.
P66. DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST
Cllr Item(s) Type Reason None
P67. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None
P68. NOTIFICATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ISSUED BY EAST HERTS COUNCIL – APPENDIX 1 After some discussion on each application, the observations in Appendix 1 were recorded.
P69. PLANNING DECISIONS ISSUED BY EAST HERTS COUNCIL – APPENDIX 2 These were NOTED.
P70. APPEALS – APPENDIX 3 These were NOTED. P13 Minutes Approved: Chairman: Date: Page 121 P71. ACTION REGISTER - APPENDIX 4 These were NOTED and closed.
P72. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA
There being no further business the meeting closed at 8.25pm.
P14 Minutes Approved: Chairman: Date: Page 122 Bishop's Stortford Town Council Planning and Development Committee: 29/10/2018 Appendix 1: Town Council Decisions on Applications Notified a 3/18/2091/LB Waytemore Castle Castle Gardens The Cause The remnants of Waytemore Castle (Grade 1 listed) will be protected with the implementation of a specialist conservation plan: Consolidate the wall. Apply soft capping upon completion where possible. Lower sections of the wall will be built up. Removal of the concrete capping over the well. Install glass cover. Build up the surrounds with 400m high yorkstone wall, with a metal grille on top to protect glass capping. Remove excess soil from within chambers. Install simple timber steps. Clad access steps with stone and replace the handrail. Cladding to overcome uneven gradient and non-uniform risers. Lighting of the castle with a series of luminaires around the base and built into the steps. Removal of three trees growing on the mound which are causing root damage. Removal of the hedge around the base which is causing root damage. Replacement with simple estate railing. Wildflower planting around the base of the mound. Applicant: No Objection The committee would like the height of the hedge to be lowered.
Page 1 of 6
Page 123 b 3/18/2253/OU Land Bishop's Stortford South Off Whittington Hybrid Planning application comprising: (i) A full application for 142 dwellings (class C3) including affordable homes, plus associated accesses, landscaping, open space and infastructre works (development zone A) , and a north/south primary route; and (ii) An outline application, with all matters reserved except access, for approximately 608 (Class C3) including affordable homes, a care home (Class C2) , up to 4 hectares of employment land (classes B1, B2, B8 sui Generis (car showroom)), a local centre including up to 1000 sq m for retail (Class A1), and up to 2200 sq m for other uses (Classes A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1), a primary school (Class D1) up to 3 forms of entry and including early years facilities, a secondary school (Class D1) up to 8 forms of entry, open space including equipped areas for play, sustainable drainage systems, landscaping and all associated infrastructure and development. AT: Land At Bishop Stortford South Off Whittington Way Bishops Stortford Hertfordshire CONSULTATION Deadline: Please send me your comments by: 9th November 2018 Please be advised that the above application has been submitted and we shall be pleased to receive any representations you may wish to make by the above date. The plans and supporting documents and the name of the officer can be viewed on our website at: https://publicaccess.eastherts.gov.uk Please enter the application reference quoted above and Search. Should no representations be received within this period, it will be assumed that you have none to make and the application will be determined accordingly. East Herts Council Wallfields, Pegs Lane Hertford, Herts SG13 8EQ Tel: 01279 655261 Yours sincerely Kevin Steptoe On Behalf Of Development Management Click this link to view the consultation online: https://publicaccess.eastherts.gov.uk/onlineapplications/ applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=PGHF2SGL06800&prevPa ge=inTray Keyval:PGHF2SGL06800 James Parker Bishops Stortford Town Council The Old Monastery Windhill Bishops Stortford CM23 2ND Date: Our Ref: 19 October 2018 3/18/2253/OUT Notice to Parish / Town Council Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Dear Sir/Madam APPLICATION: 3/18/2253/OUT PROPOSAL: Hybrid Planning application comprising: (i) A full application for 142 dwellings (class C3) including affordable homes, plus associated accesses, landscaping, open space and infastructre works (development zone A) , and a north/south primary route; and (ii) An outline application, with all matters reserved except access, for Page 2 of 6
Page 124 approximately 608 (Class C3) including affordable homes, a care home (Class C2) , up to 4 hectares of employment land (classes B1, B2, B8 sui Generis (car showroom)), a local centre including up to 1000 sq m for retail (Class A1), and up to 2200 sq m for other uses (Classes A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1), a primary school (Class D1) up to 3 forms of entry and including early years facilities, a secondary school (Class D1) up to 8 forms of entry, open space including equipped areas for play, sustainable drainage systems, landscaping and all associated infrastructure and development. Applicant: Objection The committee objected to the development on the basis that it is an unsustainable development which would increase noise and traffic pollution. Should the development nevertheless go ahead, they would also like the developer to ensure the development has at least 40% affordable housing, and justify the reasons for why a car showroom and care home is proposed. The committee pointed out that there are a number of cul de sacs that enter and exit Whittington Way as well as the roundabout at the end of Bishop's Avenue and the extra roundabout on Obrey Way. This is contrary to the Bishop's Stortford Neighbourhood Plan Policy of All Saints, Central, South and Part of Thorley BSS4 of Access/egress to a site. Attention also needs to be paid to BSS2 to BSS5 which is specific to this development. The committee suggests and independent assessor look at the documents. j 3/18/2143/FU 16B South Street CM23 3AT Replacement roller shutter with proposed perforated shutter. Applicant: Objection The committee objected due to the the property being in a conservation area k 3/18/2185/FU 8 Potter Street CM23 3UL Repairs to rear elevation after fire to include re-profiling of main roof including a flat roof at ground floor level, brickwork repairs and re pointing to chimney stack, re erecting pitched roof dormer with a single sash window and sand/cement render materials to walls, rendering of rear elevation at first floor level and alterations to rear elevation fenestration. Applicant: No Objection l 3/18/2207/AD 22-31 South Street CM23 3AB Consent to display 9No. Fascia Signs and 1No. Projection sign to front side and rear of building. Applicant: No Comment The committee required clarification as they beilve the work has already been carried out and suggested its be postponed. m 3/18/2232/FU Land Adjacent To 133 Rye Street CM23 2HD Erection of 2 no. four bed dwellings with associated parking, garages, vehicle access and landscaping. Applicant: Objection The committee objected due to overdevelopment to site.
Page 3 of 6
Page 125 n 3/18/1890/FU 36 Rye Street Retrospective change of use of land to the side/ rear of the residential property at No.36 to be used for the parking of vehicles in association of the car sales business at 34 Rye Street. Applicant: No Comment
o 3/18/1724/FU 28 Ashdale CM23 4EA Two storey side extension. Change of use of amenity land to residential curtilage. Applicant: No Objection
0 0/00/0000/DU Following applications considered only if repre The following applications will be considered only if a unless there is either written or verbal representation from a member of the public or a member of the planning committee specifically identifies that he/she wishes to speak. Applicant: No Comment
1 3/18/2186/HH 8 Lea Close CM23 5EA First floor side extension, two storey front extension and single storey front extension together with erection of front porch, creation of chimney breast to flank elevation, insertion of new garage door and alterations to rear fenestration. Applicant: No Comment
2 3/18/2151/HH 8 Parsonage Lane CM23 5BE Proposed relocation of front entrance door, conversion of part of double garage into habitable space, single and double storey rear extensions and a first floor extension over existing garage. Demolition of existing rear conservatory, rear single storey kitchen extension and covered lean to area Applicant: No Comment
3 3/18/2204/HH 16 Pinelands CM23 2TE Hip-to-gable extension, rear dormer, part two storey, part single storey rear extension. With new first floor window opening, ground floor rear full height bay windows, two full height bedroom windows with rail, rear velux rooflight, velux attic sun tunnel, one new side window opening and one new attic window opening. Applicant: No Comment
4 3/18/2237/HH 88 Barrells Down Road 4 CM23 2SX First floor rear extension. Creation of door. Applicant: No Comment
Page 4 of 6
Page 126 5 3/18/2238/HH 90 Barrells Down Road CM23 2SX Two storey rear extension. Applicant: No Comment
6 3/18/2042/HH 36 Larchwood CM23 4JS Replace roof and wall frames of existing ground floor conservatory. Applicant: No Comment
7 3/18/2153/HH 17 Clover Avenue CM23 4BW SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION Applicant: No Comment
8 3/18/2233/HH 68 Stansted Road CM23 2DZ Demolition of garage. Part single and part two storey side and rear extensions. Alterations to roof incorperating 2 no. dormer windows to rear and side and 4 no. rooflights. Removal of one chimney. Erection of porch. Erection of summer house/garage. Alterations to drive and cross over. Applicant: No Comment
9 3/18/2236/HH 17 CM23 3NG Double and single storey rear extension. Insertion of windows to flank elevation. Applicant: No Comment
10 3/18/2141/HH 21 Rochford Road CM23 5ET Raising of roof to create first floor side extensions, enlargement of ground floor kitchen window with new ground floor bathroom window. An erection of single storey outbuilding to rear garden. Applicant: No Comment
11 3/18/2286/HH 9 Stortford Hall Park CM23 5AJ Demolition of garage and erection of two storey side extension. Applicant: No Comment PARCN
12 3/18/2299/HH 50 Abbotts Way CM23 4JF New rear dormer, raising ridge height and rooflights Applicant: No Comment
13 3/18/2287/HH 25 Drovers Way CM23 4GF Demolition of conservatory. Erection of single storey rear extension. Alterations to front fenestration. Applicant: No Comment
Page 5 of 6
Page 127 14 3/18/2298/HH 5 Chandlers Close CM23 4FF Loft conversion with rear dormer and 2no rooflights to front elevation. Applicant: No Comment
15 3/18/2270/HH 8 Dane Park CM23 2PR First floor side extension. Part single storey and part two storey rear extensions. Alterations to fenestration. Applicant: No Comment
16 3/18/2324/HH 59 Rochford Road CM23 5EU Demolition of conservatory, convsersion of garage, single storey front extension and single storey rear extension Applicant: No Comment
17 3/18/2161/HH 46A Windhill CM23 2NH First storey extension with garage conversion. Reposition front wall to extend parking area and addition of pedestrian access on existing timber fence to Windhill. Applicant: No Comment
Page 6 of 6
Page 128 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE HELD ON MONDAY 4th MARCH 2019 AT 6.30PM
Cllr D Abbott * Cllr R Gilbert Cllr G Cutting (ex-officio) Cllr D Snowdon * Cllr P Demonti (Vice Chairman) * Cllr S Stainsby * Cllr Miss H Drake (Chairman) * Cllr J Wyllie Cllr Mrs J Duggan
Substitute Members Cllr Ms A Baptista
* Denotes present ** Denotes present part time
In attendance: James Parker (Chief Executive Officer) One member of the press Approximately 24 members of the public Cllr K Warnell and Cllr D Hollebon
P114. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies were received from Cllr D Abbott, Cllr G Cutting, Cllr J Duggan, and Cllr D Snowdon
P115. DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST Cllr Warnell declared that he is a member of the Development Control Committee at East Herts District Council and must keep an open mind when considering the application in that Committee.
P116. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION John Rhodes spoke on behalf of the Civic Federation stating that the amended application is not materially different to the previous application. He summarised reasons why the members should object including violations, he asserted, of policies VILL3, BISH1, DES1 & several policies in the Neighbourhood Plan.
Roger Halford spoke as an individual and highlighted issues arising from transport citing specifically various policies in the recent Local transport Plan LTP4.
Anne Rhodes spoke personally expressing concerns about the lack of public participation in the master planning in contravention to BISH5. The issue about vehicles accessing Whittington Way, highlighted by officers, has not been addressed. She conceded that exhibitions have been held but to date little concrete information has been provided.
Minutes Approved: Chairman: Date: Page 129 Sylvia McDonald spoke on behalf of OTTRA (Old Thorley Residents Association) which, she said, has many objectors. These individuals are directly affected. Over 1000 objected to the original plans. OTTRA believe that no development should take place on the site and that the removal of the site from the Green Belt is not necessary. OTTRA further claim that the development is contrary to the policies associated with village development. Specific objections include that the other objections made to the initial application have not been addressed, that it is a hybrid application so not all detail is provided and lack of crucial infrastructure. She also highlighted the lack of vehicular access to the shopping area.
Alison Stokes spoke as a resident of Thorley Park, which is directly affected. She expressed the view that, if this plan goes ahead, gridlock will result. She stated that opposition has been strong from the community of Thorley, but views have been ignored. She stated that, prior to this application, an application to develop two schools on the site was rejected on this site due to pollution (air and traffic) so the new proposal, being bigger, is unacceptable and felt that TBSHS need to develop their own land. She further stated her view that the residents of Thorley are totally unrepresented and feel they have been kept in the dark and that the development will have a devastating impact on quality of life for all.
P117. NOTIFICATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ISSUED BY EAST HERTS COUNCIL – APPENDIX 1 Members spoke in turn about the application. Some members objected to the principle of the development as currently proposed and it was noted by one member that the area has been taken out of Green belt and allocated for development in the District Plan, despite the objections on many occasions from members of the Town Council and Bishop’s Stortford Councillors on the District Council. This argument will therefore not be considered by the District Council to be a valid argument against the development. The achievable objective therefore is to ensure that anything which is built here is as sympathetic as possible.
Concerns were expressed that congestion due to the other developments in the town has not been considered in the traffic assessment and air quality considerations.
Concerns were also expressed about quality of life, road safety and air pollution. It was noted that the Neighbourhood Plan covering the area was commenced in response to the possibility that this area would be allocated for development and that several aspects of the plan appear to have been ignored. The open views described in the Neighbourhood plan are unlikely to occur in the current design. For example policy BSS4 in the Neighbourhood Plan states that access should be from existing roundabouts unless modelling shows this is not feasible, appears to have been ignored.
Minutes Approved: Chairman: Date: Page 130 It was RESOLVED to object on the grounds that
The development as currently proposed is unsustainable and there are serious issues as regards traffic management and pollution. The development and traffic management has not been considered in the context of the other developments in the Town. The effect of building a school under a de-facto flightpath has not been adequately considered The Town Council has not been invited to take part in the masterplan process and there appears to be a more general lack of consultation which together appears to be in violation of policies DES1 and BISH5 of the District plan. The plan is in violation of BSS4 of the Bishop’s Stortford Neighbourhood Plan for All Saints Central South and part of Thorley. The plan is in violation of BSS3 of the aforementioned Neighbourhood Plan as it fails to adhere to the DfTs guidelines for reasonable walking distances which are a vital component of the promotion of sustainable transport. The plain is in breach of policy VILL3 as Thorley is classed as a Group 3 village where only limited infill will be permitted.
The Town Council requests that the application go to Committee and not be determined solely by officers.
P118. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA None
There being no further business the meeting closed at 7.15pm
Minutes Approved: Chairman: Date: Page 131 Bishop's Stortford Town Council Planning and Development Committee: 04/03/2019 Appendix 1: Town Council Decisions on Applications Notified
a 3/18/2253/OU Land at Bishop's Stortford South Off Whittingto RECONSULTATION
Hybrid Planning application comprising: (i) A full application for 142 dwellings (class C3) including affordable homes, plus associated accesses, landscaping, open space and infastructre works (development zone A) , and a north/south primary route; and (ii) An outline application, with all matters reserved except access, for approximately 608 (Class C3) including affordable homes, a care home (Class C2) , up to 4 hectares of employment land (classes B1, B2, B8 sui Generis (car showroom)), a local centre including up to 1000 sq m for retail (Class A1), and up to 2200 sq m for other uses (Classes A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1), a primary school (Class D1) up to 3 forms of entry and including early years facilities, a secondary school (Class D1) up to 8 forms of entry, open space including equipped areas for play, sustainable drainage systems, landscaping and all associated infrastructure and development.
https://publicaccess.eastherts.gov.uk/online- applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage Applicant: Objection The committee objected to the development on the basis of these grounds: The development as currently proposed is unsustainable and there are serious issues as regards traffic management and pollution. The development and traffic management has not been considered in the context of the other developments in the Town. The effect of building a school under a de-facto flightpath has not been adequately considered The Town Council has not been invited to take part in the masterplan process and there appears to be a more general lack of consultation which together appears to be in violation of policies DES1 and BISH5 of the District plan. The plan is in violation of BSS4 of the Bishop’s Stortford Neighbourhood Plan for All Saints Central South and part of Thorley. The plan is in violation of BSS3 of the aforementioned Neighbourhood Plan as it fails to adhere to the DfTs guidelines for reasonable walking distances which are a vital component of the promotion of sustainable transport. The plain is in breach of policy VILL3 as Thorley is classed as a Group 3 village where only limited infill will be permitted.
Page 1 of 1
Page 132 THORLEY PARISH COUNCIL
Tel: (h) 01279 758032 CLERK (m) 07493 755572 R.A. COX 11 KINGS COTTAGES, Email: [email protected] BISHOP’S STORTFORD, HERTFORDSHIRE CM23 3JD
ref:- 3/18/2253/OUT 19/02
Date: 01/03/2019
T. P. Council’s comments on Planning Re-Application 3/18/2253/OUT.
Thorley Parish Council, based on the following, believe that this application should be put on hold, and that a meeting be convened between the EHDC Development Management Committee and all other relevant bodies in Bishops Stortford and Thorley, to confer and discuss in detail this application.
Thorley Parish Council believe that this application or re-application does not conform to the due process required for such applications, including consultation procedures, the incomplete and flawed supporting consultants documentation, statements in consultation documents which is the opinion of 2 or 3 of the document compilers while totally ignoring the hundreds of local residents’ points of view. The time allowed for the consultation on this re-application is unacceptable, the consultation time on the original application was also inadequate to analyse the supporting documentation. The previous application should have been nullified following the amount of flawed and incomplete documents presented, [which have been highlighted by numerous relevant organisations]. We have conferred with other residents/bodies/organisations in forming this response to the re-application, and in conjunction with them, and in order to avoid excessive repetition, we re-attach previously supplied supplementary documents which have not been satisfactorily addressed in this re- application, plus additional attachment of third party objection to the re-application on transport and consultation.
The Council also object to the re-application on [but not limited to] the following issues:-
With reference to the outline planning application, this application is unsustainable on the following, Planning permission for a school on this site has previously been refused twice and upheld after an appeal – apart from the changed status of the land on the site – all the other reasons for planning refusal remain unchanged. Nothing in the re-application documents demonstrates further mitigation on this issue. Constructing a school on this site eliminates two green space areas, one area on Bish.5 site , and the green area of the existing school site as cited for further development in the district plan.
Vehicular accesses on to the different areas of the site has been modified, but still does not comply wholly with NP2 conditional policies on this development .
The development as a whole is in breach of the village hierarchy policy in the East Herts District Plan, this site is in Thorley which is classed in the district plan as a “Type 3 village”, which does not support development. Nothing in the re-application documents demonstrates any change to this.
Page 133 The Green Belt review of this site carried out by EHDC and its consultants, which is the same consultant used by the developer, deemed this site to be unsuitable for development, but both parties reject those findings of their own experts. Meanwhile EHDC continue not to reject other [demonstrated to be flawed] consultants assessments as previously cited.
During the formation of NP2, at 4 no. open public consultations, over 90% of the public addressed, objected to development on this site and deemed it unsuitable and undesirable for development.
The provision of adequate wildlife corridors for sustaining wildlife on the site has not been adequately demonstrated to conform to District plan and BSS5 inNP2 requirements for wildlife welfare.
The application does not demonstrate adequately, sustainable solutions to deal with the geological and topographical properties of the site, namely substrate water movement and unstable ground conditions, and the resultant effects on adjacent ground.
Part of this site is under Stansted airport flight paths, this has not been adequately assessed which makes this application unsustainable.
Part of this site is in flood plain but mitigation for development here is inadequate.
Green belt is still cited in the re-application documents as a constraint within the application. The list of constraints must be changed to incorporate all the current constraints and re-application again be submitted for public consultation. As well as this, there are errors in other documents already demonstrated, which form part of the application which must be corrected and re-re- submitted for public consultation, this situation alone is sufficient to render the present application inadmissible and unsustainable. As previously stated, mere changes to documentation will not render them as acceptable inclusions in this application, they must be corrected and form part of a second new application.
The method of surface water management proposed still has not demonstrated the capability to deal with the worst case rainfall quantities [the documents in the application do not use the Dept. of Environment actual recorded rainfall, but assumed average rainfall] on the site or its capability to prevent release of any overflow into the river Stort or surrounding ground. This in turn would affect sewerage flow in the area,[Thames Water in their attached “assessment document” states that the developer must demonstrate that sewage flow must not be affected by the development] this possibility would make the development unsustainable under many headings. The developer has not demonstrated this requirement. The flood assessment attached to the re-application confirms that the water management of the site is insufficient to prevent flooding of the site and have stated that design of the houses themselves now includes measures against flooding , therefore flooding is anticipated which makes this development unsustainable and thus, the properties uninsurable. The water authorities, Thames Water together with other local water authorities state that works to the water infrastructure locally are proceeding at present and forecast completion of part of the works by 2023 and total completion by 2027. Which parts, and the sequence of works is not clearly defined and this must be a large constraint but no mitigation is included in this re- application.
The documents included in the original application do not appear to demonstrate sufficient innovative generation of carbon free energy to be generated within the development as required by latest environmental recommendations, neither do the documents in the re-application.
Page 134 Infrastructure in general:- Water and sewerage as stated above is questionable as it has been stated that there was in 2016 sufficient sewage treatment capacity available for the permitted future developments at that time, but that capacity for evacuation of the treated sewage was already at its limit. There is no demonstration in the accompanying documents to state that evacuation capacity has been augmented.
Gas supply – it is not evident at this stage what the gas requirements are for the development, but Transco have no plans at present for gas supply augmentation in the area, the present supply now being at full capacity. No demonstration in new documents.
Electricity – no new information
Roads and transport – road layout has been modified, but there is still no demonstration of conformance to LTP4, and impact from the development, traffic modelling is still not complete and therefore this aspect renders the re-application unsustainable.
Schools – there is nothing more in the re-application to demonstrate any benefit to education requirements by virtue of the high school development.
Police – there is still no suggestion of augmentation of the police force to deal with the estimated 1,800 extra residents and resultant problems. I.T. - It is not apparent in the supporting documents if any improvement to supply of technology in respect of the development has been adequately considered .
Wider transport – railways. No expansion of the existing lines are anticipated, but perhaps installation of extra stations, which do not improve the capacity of the railway service which is presently over capacity at peak times, and will not be able to accommodate the extra population created by the development.
Hybrid application for 142 houses. This part of the site although in B.S. Parish is still part of Thorley village
The housing on the site is designated as being built on Garden City/Garden Village principles which describe recommended properties of housing types and a recommended density of 25 dwellings per hectare. Housing density as proposed is too high and does not comply with the description.
Housing on the perimeter dwellings of the development should be limited to 2 storeys, not 2 ½ storeys as stated in BSS2 in HP2.
Taking into account statistics of local car ownership, the road widths within the developments should allow traffic to pass easily if a car should be parked in the road, and also adequate off-road parking should be provided. The layout of the housing still does not appear to allow compliance with TP8 in NP2.
The Andrew Martin Environmental Statement “cumulative impact” assessment includes a list of 24 neighbouring developments which could affect the local and overall impact of developments but chooses to disregard Stansted airport development [which in other parts of the EHDC district plan is one of the most important local considerations for the housing requirement] . The same assessment predicts that considerable impact will arise from these developments but that the effect of the developments have not been assessed because of lack of available detail/information [para
Page 135 21.10.] If the cumulative impact assessment is incomplete this renders the application unsustainable and unacceptable. This document is not only incomplete, but is mostly speculation and unfounded opinions. There is no time to inspect all the accompanying documents within the time frame, but it is expected that more of the same would be uncovered.
The above mentioned comments alone should render the re-application inadmissible, but the documents accompanying these comments detail many other errors and omissions in the re- application documents. It is the opinion of Thorley Parish Council, based on the hereby stated error/omission findings in the supporting documents of the application, that EHDC Planning dept. should have already again, refused this application, it should not be the sole responsibility of the local residents to trawl through this amount of information again in the limited time given by EHDC for response to the application.
Signed :-
Cllr. R.Lumsden Chairman Thorley Parish Council
Page 136 Hybrid Application 3/18/2253/OUT: Bishops Stortford South OBJECTION ON AMENDED APPLICATION RECONSULTATION I am writing to object to the above amended application and to follow up previous objections submitted on 6th December 2018 by Thorley Parish Council (TPC) and Old Thorley and Twyford Park Residents Association (OTTRA) which these amendments do nothing to address. Our original objections focused on two key aspects of the application relating to the Transport Assessment (TA) and the Statement of Community Consultation (SCC). In particular, we note the failure to address objections which raised significant concerns related to the current planning policy priorities of NPPF2018, the District Plan adopted October 2018 and LTP4 adopted May 2018 which, if unaddressed, will leave the application open to continuing challenge. Moreover, in the case of the substantial analytical and policy shortcomings of the TA, we note that the reconsultation has gone ahead before any formal response from the Highways Authority has been made available on the website. For your convenience our principal policy objections on the transport assessment and consultation process are summarised below: With respect to the Transport Assessment we reviewed the TA and relevant NPPF, LTP4 and District Plan policies on the transport impact of the development and mitigation and concluded that: The Transport Assessment (TA) makes no reference to the District Plan process which identified and quantified unsustainable future challenges to the strategic transport network of development in the south and east of the town and made no attempt to address the impact of the development of BSS on this vulnerable local strategic network. The TA submission is based on a wholly outdated understanding of the current local transport policy environment demonstrated by a total failure to refer to or review the significance of the current LTP4 or District Plan transport policies adopted in the past eight months – relying instead on LTP3 and District Plan 2007 policies now superseded. Any decision to approve or refuse the application is premature until these requirements are met. With respect to our review of the results of the TA modelling of traffic impacts we found that: o The applicant’s own TA confirms the unsustainable impact on the London Road Corridor first estimated by the East Herts Local Plan Support documents TRA001 and 002 and the critical failure of the system at the Pig Lane / London Road junction – including a quadrupling of vehicle delays, a reaching of 100% capacity of the junction in the morning peak and a consequent tailback of 120 vehicles over 700 metres. o the failure to model the junctions at the Pig Lane light controlled single lane rail bridge, the Pig Lane / Hallingbury Road Junction and junctions in Haymeads Lane represents a significant gap in the understanding of the impact of BSS on the strategic transport highway network in the south and east of the town. Despite providing detailed highway designs (amended slightly in the Amended Application), The applicant has failed to provide any assessment of the transport impact of the initial development of 142 dwellings on Whittington Way. The Full Application should therefore be withdrawn and not resubmitted until the strategic and local transport impact has been assessed in full. In view of the clearly severe effect of the BSS development on the rural and residential character of both Pig Lane and Thorley Street and on the safety of vulnerable road users, we therefore expect that the Highways Authority will resist the development under the terms of the recently adopted LTP4 Policy 5(g) and of paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPF 2018. The single mitigation measure proposed by the applicant to address the severe transport impact on the south and east of the town identified in the TA is wholly inadequate and totally untested. It therefore fails to “secure developer mitigation measures to limit the impacts of development on the transport network” as required by LTP4 Policy 5(d) and does not meet the NPPF para
Page 137 108 requirement that the impact has been “mitigated to an acceptable degree.” We would therefore expect the Highways Authority to “resist development where the residual impact of development is considered to be severe” (LTP4 Policy 5(d)).
We therefore object to the Hybrid Application on the grounds that it does not comply with NPPF 2018 paragraphs 102, 108 and 109, LTP4 Policy 5 and District Plan Policies TRA1and TRA2 on impact of development on the transport network and on mitigation of those impacts. The hybrid application should therefore be refused in part and in full.
With respect to the Consultation Process we reviewed the SCC and the relevant NPPF and District Plan policies on pre-application community consultation and masterplanning and concluded that: The new policy requirements of NPPF 2018 and District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 on community consultation and engagement on masterplanning have not been met by the SCC and that any consideration of the application is premature until these requirements are met. The applicant has failed to meet (or attempt to meet) any of the community consultation or masterplanning requirements of District Plan Policies DES1, BISH5 and NPPF 2018 paragraphs 40 and 42 for the Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way since the intention to submit a hybrid application was first made public on 17th July 2018. The application should be withdrawn and not resubmitted until these consultation policies have been met in full. We find the SCC to be incomplete and inadequate in identifying or consulting with stakeholders most directly affected by or likely to object to the development and deliberately misleading in its analysis of negative public consultation feedback on the development. The consultation process on the Outline Application reported in the SCC therefore falls far short of the levels of collaboration and open debate that is required by the East Herts District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018. The representation on the Masterplanning Steering Group and the way it has conducted its work has fallen far short of the levels of participation, collaboration and open debate with statutory and non-statutory stakeholders that is required by NPPF(2018) paragraph 40, DES1 and BISH5 and is an inadequate basis to proceed.
We therefore continue to object to the Hybrid Application on the grounds that it does not comply with District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 paragraphs 40 and 42 on community consultation and on participation and collaboration in masterplanning. The hybrid application should therefore be refused in part and in full.
The consultation procedure adopted by the applicant and EHC has been perhaps the single greatest failure of the application process and that which has most misled the communities of Thorley and Bishop’s Stortford. There have been important policy changes on community consultation on major developments in the NPPF 2018 and, indeed, in the newly adopted East Herts District Plan itself on which the application is totally reliant (in respect of the removal of the site from the Green Belt). These changes appear to be totally ignored and instead the impression given to the community has been of a four year closed negotiation process and agreement between the applicant and EHC. The consultation process has been oblivious to - and misrepresented - objections made in their thousands when statutorily required consultations have been undertaken– culminating in this reconsultation on amendments which fails to address any of the community’s concerns about the original application and thereby bringing the whole planning process into disrepute. We understand that a reconsultation period of only two weeks has been allowed to enable this application to be treated as a matter of routine business at the March meeting of the Development Management Committee (DMC). This is unacceptable and is an attempt to avoid
Page 138 the one final opportunity which remains to engage the community before the application is determined. We therefore request that the Council puts consideration of the application by the DMC to a dedicated meeting to be held in Thorley or Bishops Storford as a single item of business with the applicant and objectors given the opportunity to address the Committee in a structured process and not limited to three minute contributions. We understand that this opportunity was afforded to applications for Bishop’s Stortford North and the Station Goods Yard and in view of the unprecedented response to this application – and the failure of the reconsultation to address this response – a similar chance must now be given to the Thorley community and other objectors.
Prepared 3rd March 2019 by: Colin Arnott, MRTPI Deputy Chairman, Old Thorley and Twyford Park Residents Association Planning Adviser to Thorley Parish Council
Page 139 Hybrid Application 3/18/2253/OUT: Bishops Stortford South OBJECTION ON THE ASSESSMENT OF TRANSPORT IMPACT This paper is prepared in response to the Transport Assessment (TA) and other documents prepared in support of the Hybrid Planning Application submitted by Countryside Properties (UK) Plc (‘Countryside’). Summary and Conclusion We have reviewed the TA, other relevant supporting documents submitted by the applicant, relevant NPPF and District Plan policies on the transport impact of development and mitigation and conclude that: It is clear that the District Plan process identified and quantified the existing and potentially unsustainable future challenges to the strategic transport network of development in the south and east of the town. However, the Transport Assessment (TA) presented in support of the hybrid application makes no reference to this strategic context and makes no attempt to address the impact of the development of BSS – both independently and cumulatively – on this vulnerable local strategic network. We believe that the TA submission is based on a wholly outdated understanding of the current local transport policy environment demonstrated by a total failure to refer to or review the significance of the current LTP4 or District Plan transport policies adopted in the past eight months – relying instead on LTP3 and District Plan 2007 policies now superseded. The Local Planning Authority and the Highways Authority should be satisfied that the new policy requirements of NPPF 2018, LTP4 and District Plan Policies TRA1 and TRA2 have been addressed by the TA and have been met in full before proceeding to a planning application and that any decision to approve or refuse the application is premature until these requirements are met. With respect to our review of the results of the TA modelling of traffic impacts we find that: o the junction analysis carried in the applicant’s own TA confirms the unsustainable impact on the London Road Corridor which was first estimated by the East Herts Local Plan Support documents TRA001 and 002 and the critical failure of the system at the Pig Lane / London Road junction – including a quadrupling of vehicle delays, a reaching of 100% capacity of the junction in the morning peak and a consequent tailback of 120 vehicles over 700 metres. This situation is clearly unsustainable and the development unacceptable without significant mitigation measures that directly address these impacts. o it is difficult to discern the cumulative impact of the BSS development on town centre congestion from the presentation in the TA but HCC need be satisfied that the claim that the impact is marginal can be substantiated in a situation at Hockerill Junction where future capacities are expected to be unsustainable and is within an Air Quality Management area. o the failure to model the junctions at the Pig Lane light controlled single lane rail bridge, the Pig Lane / Hallingbury Road Junction and junctions in Haymeads Lane represents a significant gap in the understanding of the impact of BSS on the strategic transport highway network in the south and east of the town and have been omitted because the junctions are on the fringe of the County and not well recognised. We believe they should be included in BSS junction modelling before the application is determined. o in view of the applicant’s failure to provide any assessment of the transport impact of the Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way - since the intention to submit a hybrid application was first made public on 17th July 2018 – the Full Application should Page 140 be withdrawn and not resubmitted until the TA has assessed the strategic and local transport impact in full. In view of the clearly severe effect of the BSS development on the rural an residential character of both Pig Lane and Thorley Street and on the safety of vulnerable road users as a result of unsustainable increases in traffic flows and queuing, we therefore expect that the Highways Authority will resist the development under the terms of the recently adopted LTP4 Policy 5(g) and of paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPF 2018. We believe that the very limited mitigation measure proposed by the applicant to address the severe transport impact problems which they identify in the TA is wholly inadequate to meet the challenge, totally untested and therefore unproven in its ability to mitigate the identified level of impact and not implementable through a S106 agreement with the applicant alone. It therefore fails to “secure developer mitigation measures to limit the impacts of development on the transport network as required by LTP4 Policy 5(d) and does not meet the NPPF para 108 requirement that the impact has been “mitigated to an acceptable degree.” We would therefore expect the Highways Authority to “resist development where the residual impact of development is considered to be severe” (LTP4 Policy 5(d)).
We therefore object to the Hybrid Application 3/18/2253/OUT: Bishops Stortford South – both to the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development and to the Full Application for 142 houses on Whittington Way – on the grounds that it does not comply with NPPF 2018 paragraphs 102, 108 and 109, LTP4 Policy 5 and District Plan Policies TRA1and TRA2 on impact of development on the transport network and on mitigation of those impacts. The hybrid application should therefore be refused in part and in full.
Page 141 Review of the Assessment of Transport Impact
Our review of Transport Assessment (TA) and other documents has been carried out in five areas: Strategic Transport Context in the south of Bishops Stortford and Thorley Requirements of NPPF 2018, LTP4, and East Herts District Plan Policies TRA001 and 002 on Transport and Traffic Assessment Review of the Transport Assessment on the Hybrid Application Impact on rural and residential roads - Pig Lane and Thorley Street Mitigation
1. Strategic Transport Context in the south of Bishops Stortford and Thorley
The strategic transport context within which the impact of major development in the south of Bishops Stortford must be considered was set out in the East Herts Local Plan Support documents TRA 001 and 002 prepared in January and March 2017 respectively and based on HCC Highways Comet Model run. This modelling set out, among other things, the base year traffic flows to and from Bishops Stortford, the “Do Minimum” trip generation from the BSS development and the “Do Something” trip combined distribution from the major East Herts developments proposed in the Plan. These results clearly showed the challenges facing the strategic traffic impact of development in the south of the town and Thorley which would have to be addressed in the Traffic Assessment (TA) for the BSS development and resolved by mitigation before development could go ahead including: The overwhelming east and south-east bound direction of a.m. peak outbound and p.m. peak inbound trips which TRA001 concluded “indicates that the town has a close interaction with the A120 (towards Essex) and M11 corridors .. (and) … the interaction with the rest of the district is relatively limited.” Figure 32 of TRA001 (abstract below) clearly shows that the greatest existing a.m. peak movements of outbound movement from the town are therefore around the BSS site along London Road/Thorley Street, Whittington Way and particularly how Pig Lane / Hallingbury Road / Church Road are not “rat-runs” but now act as an informal south-eastern by-pass route to J8 and Stansted Airport.
When TRA001 therefore modelled the a.m. peak distribution from the BSS site specifically the weight of the impact of traffic movements therefore predicted a similar distribution around the site to the east and south along Whittington Way, London Road and Pig Lane / Church Road – see Figure 21 abstract below. Page 142 When combined with the impact of other major developments in East Herts and highways improvements proposed in the Plan in the TRA002 “Do Something” model run, the predicted a.m. peak distribution from the BSS site dramatically highlights the impact of the development on the strategic road network of the south and east of the town and Thorley around the site – see Figure 18 abstracted below.
TRA002 acknowledged the strategic impact problem stating that “the shortest route between this development and M11 J8 is through the town centre. Congestion within Bishop’s Stortford, however, encourages modelled trips to route via Pig Lane and Church Road instead” The full unsustainability of this situation was buried away in Table 6 of Appendix B to TRA001 however which predicted that: o Combined Pig Lane a.m. peak movements are projected to more than double from an existing highly congested level of 437 vehicles to 937 vehicles o Combined Pig Lane p.m. peak movements are projected to increase by nearly 2.5 times from an existing level of 360 vehicles to 871 vehicles. o A1184 London Road a.m. peak northbound movements increase by 65% from 630 vehicles to over 1000 vehicles.
The inevitable impact of this on delays, congestion and capacities on the southern, London Road, entrance to the town and the unsustainable impact on wholly unsuitable local / residential roads such as Pig lane and Thorley Street are examined below. Page 143 It is clear that the District Plan process identified and quantified the existing and potentially unsustainable future challenges to the strategic transport network of development in the south and east of the town. However, the Transport Assessment presented in support of the hybrid application makes no reference to this strategic context and makes no attempt to address the impact of the development of BSS – both independently and cumulatively – on this vulnerable local strategic network.
2. Requirements of NPPF 2018, LTP4, and East Herts District Plan Policies TRA001 and 002 on Transport and Traffic Assessment
The relevant NPPF, Local Transport Plan and District Plan policies against which the TA should be considered are: Section 9 of the NPPF 2018 on Promoting Sustainable Transport requires that: (Paragraph 102) Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals, so that … “the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure can be identified, assessed and taken into account including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects” (Paragraph 108) In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that …”any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree”. (Paragraph 109) states that development may be “prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”
Hertfordshire County Council is the statutory highways authority and in May 2018 adopted a new Local Transport Plan for the County – LTP4 (May 2018). The relevant Plan Policy 5 on Development Management includes policies to work with development promoters and district councils to: Policy 5(d) – Secure developer mitigation measures to limit the impacts of development on the transport network and resist development where the residual impact of development is considered to be severe Policy 5(f) – Only consider new accesses onto primary and main distributor roads where special circumstances can be demonstrated in favour of the proposals. Policy 5(g) – Resist development that would either severely affect the rural or residential character of a road … or which would severely affect safety on rural roads, local roads and rights of way especially for vulnerable road users.
Despite the fact that LTP4 became the approved Local Transport Plan in May 2018 the East Herts District Plan (adopted in October 2018) chapter 18 on Transport states that “Locally, the over- arching transport policy document for the area is Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (LTP3)”. It appears that District Plan Transport policies may not therefore reflect current LTP4 policies – particularly Policy 5. Nevertheless we note:
Policy TRA1(Ib) states that development proposals should “where relevant, take account of the provisions of the Local Transport Plan” Policy TRA2 states that “Development proposals should ensure that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users. Site layouts, access proposals and any measures designed to mitigate trip generation produced by the development should: (a) Be acceptable in highway safety terms; (b) Not result in any severe residual cumulative impact; and (c) Not have a significant detrimental effect on the character of the local environment
Page 144 Section 2 of the Transport Assessment (pages 10-31) sets out at length the relevant policies that have guided the Assessment including NPPF, LTP and District Plan policies. Unfortunately, with the exception of the review of NPPF 2018 policies, the review of LTP and District Plan policies is wholly outdated and refers to LTP3 (superseded by LTP4 in May 2018 – see above) and to Local Plan 2007 and Draft District Plan TRA policies (superseded by the District Plan 2018 as adopted in October 2018 – see above). Indeed, the whole policy review shows no signs of having been updated to reflect the significant changes in current policy in the last 12 months. This ignorance or disregard of current local transport policy affecting the area is critical with regard to: The significance of the new HCC LTP4 Policy 5 (see above) on Development Management which includes policies to work with development promoters on resisting inappropriate levels of development with severe traffic impacts and securing developer mitigation measures to limit the impacts of development. The failure to even identify LTP4 and this important new policy on the management of development casts doubt on the amount of “work with development promoters” that has taken place between HCC and Countryside in the last year. The level of deferment on transport policy of the new District Plan to the LTP4 policies of the highway authority. The TA cites in full East Herts Local Plan 2007 policies TRA1 to TRA11 without acknowledging that these are now redundant. The new District Plan 2018 is much simplified on transport and contains only three transport policies TRA1 to TRA3 (none of which are cited in the TA, despite citing policy BISH5 on which the whole BSS application relies), the first of which, TRA1 on Sustainable Transport references and reflects LTP4 policies and “says development proposals should … take account of the provisions of the LTP”
We believe that the TA submission is based on a wholly outdated understanding of the current local transport policy environment demonstrated by a total failure to refer to or review the significance of the current LTP4 or District Plan transport policies adopted in the past eight months – relying instead on LTP3 and District Plan 2007 policies now superseded. The Local Planning Authority and the Highways Authority should be satisfied that the new policy requirements of NPPF 2018, LTP4 and District Plan Policies TRA1 and TRA2 have been addressed by the TA and have been met in full before proceeding to a planning application and that any decision to approve or refuse the application is premature until these requirements are met.
3. Review of the Transport Assessment on the Hybrid Application. We have carried out a broad review of the results of the TA modelling of traffic impacts using the HCC TRANSYT Model for the Town Centre, an update of TRANSYT using 2016 survey data for the London Road Corridor and a combination of LYNSYG and JUNCTIONS9 to model junction queues, delays and capacities. We note that: The modelling is of junction delays, queues and capacities. This principally measures the impact on road users. Peak flow data – as provided to the District Plan EiP - is needed to measure the impact on residents and other users. We understand that flow data was required to be prepared but we have not found this important information within the TA or its Appendices.
We understand that the modelling includes “all developments included in the (East Herts) District Plan”. However, it is not clear whether planned developments in the Uttlesford District Plan are included – including in particular the assumptions about Stansted Airport expansion. Since the baseline survey dates from 2016 the modelling is particularly sensitive to assumptions made about all “future” developments since 2016 – of which there have been many The evening peak hour modelled around the site is usually around 5-6 pm whereas the observed peak is 3.30 – 4.30 pm and is school related.
Page 145 We believe the TA should clarify the availability of the above data, results and assumptions made before it is evaluated.
Within these limitations, we have reviewed the Transport Assessment (TA) submitted in support of the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development above and the Full application for 142 houses on Whittington Way in four key areas: a) London Road Corridor Impacts
The strategic transport assessment carried out in the East Herts Local Plan Support documents showed (see section 1 above) the unsustainable impact of the development on the strategic road network of the south and east of the town and Thorley – in particular on the London Road Corridor – and the results of the junction modelling undertaken for the TA clearly confirms this. It shows that the main impact is on the Thorley Street, Whittington Way, London Road and particularly Pig Lane junctions. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 of Appendix G of the TA show that: With the growth of traffic and the impact of the BSS development the average delay turning right out of Whittington Way in both the morning and evening peaks grows to an average of over one minute on this important local distributor which. This however does not appear to take account of the impact of and on an additional 4 or 5 access roads direct from Whittington Way to the Full Application development of 142 houses. Table 7.2 dramatically highlights the impact of the development on the London Road Corridor of the London Road / Pig Lane junction – the critical bottleneck in the informal south-eastern by pass to the town. This includes: the longest increase in delays in the system where turning right out of Pig Lane into London Road increases from 24 seconds to nearly 2 minutes in the morning peak. Similar doubling of waiting times occur in the evening peak. Moreover this assumes that left turns out of Pig Lane (where waiting time also doubles) can continue while right turners wait. This is not usually possible and never once the combined queue gets to more than 2 or 3 vehicles. It becomes a single queue behind the right turners. No assessment has been made of the combined queue which would back up to the light controlled single lane rail bridge in Pig Lane 100 metres south of the London Road junction. The rail bridge lights are a junction which has not been modelled and is already critical to operation of the Pig Lane / London Road junction in peak hours. Most significantly, an increase in in the morning peak of the delay in northbound London Road and traffic turning into Pig Lane from an existing 14 seconds without the development to nearly a minute and a half with it – lengthening the northbound London Road queue at this point from 5 to 30 vehicles. As a result of these increases Table 7.2 estimates that this junction will be at virtually 100% capacity on average at the a.m. peak. This demonstrates gridlock as capacity cannot exceed 100%, average capacities over 85% are unacceptable and those over approximately 65% are generally unsustainable with cumulative growth in the system. This junction alone shows 4 movements in the morning and evening peaks which are at 65% capacity or over. Finally, it should be noted that queues, delays and capacities at each of these junctions have been modelled individually – in some cases using separate LYNSYG and JUNCTIONS9 models. Junctions at Whittington Way, London Road, Thorley Hill and Pig Lane (including the Pig Lane rail bridge) are all within 200 metres of each other and queues will accumulate at close junctions, further reducing capacity. Although this has not been measured in the TA, the “Planning Conditions” document submitted in support of the application summarises some of the Page 146 London Road Corridor impacts but (whilst measuring the additional impact of the schools) also states that the cumulative “queue from Pig Lane (i.e. northbound on London Road to the Pig Lane junction) is predicted to be 108 vehicles with general growth and 121 vehicles with the addition of the school”. Using HCC’s Highways standards that represents a queue of nearly 700 metres stretching through the Whitington Way junction, through Thorley Street almost to the by-pass at St.James’ Way.
It is clear that the junction analysis carried in the applicant’s own TA confirms the unsustainable impact on the London Road Corridor which was first estimated by the East Herts Local Plan Support documents TRA001 and 002 and the critical failure of the system at the Pig Lane / London Road junction – including a quadrupling of vehicle delays, a reaching of 100% capacity of the junction in the morning peak and a consequent tailback of 120 vehicles over 700 metres. This situation is clearly unsustainable and the development unacceptable without significant mitigation measures that directly address these impacts. b) Town Centre Impacts
At the request of HCC, Town Centre impacts have also been assessed in the TA – in particular the impact on the Hockerill Junction. It appears that absolute levels of impact of the BSS development on the junction and surrounding movements are not presented but the analysis instead focuses on the benefits of the “Smarter Choices” policy to encourage mode switching and the cumulative impact of other developments – particularly the Goods Yard development. Generally, the TA presents the “existing plus growth” impact as so high that additional BSS impact, under the Smarter Choices scenario is described as marginal. We note however that all the major junction movements north and east are at around 90 – 120% capacity a.m. and 90 – 130% capacity p.m. in the base + growth + Goods Yard case. We conclude that it is difficult to discern the cumulative impact of the BSS development on town centre congestion from the presentation in the TA but HCC need be satisfied that the claim that the impact is marginal can be substantiated in a situation at Hockerill Junction where future capacities are expected to be unsustainable and is within an Air Quality Management area. c) Unmodelled Junctions and Links
We understand that the applicant agreed with HCC 11 junction which would be modelled as shown in Table 1.1 and Figure 1.2. of Appendix G to the TA. Based on the results of the Comet modelling of the highway network of the south and east of the town and Thorley carried out in support of the District Plan and our local knowledge of the area we believe that this list does not include key junctions and links in the network which can be expected to be critically impacted by the BSS development. The junctions include:
Pig Lane light controlled single lane rail bridge – as noted in 3(a) above the traffic light controlled rail bridge in Pig Lane is an alternating single direction junction which has extensive queueing and is frequently blocked in peak hours. Despite the fact that it functions as a junction within approximately 100 meters of the critical bottleneck in the informal south-eastern by pass to the town.at the London Road / Pig Lane junction – no assessment has been made of queuing, delays and capacity. It appears to have been overlooked because while the junction with London Road is a visible bottleneck in the London Road Corridor, the role of the Pig Lane link in the informal by-pass has not been recognized. Pig Lane / Hallingbury Road - Similarly the Pig Lane / Hallingbury Road Junction at the eastern end of Pig Lane has also been ignored. Lengthy eastbound queues extend back along Page 147 the narrowest section of Pig Lane in the morning peak – frequently preventing westbound movements. The most easterly 10 meters of Pig Lane at the Hallingbury Road junction cross into Essex – as is Hallingbury Road and the junction with Church Road which, with Pig Lane, make up the informal by-pass link from London Road to J8 and the Airport highlighted in the diagrams in section 1 above. Hallingbury Road is a main distributor and the junction with Pig Lane is in a high speed, accident prone “dip” where there are left and right turn movements. The junction appears to have been excluded from modelling because it is in Essex but it is not clear whether it has been evaluated by ECC Highways or Uttlesford District and whether they have been consulted on this junction and the impact of significantly increased traffic movements on Church Road and on Great Hallingbury. Haymeads Lane / Cavell Drive and Haymeads Lane / Dunmow Road – The informal by-pass link from the Hallingbury Road junction also routes via Beldams Lane / Haymeads Lane to Dunmow Road and J8. We understand that it was modelled for the Goods Yard development but It is expected that delays and queues on this route will also increase significantly as a result of the BSS development. We therefore believe that the Haymeads Lane / Cavell Drive junction (including congestion at the Cavell Drive access to the district hospital) and Haymeads Lane / Dunmow Road should be modelled.
We believe that the failure to model the above junctions represents a significant gap in the understanding of the impact of BSS on the strategic transport highway network in the south and east of the town and have been omitted because the junctions are on the fringe of the County and not well recognised. We believe they should be included in BSS junction modelling before the application is determined. d) Transport Impact of Full Application for 142 houses The hybrid planning application submitted by Countryside comprises an Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development and a Full Application for 142 houses on Whittington Way. However, we note that there is no specific reference to a full planning application for 142 houses on Whittington Way or any transport assessment of the impact of this first phase of the BSS development anywhere in the TA. Specifically: The local planning authority and the community has been provided with no estimate of the impact of 142 houses on the critical London Road Corridor junctions when the access to and from the development is via Whittington Way / Obrey Way rather than St. James’ Way and the existing Bishop’s Stortford High School access via London Road remains in place. What is the impact of an additional 4 or 5 access roads direct on to Whittington Way on the functioning of the base + growth network generally and on the Whittington Way local distributor and access to surrounding communities of Thorley Park and Twyford Park. Are the mitigating measures proposed to alleviate the impact of the full development assessed in the TA – including for example minor improvements to the layout of the Thorley Hill / London Road – required or being offered in respect of this first phase of development.
In view of the applicant’s failure to provide any assessment of the transport impact of the Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way - since the intention to submit a hybrid application was first made public on 17th July 2018 – the Full Application should be withdrawn and not resubmitted until the TA has assessed the strategic and local transport impact in full.
4. Impact on rural and residential roads - Pig Lane and Thorley Street
Page 148 Section 1 above notes that HCC’s traffic model prepared for the District Plan predicted that, in the morning peak, Bishop’s Stortford South would result in a 65% increase in northbound traffic on London Road from 630 to 1040 vehicles while in Pig Lane combined east and westbound traffic would more than double from 437 to 937 vehicles. Section 3 goes on to show that the TA confirms that, without significant mitigation measures, there will be an unsustainable impact on the London Road Corridor in particular – including a quadrupling of vehicle delays, a reaching of junction capacities and a consequent 700 metre tailback. We also note that HCC LTP4 Policy 5(g) states that the Highways Authority will “Resist development that would either severely affect the rural or residential character of a road or other right of way, or which would severely affect safety on rural roads, local roads and rights of way especially for vulnerable road users”. In these circumstances, we believe that this policy will clearly apply in the London Road Corridor to: Pig Lane – Despite its role as a key link in Bishops Stortford’s informal south-eastern by-pass, Pig Lane is a residential road with distinctly rural characteristics. It has a 4-5metre combined carriageway for most of its length with two 45-90 degree bends, no footpaths and residential development with family homes fronting the lane. It is popular with many categories of vulnerable users including walkers, joggers and cyclists and horse riders based at a large livery located on the south-eastern side of the lane. The lane crosses the Stort Towpath at Twyford Lock where canoeists cross the road and there is uncontrolled parking by fisherman and other river users. We have already noted that traffic using the western end of the lane is subject to intermittent single lane use at a light controlled single lane rail bridge at one of its narrowest points which adds significantly to a.m. and p.m. peak congestion at the bridge and at the junction with London Road. The TA engineering studies have examined whether the junction can be improved by widening or other engineering solutions and concluded it cannot. No other mitigation has been offered by the TA and any restriction of access has not been considered because of the lane’s strategic network role. The rural and residential character of Pig Lane will clearly be severely affected by combined a.m. and p.m. peak flows as a result of the BSS development of nearly 1000 and over 800 vehicles respectively – as would the safety of many groups of vulnerable residents and other users.
Thorley Street – is part of a Group 3 village settlement with nearly 50 family homes – many of them in listed buildings – set along the A1184 Thorley Street which is part of the London Road Corridor. The TA has stressed the importance of road layout solutions which avoid increasing the flow and speed of traffic through Thorley Street. The village already has digital speed measuring and warning signs installed. However, the TA also now estimates that as a result of junction delays and capacities at the junctions of London Road with Pig Lane and Whittington Way there will be an (average) 121 vehicle /750 metre queue from the Pig Lane junction in the a.m. peak which would stretch back through Thorley Street almost to the roundabout. Moreover p.m. peaks would also lead to significantly increased queuing through the village and this would occur at an observed 3.30 – 4.30 pm “peak” (which has not been assessed by the TA) as a result of school pick up as well at the 5.00-6.00 pm peak measured by the TA. The residential character of Thorley street will clearly be severely affected by a.m. and p.m. peak queues as a result of the BSS development of an average of around 750 vehicles and a queue this long will also have air quality implications for vulnerable residents and users including schoolchildren. Page 149 In view of the clearly severe effect of the BSS development on the rural an residential character of both Pig Lane and Thorley Street and on the safety of vulnerable road users as a result of unsustainable increases in traffic flows and queuing, we therefore expect that the Highways Authority will resist the development under the terms of the recently adopted LTP4 Policy 5(g) and of paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPF 2018.
5. Mitigation
In view of the severe transport impacts of the BSS development on the local strategic network of the south and east of Bishops Stortford and Thorley, both NPPF and LTP4 policies emphasise the need for “impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure (to) be … taken into account including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects (NPPF para 102) and, where they cannot, they must be “mitigated to an acceptable degree” (NPPF para 108). LTP4 is even clearer stating that the local planning authority should “Secure developer mitigation measures to limit the impacts of development on the transport network” and, where it cannot, they will “resist development where the residual impact of development is considered to be severe” (LTP4 Policy 5(d). The TA and the “Planning Conditions” document submitted in support of the application offer only two areas of mitigation of the severe impacts which the TA itself identifies. In the first area, we welcome the considerable emphasis put by the applicant on “Green Travel” measures for BSS including the promotion of public transport, cycling and other measures to encourage mode switching away from car use and which are in line with NPPF, LTP4 and District Plan policies on green travel. We note however that when applied in the TA as “Smart Choices” assessment options, the level of mode switching from car use assumed to be achieved by these policies is only 5- 7% and, at this level, has only minimal impact on flows, queues, delays and capacities in the town centre. The TA is not clear whether this has been similarly applied in the severe impact results for the London Road Corridor or, if not, what further level of mitigation might be achieved by a 5-7% mode switch. The only other mitigation measure proposed by the applicant – which is mainly aimed at addressing the severe impacts which the TA identifies in the London Road Corridor (see section 3(a) above) – are “previously agreed” minor improvements to the London Road / Thorley Hill light controlled junction at the northern end of the Corridor (see TA Appendix G Figure 7.1) through a S106 agreement. It is evident to regular users of the junction that the improvements which comprise only a peak hour parking restriction at the southbound traffic lights and a minor bus stop relocation northbound, will not address the existing observable or more severe future projected problem which is not, anyway, the cause of congestion further south in the Corridor. Specifically we note that: The delays, queues and capacities at this junction – both with and without the BSS development – are significantly less than at the London Road / Pig Lane and Whittington Way junctions indicating that mitigation at this junction will have little impact. A peak hour parking restriction at the traffic lights will address only southbound queuing in the peak at the northern end of the corridor which is not a severe observed problem. If it did have any benefits to the northbound flow of traffic into the town centre – diverting the significant growth of traffic generated by the development away from Pig Lane for example – it would have an even more unsustainable impact on traffic routing east through the town to J8 and the Airport through the vulnerable Hockerill junction. The same mitigation measure was offered to the public inquiry which refused the resiting and new development for the Bishops Stortford High School in 2014 as a solution to the then significantly lower traffic impacts and was found to be unsound on examination.
Irrespective of the unconvincing benefits of this proposed mitigation, the applicant has made no quantified assessment of the changes it would make to the severe modelled and reported Page 150 impacts on queuing, delays, capacities and flows in the London Road Corridor or the town centre. The TA includes qualitative comments that the mitigation “can be expected” to reduce “rat- running” and “might even reduce existing flows” through Pig Lane and deliver other improvements to turning movements at Whittington Way. Without a rerun of the junction modelling with the mitigation assumed to be in place and a quantified assessment of the reduction of impacts to acceptable levels, the mitigation measure does not meet the NPPF para 108 requirement that the impact has been “mitigated to an acceptable degree”.
Finally, it is not clear how the applicant could be made responsible to deliver this improvement through a S106. The costs involved in the improvement would be minimal but it would be the responsibility and require action by the Highways Authority, including obtaining traffic orders to implement it. The mitigation would be ineffective without the agreement of the Authority to take on this role. They have not previously indicated a willingness to do so – despite the existing problems at the Thorley Hill junction.
We therefore believe that the very limited mitigation measure proposed by the applicant to address the severe transport impact problems which they identify in the TA is wholly inadequate to meet the challenge, totally untested and therefore unproven in its ability to mitigate the identified level of impact and not implementable through a S106 agreement with the applicant alone. It therefore fails to “secure developer mitigation measures to limit the impacts of development on the transport network as required by LTP4 Policy 5(d) and does not meet the NPPF para 108 requirement that the impact has been “mitigated to an acceptable degree.” We would therefore expect the Highways Authority to “resist development where the residual impact of development is considered to be severe” (LTP4 Policy 5(d)).
Prepared 6th December 2018 by: Colin Arnott, MRTPI Deputy Chairman, Old Thorley and Twyford Park Residents Association Planning Adviser to Thorley Parish Council
Page 151 Hybrid Application 3/18/2253/OUT: Bishops Stortford South OBJECTION ON COMMUNITY CONSULTATION Presented as Annex to …Thorley Parish Application Council’s comments on Planning 3/18/2253/OUT. This paper is prepared in response to the Statement of Community Consultation (SCC) and other documents prepared in support of the Hybrid Planning Application submitted by Countryside Properties (UK) Plc (‘Countryside’). Summary and Conclusion We have reviewed the SCC, other relevant supporting documents submitted by the applicant, relevant NPPF and District Plan policies on pre-application community consultation and masterplanning and conclude that: We believe that the Local Planning Authority should be satisfied that the new policy requirements of NPPF 2018 and District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 on community consultation and engagement on masterplanning should be addressed by the SCC and have been met in full before proceeding to Planning Application and that any decision to approve or reuse the application is premature until these requirements are met. In view of the applicant’s failure to meet (or attempt to meet) any of the community consultation or masterplanning requirements of District Plan Policies DES1, BISH5 and NPPF 2018 paragraphs 40 and 42 since the intention to submit a hybrid application was first made public on 17th July 2018, the Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way should be withdrawn and not resubmitted until these consultation policies have been met in full. We find the SCC to be incomplete and inadequate in identifying or consulting with stakeholders most directly affected by or likely to object to the development and deliberately misleading in its analysis of negative public consultation feedback on the development. The stakeholder and community consultation process on the Outline Application reported in the SCC therefore falls far short of the levels of collaboration and open debate that is required by the East Herts District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 and does not provide a basis to proceed to an outline planning application. We believe that the representation on the Masterplanning Steering Group and the way it has conducted its work has fallen far short of the levels of participation, collaboration and open debate that is required by NPPF(2018) paragraph 40, DES1 and BISH5, is incomplete and the resulting MPF is an inadequate basis to proceed to an outline or full planning application.
We therefore object to the Hybrid Application 3/18/2253/OUT: Bishops Stortford South – both to the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development and to the Full Application for 142 houses on Whittington Way – on the grounds that it does not comply with District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 paragraphs 40 and 42 on community consultation and on participation and collaboration in masterplanning. The hybrid application should therefore be refused in part and in full.
Page 152 Review of Community Consultation and Statement of Objection
Our review of the Statement of Community Consultation, the MPF and other documents has been carried out in four areas: New requirements of East Herts District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 on Community Consultation Submission of a Hybrid Planning Application including a Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way Statement of Community Consultation on the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development Establishment and Operation of the Bishops Stortford South Masterplan Framework Steering Group and the Master Planning Process under District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5
6. New Requirements of East Herts District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 on Community Consultation
The Hybrid Application acknowledges that it has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the new District Plan adopted on 23rd October 2018 - 11 days after the application was submitted. With respect to community consultation and collaborative masterplanning of significant developments we note that the relevant policies of the new Plan are DES1 and BISH5(II). The importance of these policies is highlighted by the fact that they were newly introduced in this form by the Inspector’s Modifications which, in turn, were added in accordance with then emerging and now adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) July 2018, paragraphs 40 and 42 on pre-application engagement with consultees and the local community. The relevant NPPF and District Plan policies are therefore: Paragraph 40 of the NPPF 2018 on pre-application engagement requires local planning authorities to “encourage any applicants … to engage with the local community and, where relevant, with statutory and non-statutory consultees, before submitting their applications”. The guidance to include non-statutory consultees and the local community was specifically added to the 2018 NPPF in addition to the NPPF 2012 requirement to engage with all statutory bodies. Paragraph 42 also advises that the participation of statutory bodies in pre-application discussions “should enable early consideration of all the fundamental issues relating to whether a particular development will be acceptable in principle, even where other consents relating to how a development is built or operated are needed at a later stage” District Plan policy DES1 states that “All ‘significant’ development proposals will be required to prepare a Masterplan setting out the quantum and distribution of land uses; access; … necessary infrastructure; …[which] … will be collaboratively prepared, involving site promoters, land owners, East Herts Council, town and parish councils and other relevant key stakeholders. The Masterplan will be further informed by public participation” DES1 is then applied to all other major developments in the Plan and, in the case of BISH5, states that the process should involve “site promoters, landowners, East Herts Council, Hertfordshire County Council, Bishop’s Stortford Town Council, Thorley Parish Council and other key stakeholders.”
We note that the CCS makes no reference to these important policies or the compliance with them of the consultation process adopted. Section 4.0 of the SCC sets out the policy framework for the pre-application consultation based on: NPPF 2018 paragraphs 16-c and 16-e but is seemingly unaware that these relate to policies applying to local authorities in section 3 on Plan Making rather than to section 4 on Decision Making (on applications) and, in particular, on Pre-application engagement in paragraphs 39-46
Page 153 Reference to EHC’s Statement of Community Involvement 2013 rather than newly adopted District Plan policies DES1 and BISH5 to which no reference is made in the SCC.
We believe that the Local Planning Authority should be satisfied that the new policy requirements of NPPF 2018 and District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 on community consultation and engagement on masterplanning should be addressed by the CCS and have been met in full before proceeding to a planning application and that any decision to approve or refuse the application is premature until these requirements are met.
7. Submission of a Hybrid Planning Application including a Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way
The hybrid planning application submitted by Countryside comprises an Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development and a Full Application for 142 houses on Whittington Way. The Full Planning Application for 142 houses on the area then known as Development Zone A was first publicly referred to in the Report by the Leader of the Council to East Herts Council Executive Meeting 17th July 2018 and has therefore not been (nor had the opportunity to have been) the subject of any Community Consultation at all before the planning application was submitted on 19th October 2018. Section 1.0 above sets out the NPPF and District Plan policy framework on community consultation and masterplanning and we note that these apply in full – both jointly and separately - to the Outline and the Full Applications. Indeed Paragraph 42 of the NPPF 2018 requires participation in “early consideration of all the fundamental issues relating to whether a particular development will be acceptable in principle, even where other consents relating to how a development is built or operated are needed at a later stage” However, we note that there is no specific reference to a full planning application for 142 houses on Whittington Way or any community consultation undertaken on it anywhere in the Statement of Community Consultation. Indeed, consultation on the detailed design proposals for Whittington Way does not form any part of the terms of reference for the SCC which appears to have been largely prepared before the intention to submit a full application was made public and is not referred to in key impact assessments such as the Transport Assessment or any other assessment required under the relevant policies. It is clear therefore that there has been no community consultation carried out on the Full Application as required by District Plan and NPPF policies. The pre-application public consultation procedures described in the SCC were completed in February 2018 and the full application was not made public until 17th July 2018. This is confirmed by OTTRA’s and Thorley Parish Council’s own consultation events and community engagement since the application was submitted and made public. There was – and still is – great confusion as to whether the application is for 142 or 750 houses, the status of a Full as against an Outline Application and the detailed design and impacts of the development on the community around Whittington Way. There has simply been no attempt or opportunity for the Full Application to “be collaboratively prepared and informed by public participation” as required by DES1. Within the masterplanning process, the first and only time that the form of any hybrid application including a full application for “142 houses north of Hertfordshire Way accessed directly from Whittington Way” was presented for discussion was to the MPF Steering Group 3 on 2nd August. We note that: a) This was after the MPF was submitted to the EHC Executive and approved as a basis to proceed to a planning application b) Whilst it is claimed that the MPF “sets the context for both parts of the application”, there is no reference in the MPF document to a hybrid application and no identification or quantification of what was referred to in the Leader’s Report as Development Zone A
Page 154 c) Development Zone A comprises almost entirely the small part of the site located within the Bishops Stortford Town boundary. Bishops Stortford Town Council are not represented on the Steering Group as specifically required by BISH5 and have therefore had no opportunity to participate in a decision which will have a significant impact on Whittington Way and the town.
In view of the applicant’s failure to meet (or attempt to meet) any of the community consultation or masterplanning requirements of District Plan Policies DES1, BISH5 and NPPF 2018 paragraphs 40 and 42 since the intention to submit a hybrid application was first made public on 17th July 2018, the Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way should be withdrawn and not resubmitted until these consultation policies have been met in full.
8. Statement of Community Consultation on the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development.
We have reviewed the Statement of Community Consultation (SCC) submitted in support of the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development above in three key respects: e) Stakeholder Identification and Engagement
Section 5.0 of the SCC purports to identify “key stakeholders” who were given direct “access the Countryside project team” and invited to “meetings and briefings prior to the formal consultation”. We note however that: Key stakeholders identified comprise 3 groups of organisations which are either local government elected members directly or indirectly responsible for granting planning consent; other statutory consultees or “Community Groups” with little or no involvement or interest in the development of BSS site area affected. Specifically excluded from this list are the very active residents associations of Thorley and Bishops Stortford – including OTTRA which represents all of the area of the site and it’s immediate surroundings - and the Bishops Stortford Civic Federation (BSCF) which is the umbrella organisation for most of the town’s residents’ associations. Moreover, the views of BSCF and OTTRA opposing the development of BSS were clearly expressed as the only organisations (together with Thorley Parish Council) which gave evidence to the District Plan EiP Hearings on 7th November 2017 (at exactly the same time as BSS stakeholder engagement was planned) and to the Planning Appeal Inquiry which resulted in the refusal development of the site in 2014. It is clear that any organisation expected to oppose the development of BSS was excluded as a key stakeholder. The SCC identifies a “micro-consultation zone” of 40 properties bounding the site who were sent “personal briefing letters” on 27th November and invited to an exhibition preview on 12th December 2017. When the application was submitted and statutory notifications sent to all affected households on 19th October 2018, OTTRA was approached by groups of occupiers of approximately half of the micro-consultation zone properties to the west of Thorley Street most affected claiming that they had had no previous notice of the development. None recalled receiving letters, none attended any exhibition preview and none were followed up on their views.
Section 6.0 of the SCC goes on to describes the level of engagement offered to some of these “key stakeholders” including 11 Presentations and discussions over a period stretching back 3 years from November 2015 to June 2017 including the Salvation Army, Bishops Stortford Canoe
Page 155 Club, Waterside Stortford, Destination Stortford and the Climate Change Group with only the most marginal interest in the development of BSS.
We conclude that the SCC wholly misrepresents attempts to identify or consult with those stakeholders or organisations most directly affected by development or likely to express views known to be against the development. f) Public/Community Consultation
Section 7.0 of the SCC describes the consultation process with the wider public community which included a website, promotional flyers, posters and press releases inviting comments and a mailshot inviting the public to 2 drop-in exhibitions. This activity largely took place in November – December 2017 nearly one year before the application and, most critically and as the response shows, when the District Plan EiP was in progress. Since the BSS site was in the Greenbelt we are aware that the consultation and exhibitions were seen primarily as an attempt to influence that process and secure Greenbelt release rather than inform the public of an impending planning application. Indeed, it was clearly stated in the Exhibition documentation that no application would be made until Greenbelt status was removed.1 The Exhibitions were the most visible part of the public consultation process but we note that: 2 public exhibitions were held within 2 days of each other, two weeks before Christmas, and both at venues in Bishops Stortford town centre rather than in or around the site in Thorley (for example the St Barnabus’ Centre). Opportunity to attend was also constrained by the limited time of opening – one day-time (10.00 – 14.00) / one evening (16.00 – 20.00). An additional exhibition was held at Bishops Stortford High School restricted to parents and teachers – a very high proportion of whom do not live in the area impacted. The High School is recognised by the community as one of the principal beneficiaries of the development and is believed by the local community to be the source of most of the limited positive feed back from the process. g) Analysis of Feedback Finally, we have reviewed the analysis of Feedback presented in Section 8.0 of the SCC. We note that: Only 9 (4%) of the 208 analysed submissions were received from the public exhibitions which might be regarded as the most informed responses whereas 148 (72%) were website or e-mail submissions the origins of which are unknown. The analysis of Feedback Forms indicates that for the only “open” question Q1 on whether the 158 respondents supported “a mixed new development on this site” the overwhelming response was negative – 69% “No” and only 11% “Yes” The follow-up leading Q2 – “which aspects of the scheme do you welcome” – 25% said “None”. Of the remainder the most popular answers were15% for “retention of footpaths” (which would also be retained by no development), and 22% support for new schools. Delivery of new homes was supported by only 10% and new employment area by only 8%. The analysis of Open Comment Responses (not constrained by the leading questions of the Feedback form) was overwhelmingly negative including: o 441 comments (47% of all comment occurrences reported) concerned traffic and transport issues – mainly congestion caused by the development, impact on the wider town traffic and access to the development and schools;
1 In the event the application was submitted on 12th October 11 days before the District Plan was finally adopted (removing greenbelt status) on 23rd October 2018. Page 156 o The next largest group of 185 comments (20%) concerned loss of greenbelt. The SCC describes this as a “misunderstanding” (on the assumption that respondents should have been aware that greenbelt status would be removed before application) failing to register the overriding public concern about overdevelopment of the town to which BSS contributes; o 137 comments (14%) on the pressure the development will put on community facilities and other social infrastructure; and o Only 97 comments (10%) on the provision, design and layout of housing – mostly on where this should be improved. Despite the negative response of more than 80% of comments on the key issues of the impact on transport and social infrastructure demand and overdevelopment of the town – and what is described as “unconstructive feedback for the proposed development” – the SCC analysis of feedback falsely concludes that “the majority indicated support for development of facilities on the site by recommendation of what they feel is required by the community”.
We believe that the SCC analysis of the consultation feedback on the BSS development is a disingenuous and wholly unprofessional misrepresentation of the negative views clearly and constructively expressed in the community consultation.
In conclusion therefore, we find the SCC to be incomplete and inadequate in identifying or consulting with stakeholders most directly affected by or likely to object to the development and deliberately misleading in its analysis of negative public consultation feedback on the development. The stakeholder and community consultation process on the Outline Application reported in the SCC therefore falls far short of the levels of collaboration and open debate that is required by the East Herts District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 and does not provide a basis to proceed to an outline planning application.
9. Establishment and Operation of the Bishops Stortford South Masterplan Framework Steering Group and the Master Planning Process under District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5
Section 10.0 of the SCC also briefly describes engagement in the Bishops Stortford South masterplanning process by Countryside with EHC and others through a Steering Group “established to enable the open debate of issues”. The establishment of the Bishops Stortford South Masterplan Framework Steering Group (the SG) in October 2017 appears to have been in response to the then emerging and now adopted District Plan Policy DES1 (see section 1 above) which requires that “all ‘significant’ development proposals will be required to prepare a Masterplan (which) will be collaboratively prepared, involving site promoters, land owners, East Herts Council, town and parish councils and other relevant key stakeholders” In the case of BSS, Policy BISH5 goes on to state more specifically that the process should involve “site promoters, landowners, East Herts Council, Hertfordshire County Council, Bishop’s Stortford Town Council, Thorley Parish Council and other key stakeholders.” The SCC makes no reference to these policies or how the masterplanning process adopted meets their requirements. With regard to the membership and scope of the SG, the SCC lists three “Members Working Group Sessions” which have taken place before the hybrid planning application was submitted – in December 2017, and April and August 2018 respectively. With regard to collaborative involvement and preparation, we note that: The membership/attendance at these preapplication sessions was limited only to two statutory Councils – EHC and Thorley Parish – Countryside and their planning advisors. Thorley Parish were not invited until SG2 in April 2018. Contrary to the requirements of DES1, BISH5 and the NPPF, no other statutory councils, non-statutory or other stakeholders have been invited to participate. Page 157 Specifically, with regard to the mandatory participation of statutory councils required by NPPF(2018) paragraph 40 and identified by name in BISH5, Bishops Stortford Town Council (BSTC) - in which area the Full Application for 142 houses in Whittington Way falls and was presented publicly for the only time at SG3 – have not been invited to participate.2 Similarly Hertfordshire County Council, as the statutory and competent highways authority, has been excluded from the SG and therefore from informing the debate on the priority issues for the community on (see section 3c above) on traffic management and transport modelling. Key non-statutory stakeholders have also been excluded from the SG contrary to policy, including in particular Bishops Stortford Civic Federation (BSCF), Old Thorley and Twyford Park Residents Association (OTTRA) and other residents’ associations significantly impacted by the development. None of these have been directly consulted during the pre-application masterplanning process despite the fact that BSCF, OTTRA and Thorley Parish Council were the only bodies (statutory or non-statutory) to give evidence at the District Plan EiP Hearings on Bishops Stortford and to make extensive submissions on the Modifications Consultation.
We therefore believe that the representation on the Masterplanning Steering Group and the way it has conducted its work has fallen far short of the levels of participation, collaboration and open debate that is required by NPPF(2018) paragraph 40, DES1 and BISH5, is incomplete and the resulting MPF is an inadequate basis to proceed to an outline or full planning application.
Prepared 4th December 2018 by: Colin Arnott, MRTPI Deputy Chairman, Old Thorley and Twyford Park Residents Association Planning Adviser to Thorley Parish Council
2 EHC have frequently stated that some EHC members invited are also BSTC members and that they “wear two hats”. This neither meets the specific policy requirements of BISH5 or NPPF(2018) paragraph 40 nor reflects the fact that BSTC has consistently voted against the principle of development at BSS whilst EHC has consistently voted for it. Page 158 Bishop’s Stortford Civic Federation Registered Charity Number R264557 www.stortfordcf.org.uk
Kevin Steptoe Esq Head of Planning and Building Control East Herts Council Wallfields Pegs Lane Hertford SG13 8EQ 14 November 2018 Sent by email
Dear Kevin
BISHOP'S STORTFORD SOUTH Your ref: 3/18/2253/OUT
1. Further to my letter of 12 October, I am writing on behalf of the Bishop's Stortford Civic Federation to object to this application. Our reasons for doing so are set out below.
Principle of Development
2. Until the recent adoption of the District Plan the site formed part of the Green Belt protecting Bishop's Stortford from urban sprawl. In choosing to remove this site from the Green Belt, East Herts Council appears to have been ignoring the clear intention of Ministers that housing need and housing demand alone do not justify changes to Green Belt boundaries in Local Plans, and that where such changes are made the planning authority needs to carry the local community with it. The following extract is from a letter from the Housing Minister of the time, Brandon Lewis, to all MPs in June 2016 and is typical of statements made both before and more recently.
Page 159 ‘The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development may be allowed only where very special circumstances exist, and that Green Belt boundaries should be adjusted only in exceptional circumstances, through the Local Plan process and with the support of local people. We have been repeatedly clear that demand for housing alone will not change Green Belt boundaries. However, we recognise that it is local authorities, working with their communities and with detailed local knowledge, which are best placed to decide the most sustainable, suitable and viable sites for new homes. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 has increased local people’s power to plan their areas with new measures to speed up and simplify neighbourhood planning.’
3. The Neighbourhood Plan covering this part of Bishop's Stortford (NP2) had this to say about the proposed removal of this site from the Green Belt
‘A decision by the District Council to amend Green Belt boundaries would be controversial and throughout the consultation process the proposal to develop land south of Bishop's Stortford has been consistently unpopular with the majority of the town’s residents. (para 4.10.1.9)’
4. Not only has the Council been ignoring the clearly expressed wish of local people, and of all the previous planning decisions concerning the site, it also appears to have been conniving with the applicant to anticipate the outcome of the process leading to the adoption of the District Plan. So for example, at a meeting between the applicant’s transport consultants and Herts County Council in September 2016 it was explained the EHDC had encouraged the submission of an application by Spring 2017 – long before any change in Green Belt boundaries had actually taken place and the application itself was eventually submitted before the Plan was adopted.
5. The applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation, describing events which took place before the adoption of the District Plan, notes that there were objections to the proposed removal from the Green Belt and what it describes as ‘misunderstandings about pre-empting Green
Page 160 Belt release’. It seems to us that the only people who have misunderstood the pre-emption of Green Belt release arising from the adoption of the Plan are the applicants themselves. It was for this reason that the Civic Federation declined the invitation to participate in the premature planning of this development proposal.
6. Lest there should be any doubt about the continuing hostility of the local community to development here, the response to the first question in the applicant’s feedback questionnaire – ‘do you support a new mixed use development of the site?’ – was 109 No (69% of respondents), 31 undecided and only 18 Yes (11% of respondents). The members of the public who have responded so far to the application, now running into hundreds, are also consistently opposed to the development.
7. And to cap it all, almost simultaneously with the adoption of the Plan, the ONS released new estimates of household formation which, for East Herts, is nearly 14% less than the assumption on which the Plan’s objectively assessed need for housing (OAN) was based. If there were a direct read across to the OAN (and there will be a close correspondence between the two figures), then the housing total for East Herts would be some 2500 dwellings fewer and the need for this Green Belt release would evaporate altogether.
8. Given the amount of development already committed for Bishop's Stortford and the infrastructure shortcomings on which we comment below there really is no case for building on Bishop's Stortford South regardless of the content of the District Plan. Indeed, when the first sign to greet you at the same developer’s St Michael’s Hurst site is ‘fantastic incentives available’ to buy a house there, it does suggest that the commercial housing market is incapable of supporting another major development in Bishop's Stortford.
9. The second phase of the development lies within the parish of Thorley. Thorley is a Group 3 village to which Policy VILL3 of the District Plan applies. This specifies that only limited infill development within an adopted Neighbourhood Plan will be permitted. By no stretch of the
Page 161 imagination could the second phase of this development be regarded as limited infill development. While NP2 has been adopted and includes policies relating to BSS, these policies are contingent and subordinate to the wish of the local community that the site should remain undeveloped. Officers have argued that because Thorley is a dispersed settlement, the village is not coterminous with the parish boundary and should be regarded as only those parts of it which are built up. This semantic argument is nonsense – the character of a village depends just as much on its open spaces as its buildings. Developing this site would plainly be contrary to Policy VILL3 in the District Plan.
Master Planning
10. Policy DES1 of the now adopted District Plan makes it a requirement that all ‘significant’ developments have to be based on a Masterplan. This is echoed in policy BISH5 which covers BSS and lists the bodies to be consulted in the Masterplanning exercise. The Masterplan is to be collaboratively prepared, involving site promoters, land owners, East Herts Council, town and parish councils and other relevant key stakeholders. For the reasons explained above, the Civic Federation declined to participate in the premature activity described as Masterplanning in the applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation and we have not been invited to any subsequent activity which may have taken place. We find it particularly surprising, however, in the light of policies DES1 and BISH5, that Bishop's Stortford Town Council does not appear to have been invited to participate in the activity at all, even though the only part of the scheme for which full permission is requested lies within Bishop's Stortford. We note that the Planning Committee of the Town Council has recommended refusal of planning permission.
11. Turning to the ‘Masterplan’ itself only two aspects of it appear to be firm – the detailed application for 142 dwellings on the northern part of the site facing Whittington Way and a through road across the eastern end of the site linking St James Way and Whittington Way, providing access to the initial housing development. Although illustrative plans are
Page 162 provided of the locations of the other elements of the proposed development, there is no reason to believe that the final layout will correspond to these. For example, the applicants may discover that a panoramic view of the bypass would not actually improve the sale prospects for houses, which are currently arranged around the fringes of the site and conclude that they need to repositioned in a more attractive location. The application gives no indication of the timing (if any) for completion of the larger part of the development. In the meantime, the first phase of development will add to the demands for infrastructure and services without making any contribution towards them.
12. The location of the new access road is not consistent with the relevant policies in NP2 which say
‘To avoid extra junctions on St James Way the principal vehicular access to the site should include the use of the existing roundabouts to the east and west ends of the site, unless traffic modeling shows this not to be feasible. (policy BSS4c)’ and
‘The access road to any possible business park should be separate from access to the housing area to avoid any extra traffic within the housing area (policy BSS4e).’
13. Turning to the quality of the prospective housing designs the applicant says in the Design and Access Statement that ‘Countryside has earned a reputation for high quality community led design’ and that ‘each of our schemes are different and respond to the specific local context and features of the site’. After a build up like that, the sample elevations actually supplied are something of an anti-climax. They appear to be no different from any other product of the volume housebuilder’s pattern book. Indeed the only part of the specific local context which they appear to echo are the new developments which have blighted the environs of Takeley, Stansted Mountfitchet and Gilden
Page 163 Way in Harlow, and which are in the course of construction at Bishop's Stortford North (BSN). Striking too is the meanness of the plot sizes of the initial housing phase which appear to be about half the size of the plots for the homes developed some 40 years ago on Pynchbek on the other side of Whittington Way.
Educational Facilities
14. The scheme contemplates provision of an additional JMI school and allows for the siting of a secondary school of up to 8 forms of entry (FE). The expectation is that the Boys High School will move there from its current location although it does not form part of this application. It is however, important that before such a move is sanctioned there is clarity about the demand for school places which this and other developments will generate and how it will be met, since, if the existing school relocates and expands it will do little more than absorb the extra demand created by the BSS development.
15. The Environmental Statement non-technical summary claims (para 0.37) that the potential pupil yield from the proposed development has been estimated at 1 FE for secondary education. In fact, the metric used by Herts County Council for large scale developments of this kind (and which they used for BSN) is 1 FE per 500 dwellings. So the pupil yield from this development of 750 dwellings is 1.5 FE and it would rise to nearly 2 FE if the Boys High School were to relocate and its present site used for further housing.
16. Now that the District Plan has been adopted the housing total for the educational planning area (EPA) (which also includes Sawbridgeworth) is around 5000 dwellings (allowing for sites that have been given planning permission in addition to the totals included in the Plan). This is equivalent to 10 FE of demand generated by new development. However, because of the quality of its schools and geographical location, Bishop's Stortford has traditionally taken a third of its secondary school intake from outside the EPA. With developments continuing to take place just across the border in Uttlesford, the prospect of further new
Page 164 settlements along the A120 and a new settlement at Harlow North, pressures on Bishop's Stortford schools are likely to increase rather than diminish. So the EPA realistically will face a demand of at least 13 FE.
17. Even where new schools are to be provided in new settlements there is likely to be a very significant time lag before they become fully functioning – six years minimum after commissioning to offer a facility covering the whole cohort of school age children. And, to look at an example close to home, there is no sign yet that a preferred sponsor has even been identified for any of the proposed new schools at BSN. In the meantime pressure on places at our existing schools can only increase.
18. At present, the County Council has plans only for one new secondary 6 FE school at BSN which, when commissioned, will take years to provide education across the full age range for compulsory education. The environmental statement acknowledges that by 2020/21 there could as a result be shortfall of 7 FE within the EPA. We think this assessment is likely to be an underestimate and that there will be a persistent shortfall once residents of new developments have committed their children to education at one of our established institutions.
19. It is claimed that an advantage of this scheme is that if the Boys High School were to move it would be able to expand to 8 FE, thus contributing 3 FE towards the anticipated shortfall in places. Unlike a new school, it would have the benefit of providing education across the age range from the outset. But as a single sex school that would be of no benefit to girls, and we have yet to see any plans from the County Council which would cover the remaining significant shortfall. We therefore believe that plans for meeting the whole of the prospective shortfall should be clearly established before permission is given for any more new housing which will simply add to demand. We also believe that, with more than enough demand in prospect to require an additional new secondary school in Bishop's Stortford, no commitment should be made at present to allowing the Boys High School to move to BSS. If development is allowed to take place there, BSS has the only site available that could accommodate another new school.
Page 165 Community Facilities
20. Policy BSS3 of NP2 says
‘The site is detached from the nearest community facilities at Thorley Neighbourhood Centre and more than the DfT’s guidelines for reasonable walking distances. Any proposals for development of this site must enable social interaction and public services for the local community: …health services and facilities that are accessible to all.’
21. The DfT’s guideline for a reasonable walking distance to such facilities is 800 metres. The applicant acknowledges that the nearest entrance to the development is 1.5km from the Thorley Neighbourhood Centre. While the Masterplan does include a new community centre on site, we were therefore surprised to see that the Clinical Commissioning Group have recommended a developer contribution to enhance the facilities at Thorley Park rather than the provision of a purpose built centre on site. The Thorley Park GP surgery occupies a shop unit and it is difficult to see what improvement could be made to it compared with a purpose built facility to serve the new development. Nor is it compatible with the accessibility requirements set out in NP2.
Transportation
22. The applicant’s transport consultants, Meyer Brown, are experts at portraying developments as non traffic generating. They have already done it for BSN and the station goods yard in Bishop's Stortford and here they are again with the current proposal. The problem is that the other two schemes are at such an early stage of gestation that we have no idea yet whether they will indeed break the mould of past experience and lead to the traffic neutral outcome which they predict. There are however good reasons for thinking this is unlikely.
23. The consultants display a Nelsonian disregard for inconvenient facts. In the case of the station goods yard for example, they managed to
Page 166 avoid counting bus station occupancy on market days, the busiest day of the week, and so have committed the town to a facility which is too small even to meet current demand, never mind the additional demand which their green travel plans are intended to stimulate.
24. In the case of this application, the following examples should be noted
In particular, the surveys have been compared with previous survey data and it is noted for example that growth has not occurred at Hockerill Junction over a four year period (para 1.12)
25. Really? It is true that the four year period is not specified but any recent four year survey data should have covered the period during which the Aldi store in London Road opened. Although anticipated by Herts Highways to generate no more traffic than its previous use as a car show room, actual experience of traffic generation has been very different with major congestion occurring at Hockerill not just in the peaks but at other times such as Sunday mornings, caused by traffic backing up as a result of congestion in the car park. On the other hand, since Hockerill Junction is so frequently at saturation point, it may simply be that the survey data counts vehicles rather than queueing times and would not detect any change in traffic volumes.
‘Therefore the proposed development has been considered on the basis that background traffic growth in the central part of the network in Bishop's Stortford will occur predominantly as a result of committed development coming forward (para 1.12).
26. However, on page 61 of the assessment, it appears that the only major committed development to have been included in the tests was the station goods yard. Presumably, the effect of BSN on the operation of the central network was ignored, because the consultants had satisfied themselves in that application that the consequences would be negligible too, purely as a result of their modeling and not because either we or they have any knowledge of the actual impact yet.
Page 167 27. It also appears that the consultants have assumed a benefit from the opening of the new link road through the goods yard in reducing the traffic impact of the development on Pig Lane and Haymeads Lane/Beldams Lane. Unfortunately the planning approval given confines the use of the new link road to public service vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians only – it will have no beneficial effect on traffic flows. Nothing is proposed to mitigate the extra traffic which will seek to avoid Hockerill by using Pig Lane and Haymeads Lane/Beldams Lane and the development of the Herts and Essex School’s new sports centre in Beldams Lane appears also to have been overlooked.
28. Finally, the consultants do not seem to have noticed that under the goods yard plans, the ramp from Station Road into the station entrance will disappear. Whatever its benefits for pedestrian safety it can only make traffic conditions at Hockerill worse, to which car borne commuters from BSS will add their contribution.
29. Turning to the development itself, a major occasion for congestion on Whittington Way and London Road is school pick up time. These proposals will greatly worsen traffic conditions because
They introduce several new access points on to Whittington Way to serve the first phase of the new housing. In the longer term they will add a new JMI school with the extra traffic that will generate. If the Boys High School moves from its present site it will lead to a significant increase in road traffic. It has the widest catchment area of all the Bishop's Stortford schools and unlike the present site, it will not be within walking distance of the station. On the other hand, if a new secondary school is put on the site and the Boys High School stays where it is than that will be a wholly new source of traffic demand.
30. As for mitigation, Sawbridgeworth will have its road junctions redesigned. At the London Road Thorley Hill junction, the northbound
Page 168 bus stop is to be relocated and parking banned on the eastern side of the road. The householders there who have no off street parking will no doubt be looking forward to that proposal with keen anticipation. And that’s it.
31. Everything else depends on the success of the Green travel initiatives such as free bus passes for a year and bus services co-ordinated with train arrivals and departures. The problem with this kind of approach is that even if the first generation of residents buys into the practice of more sustainable forms of travel, when they move on, their successors will not have changed their habits, but see themselves as marooned on the edge of town. The same is true of school travel plans whose effectiveness diminishes as the original authors leave their schools. And bus services, however well planned, will only be as attractive as they are reliable. We all know that there is no road space here for dedicated bus lanes. We are not Peterborough, Worcester or Darlington (the DfT pilot schemes). We are Bishop's Stortford, with one of the highest levels of car ownership in the country. The applicant’s belief in Green travel is best illustrated by the fact that the signature building at the entrance to the new development will be a car show room.
32. The ability of a transport model to predict the future is only as good as the assumptions built into it. In this case they seem to be so flawed that we see no reason to doubt our belief that this development would cause significant harm to the operation of the road network. We therefore welcome the reported decision of the Town Council to engage its own professional experts to review the transport assessment.
Conclusion
32. We therefore urge the Council to refuse permission for this application. In summary our reasons are
The site has been removed from the Green Belt in the teeth of the opposition of the local population and overturns all previous planning assessments of the site.
Page 169 The housing total for the district which this development would help to meet has been invalidated by a 14% reduction in forecast household formation. It is surplus to requirements both for the district and for the needs of the population of Bishop's Stortford. The development would be incompatible with the policy VILL3 in the District Plan under which Thorley is classed as a Group 3 village where only limited infill development will be permitted. The Masterplan for the site has not been prepared in accordance with the requirements in the District Plan of policies DES1 and BISH5 and is not fit for purpose. It is particularly surprising that Bishop's Stortford Town Council has played no part in its formulation. The suggested road layout of the development is not compatible with the policies for BSS in NP2 and is likely to lead to serious congestion in and around the site. Relocation of the Boys High School to the site will not address the prospective shortfall in secondary school places, and may foreclose any remaining options for meeting that demand. The development should not be allowed to proceed without provision of purpose built health facilities on site. The transport assessment displays major shortcomings in its understanding of current traffic conditions and of how other developments will impact on them. The mitigation proposed is wholly inadequate and for the most part likely to be ephemeral in its impact. Serious congestion will result on roads which are not capable of handling extra traffic.
I am copying this letter to Cllr Wyllie, leader of Bishop's Stortford Town Council.
JOHN RHODES PRESIDENT
Page 170
OTTRA Old Thorley and Twyford Park Residents’ Association
4 New Cottages Butler’s Hall Lane Thorley Bishop’s Stortford Herts CM23 4BL Tel 01279 656478 Development Management East Herts Council Wallfields, Pegs Lane th Hertford SG13 8EQ 5 March 2019
Sent by email
BSS Hybrid Planning Application 3/18/2253/OUT
Dear Sir or Madam,
1. I am writing on behalf of Old Thorley and Twyford Park Residents’ Association [OTTRA] to make strong objection to the amended version of BSS Hybrid Application 3/18/2253/OUT. It is difficult to make the OTTRA case for total refusal of this proposed development more clearly or more strongly than has already been done in our original letter of objection th dated 6 December 2018 2. Given the remarkable strength of public opposition, how can the planners, who it is claimed act in people’s best interests, choose as sole reason for re-consultation a minor road junction amendment? It is just an excuse to give an impression of engagement with affected residents prior to determining this planning application in favour of developers. This is how it appears, given also the incompetence in notifying the public.
Page 171 3. To avoid excessive repetition of points made by other respondents, I copy below from the presentation I made to the town council meeting last night on behalf of OTTRA. This covers the views widely expressed and shared by the 105 local attendees at the Open Day we held at the Thorley Scout Hall. 4. OTTRA covers all of Thorley and much of South ward that is directly impacted by this application, in particular, Thorley parish, Thorley Lane, Twyford Park, Proctors Way and Thorley Park and part of St Michael’s Mead. This is a wide area, covering the whole village and three neighbouring housing estates. We have very many objectors. We believe that there should be no development on this site at all because it is simply not a suitable site. This was acknowledged in 2011 by the Public inquiry Inspector whose findings in this regard were confirmed by the Minister Eric Pickles. 5. We believe that soundness of the District Plan with respect to BISH5 is questionable. Eight requests were made in August 2018 to the Secretary of State seeking his intervention. This he did on 12th October, then quickly lifted the holding after Cllr Haysey’s team had engaged in direct and confidential discussions with his officials with a view to influencing his decision by producing further evidence. 6. The District Plan was then immediately adopted and the Countryside Properties planning application hastily submitted as a hybrid plan. The Examiner in her Report does not favour hybrid applications, but EH officers ruled that in this case it was a discretionary matter. 7. No attempt was made by EH or the ministry to address the concerns of the stakeholders who had originally requested the intervention. Their requests for sight of the additional evidence provided to the minister were disregarded. The EH chief executive wrote to OTTRA that information about the meeting with officials was confidential owing to the risk of it appearing that the Distict Plan had been re-opened. The Civic Federation received answer to their FOI request only in late January 2019. We are considering legal challenge. 8. There are two reasons for not having this development at all. Greenbelt and Category 3 Village. 9. First. Greenbelt removal is prerequisite solely to give effect to the aims of EH Council and developers, and incidentally the Boys High School. No exceptional circumstances have been presented as justification of the significant harm that would arise. Moreover, the claimed level of needed housing for “local people” has been reduced by 25% in government’s figures [14% for EastHerts], making removal of Thorley greenbelt unnecessary. Meanwhile, the new boundary line has not been made public on any map other than the developers’ own Master Plan of June 2018. There has been no
Page 172 public consultation with respect to adverse impact on residents at its edges. To the south, the line of removal has simply followed the route of the bypass for desktop convenience, or to form what planners call a defensible line of urban containment. 10. Second. Thorley village is a category 3 village exempt from development. It is a small rural village grown up around farmsteads stretching across the parish, its people feeling a deep sense of place, identity, linkage and community. Yet planners are trying to accommodate developers’ objectives by introducing the notion of village and parish as separate entities. The claim is being made that the development will take place in the parish, not the village, in which case the exemption is not valid. This is beyond belief and we believe arguable in law. 11. With respect to OTTRA objections to this hybrid application, the first concern is: Why are all the other objections from the public not addressed; why only the one minor exit onto Obrey Way which everyone agrees? Especially when some of us pointed out to planners the dangers of other crossings on a site visit. Will those other objections be taken into account? They cover concerns about the school’s use, green spaces, Thorley Wash flood plain mitigation, utilities installation, disruption, noise and pollution from aircraft flying over schools, intolerable gridlocking of traffic flow around thre whole ‘island’ site, no safety of passage for cyclists outside the perimeter, and much else. 12. The second concern is about the undesirability of hybrid planning.. Why are both parts of the application not detailed and considered as one development? Residents can’t gauge what the overall impact would be on movement, way of living , access to services etc without knowing what’s on offer. If permission is granted to the greater area as outline proposal only, how can residents suggest changes? Already the developers are encouraging residents to view their own published Master Plan drawn up in June 2018 as ‘the done deal’, and officers have reported in favour of its proposals. Post- application Master planning meetings are merely opportunities for rubberstamping by officers. Their fitness for purpose is highly questionable. And why aren’t Twyford Park residents being warned now about the 150 houses and opening up of their roads to school traffic that will be of serious concern to them when the related BISH6 application is submitted? 13. Thirdly, the lack of infrastructure, with respect to transport and interlinked with absence of accessible health services, is far and away the area of greatest concern. Crucially the issues of transportation, in all modal forms, and provision of health clinics are being ignored, as is also the statutory
Page 173 requirement that all infrastructure is in place before schools and houses are occupied. OTTRA appended to its earlier letter of objection a professional assessment of transport policies with particular reference to Pig Lane and BSS. Please refer to that document and the further submissions of the Civic Federation, Thorley parish council and individual Colin Arnott. 14. Finally, returning back to OTTRA’s contention that Thorley is not a suitable site for this proposed new development, we wish to make the following observation. EH members and officers are describing this huge development as both “new garden village” where in one place people can live, work, play in close community and also as “town urban extension” whose new residents it is claimed will feel a sense of identity with town rather than Thorley. It can’t be both. 15. But it will be, if this hybrid application is ganted permission. Because the residents of the proposed 142 houses along Whittington Way will have no vehicular access to the new “village high street” other than first exiting onto Whittington Way and then driving on busy roads around the outside of the ‘island site’ to reach the main entrance/exit at a new roundabout on the bypass. These residents will go to the easily accessible Thorley Park shopping precinct, as we all do in Thorley. Here they will have chemist, post office, preschool, pet shop, cafes, pub, petrol, doctor, charity shop, children’s play area. So much for the grand vision of the leader of the Council, who does not live here. 16. We have seen no exceptional circumstances presented that could justify the considerable and irrevocable level of harm that would result long into the future for countryside and community from this ill conceived development that in any event will not serve the purpose it is claimed to have. 17. We urge you to refuse this application.
Yours faithfully,
Mrs Sylvia McDonald Chmn OTTRA
Page 174
OTTRA Old Thorley and Twyford Park Residents’ Association
4 New Cottages Butler’s Hall Lane Thorley Bishop’s Stortford Herts CM23 4BL Tel 01279 656478 Kevin Steptoe Esq, Head of Planning and Building Control East Herts District Council Wallfields, Pegs Lane Hertford SG13 8EQ 6th December 2018
BSS Planning Application 3/18/2253/OUT Dear Mr Steptoe,
1. I am writing on behalf of Old Thorley and Twyford Park Residents’ Association to make strong objection to the Hybrid Application 3/18/2253/OUT: Bishops Stortford South – both to the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development and to the Full Application for 142 houses on Whittington Way. 2. We first discuss in some detail the two issues to which we have given priority, namely Community Consultation and Transportation. We next discuss the village status of Thorley, and then follow with comments on the Impact of various aspects of this hybrid application for Thorley residents, much of the latter coming from recall of the still valid evidence that Thorley parish presented to the Schools Relocation Public Inquiry in 2011. 3. On that occasion, the same applicant was appealing against refusal of planning permission to build two secondary schools on the same Thorley
Page 175 greenbelt site off Whittington Way. The Appeal was lost, since which time recent adoption of the District Plan has formalised two policies allowing the Thorley site to be developed. These are removal of greenbelt and site allocation as suitable for development. But EHDC and the District Plan Examiner had failed to recognise that Thorley is a class 3 village exempt from development. Whereupon, the town council called for a Boundary Review to place the Thorley site within town jurisdiction in order to ensure development would take place. This attempt at annexation failed after strenuous opposition from Thorley parish now facing extinction. Meanwhile the developer, in cooperation with EHDC at Masterplanning meetings, prepared this hybrid planning application in readiness for the speediest possible submission. 4. To complete out letter of Objection, we then go on to comment on the strength of Thorley opposition; to emphasize the need for local knowledge to inform the Masterplanning Framework Steering Group, and to draw conclusion. 5. The thrust of our submission is that OTTRA objects primarily and outright on the grounds of non-conformity with planning development documentation with respect to Community Consultation, Transportation, and Village Status. Further, we object to all other issues having deleterious impact on Thorley community and countryside on the grounds of harm and unsoundness through unsustainability.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
6. We object, first and importantly, on the grounds that the hybrid application does not comply with District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 paragraphs 40 and 42 on community consultation and on participation and collaboration in masterplanning. For this reason alone the hybrid application should be refused in part and in full. 7. We have carried out a review of the Statement of Community Consultation [SCC], the Master Planning Framework [MPF] and other relevant documents in four areas and record our detailed findings in Annex 1 attached. 8. Meanwhile, we summarise below our review conclusions: We believe that the Local Planning Authority should be satisfied that the new policy requirements of NPPF 2018 and District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 on community consultation and engagement on masterplanning have been addressed by the SCC and met in full before proceeding to Planning Application, and that any decision to
Page 176 approve or refuse the application is premature until these requirements are met. In view of the applicant’s failure to meet (or attempt to meet) any of the community consultation or masterplanning requirements of District Plan Policies DES1, BISH5 and NPPF 2018 paragraphs 40 and 42 since the intention was first made public on 17th July 2018 to submit a hybrid application, the Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way should be withdrawn and not resubmitted until these consultation policies have been met in full. We find the SCC to be incomplete and inadequate in identifying or consulting with the stakeholders most directly affected by, or likely to object to, the development and also deliberately misleading in its analysis of negative public consultation feedback on the development. The stakeholder and community consultation process on the Outline Application reported in the SCC therefore falls far short of the levels of collaboration and open debate that is required by the East Herts District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 and does not provide a basis on which to proceed to an outline planning application. We believe that representation on the Masterplanning Steering Group and the way its work has been conducted have fallen far short of the levels of participation, collaboration and open debate that is required by NPPF(2018) paragraph 40, DES1 and BISH5, and that the resulting MPF is an incomplete and inadequate basis on which to proceed to an outline or full planning application.
TRANSPORT
9. Transportation problems generated or worsened by this hybrid application are the topic of most concern to our residents, yet we see no evidence that serious attention is being given to the need for adherence to planning guidance requiring that appropriate and adequate infrastructure be put in place before completion and occupation of new housing and schoolbuilding. This topic being of such complexity and the applicant’s documentation being so plentiful, it is fortuitous that our vice chairman has professional experience enabling him to carry out in-depth research and produce a report [see Annex 2 attached]. OTTRA unreservedly endorses the report and includes it as an integral part of the OTTRA submission requesting Refusal.
Page 177 10. We also draw your attention to Bishop’s Stortford Civic Federation’s submission where, in the Transportation section, the inadequacies of the work carried out by the applicant’s consultants, Meyer Brown, are discussed. We do not hesitate to align ourselves with BSCF in distrust of Meyer Brown’s expertise in traffic modelling and assessment. In particular we agree with the findings reported in paras 29, 30 and 32. 11. We would further point out that the same consultant in 2011 and again in 2017 insisted that computer modelling confirmed his belief that all traffic queueing delay and gridlock problems experienced in Thorley Street and Whittington Way originated in the one unresolved problem at Thorley Hill junction related to residents’ carparking on London Road near the traffic lights and the position of a bus stop. 12. At the Public Inquiry, this consultant was locked in battle for some days with the opposing party’s consultant who claimed that findings were flawed due to incorrect analysis of saturation flow stemming from incomplete behavioural data being fed into the computer. [See the Inspector’s Report for full detail] . 13. OTTRA’s immediate concern is this . Six years later, the problem has worsened, the facts for debate remain unchanged, and the consultant is intransigent in spite of intervening town population increases affecting the situation. At the last MPF meeting, called to discuss transportation and the BSS hybrid application, he repeated unequivocally that solving the parked car problem would solve all the traffic problems at Whittington Way. 14. We request time be allowed for HCC to issue its expected report and carry out investigation into this matter if not already covered in the report , or alternatively for an independent second expert to be commissioned to give opinion. 15. Thorley residents, some 50 of whom live in Pig Lane [which has become de facto town bypass to the M11], feel very strongly that applications for development in the BSS area [as well as in other parts of town], obliged to travel eastwards out of town to the M11 via Pig Lane, should not be approved unless the issues of onward route travel and traffic flow safety have been investigated in the wider scenario. Annex 2 addresses this problem inter alia in detail; suffice it to say that the hybrid application does not.
Page 178 16. With regard to vehicular, cycle and pedestrian modes of travel for the 142 new houses off Whittington Way, the hybrid application proposes 5 junctions, 2 crossings and 2 roundabouts on Whittington Way to allow car access to the houses, cycle access to schools, and pedestrian access to the Herts Way. A fourth arm on a roundabout at Bishops Avenue will give ‘bus only’ access to the larger site area still having Outline status. This roadway design is wholly unworkable, unsafe, unsound, and it fails to address the problems that will face car users, buses, cyclists, walkers and families crossing or turning at the junction of Whittington Way and London Road. We put these points to the developers on a recent site tour. 17. Moreover, this roadway design effectively isolates what will essentially become an overcrowded ribbon development neighbourhood area, since it prevents the 142 house dwellers from linking up with the other BSS neighbourhood areas positioned on the far side of the larger part of the site along with employment, retail and care home, all of which share a single point of access from the bypass. This supposition goes against the ideas promoted by EH Council and developers that BSS development will create a welcome new integrated village community with its own identity [a view we do not support or believe feasible]. THORLEY VILLAGE STATUS 18. The narrative of District Plan 2018 policy VILL3 does not lead to the certainty or assumption or even possibility that Thorley or any part of it should be considered for development, least of all a sizeable estate such as BSS that would treble its electorate, dominate and compete with the centre of its very being within sight of the church, sever age-old linkages between hamlet dwellers in the Uplands and street dwellers in the Valley, destroy the closeness, harmony and distinctive beauty of surroundings that seep into everyone walking, riding or cycling on its bridleways, field paths and lanes. 19. The harm would be deep, for which reason BSS hybrid planning application should be withdrawn or refused forthwith and greenbelt status returned to the site to protect its rural openness for the benefit of parishioners, neighbouring townspeople and visitors alike as hitherto. 20. District Plan 2018 places much weight on Neighbourhood Plan policies to consider infill development and redress the balance between countryside enjoyment and lack of houses for the young. However, this hybrid
Page 179 application is taking little notice of the local Neighbourhood Plan, and Thorley has a thriving mixture of young and old, retirees and commuters, young families, working parents, professionals and students. People love to live here. We have no balance to redress. 21. BSS development as proposed, in any case, does not comply with any of the requirements (a) through (g) listed under Policy VILL3 in the District Plan 2018. On these grounds alone, the BSS hybrid application should be refused. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY: MATTERS OF FLOODING, FOUL WATER, AIR QUALITY CONTROL, WATER PIPE INSTALLATION
22. Hertfordshire County Council, in a letter dated 8th November 2018 to the Director of Environment and Infrastructure, recommended refusal of planning permission with reference to flooding and proposed SuDS measures, comments that “Besides possible risks to new residents of the development, regard must also be shown to the existing residents of Thorley Village in Thorley Street. Government Ministers have recently cast doubt on SuDS on large developments”. 23. It would appear that new details are required, and we would echo HHC refusal on plans submitted. 24. With reference to a document entitled Proposed Water Reinforcement re Potable Water, submitted by Affinity Water ref NC41980, the Plan submitted indicates that 815M of 225mm new pipe would need to be installed from the top of Thorley Hill down to London Rd, thence for 675M along London Rd to the Whittington Way site. 25. Whilst it is appreciated that the effect on traffic is not permanent, the impact of these works would be very severe for much of Bishop`s Stortford and Thorley. Ongoing works to utilities has already caused gridlock and huge delays to traffic due to developments in the north of town which have been poorly organised. Before any planning permission is granted a detailed and approved plan should be submitted detailing how work would be carried out, with reference to road closures, diversions, one way systems and the effect on traffic and pedestrians and residents’ access. We would need to know if these works would be carried out before or during Part A or later. 26. We would draw your attention to Air Quality Assessment by M B August 2018,pages 15 and 16 clause2.21 TP2, particularly section A, Hockerill and possible problems elsewhere, also sections B to H, particularly section C.
Page 180 27. In view of the air pollution by traffic at Hockerill any increase is highly unacceptable, and even low percentage increase should not be viewed as acceptable; the accumulation effect should be the criterion for consideration. 28. Letters from Thames Water dated 15th November and 21st November ref DTS 59466 and10944 reveals that there are serious concerns about the inability of existing foul water network infrastructure to cope with increased demand by Bishops Stortford South. No planning permission should be given until this is fully investigated and service to existing residents not compromised.
WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? 29. The present government’s demand for more houses in the M11 London Cambridge business corridor for the encouragement of economic growth has become a ‘gift’ for developers who look to profits for shareholders and a ‘war cry’ for the politically minded in EHC who choose to see government diktat as a justification of ‘special circumstances’ that would help push through contentious development. 30. Developers declare that more houses will lower prices, provide better quality, and allow more affordable homes, leading to benefits for all. And our elected councilorls assure us that planning documents such as NPPF, District Plan and Neighbourhood plans are in place to ensure protection of people and places from overdevelopment and greed. So why are we worried? Because the system is perceived not to work like this. 31. We must continue vigilant, contribute from our standpoint of local knowledge, and hope to bring influence to bear. STRENGTH OF OPPOSITION 32. OTTRA holds a unique position as stakeholder and Thorley representative, by virtue of its membership that embraces villagers and residents in settlements and communities on both sides of Whittington Way, thus defining the whole ‘Thorley area’ impacted by the proposed BSS development and the new District Plan policies BISH5 and BISH6. This is a significant role that should be recognised, even exploited for the public good. 33. OTTRA uniquely is the only local grouping of residents from both town and village who are similarly affected by the hybrid proposals - both the
Page 181 Outline Application for Thorley farmland development and the Full Application for 142 houses in Whittington Way on town land. OTTRA has now been invited to the Master Planning Framework Steering Group meetings, but only after I had argued to be allowed to attend. 34. Campaigning over the last few weeks by OTTRA and Thorley parish council has clearly shown that ‘Thorley area’ residents in large numbers have strongly-held and articulate views. Online responses to the hybrid planning application show that all ‘Thorley area’ residents responding recorded Objection with only 1 Neutral. 35. This strength of opposition is telling about the public concern, and is reflected in the overall online town response, which shows that 1005 responded from the total number of 2387 townspeople notified, and that all responders recorded Objection with the exception of 6 who recorded Neutral or Support. This means that out of the high turnout of 42% of all residents notified, 99% opposed the hybrid application. 13 out of 33 consultee bodies also responded [no detail to report through lack of time] 36. This remarkable outcome must be acknowledged. In particular, effort must be made by EHDC to ensure that as many residents as possible across the town must be notified, kept fully informed and consulted if or when an application is submitted for BISH6 development of 150 houses on the school site adjacent to Twyford Gardens which is expected to become vacant after the Boys High School has relocated to the Thorley Whittington Way site. CONCLUSION 37. Unarguably, two tenets of good planning are Sustainabilty and Community Wellbeing. Both are criteria acknowledged in national and local planning legislation as the two underpinning objectives that must be achieved for successful and impartial determination of planning applications. Only exceptionally strong ‘special circumstances’ should be allowed to justify the overriding of these two criteria, and then only if (a) the benefits to be gained can be seen to ‘considerably’ outweigh the harm highly likely to occur, and (b) appropriate measures of mitigation can realistically be ensured.
Page 182 38. It is OTTRA’s firm belief that this hybrid planning application, 3/18/2253/OUT, is ill conceived, is being processed without thoroughness, and is demonstrably unable to meet Sustainable and Community Wellbeing criteria. We have seen no ‘special circumstances’ put forward by the applicant nor realistic mitigation proposals. 39. Should these be forthcoming, we would urge you to inspect again the submission letters from OTTRA, Thorley parish council and BSCF submissions, also from bodies such as the Ramblers Association and Bishop’s Stortford & District Footpath Association, giving attention to assessment of levels of harm to Thorley community cohesion, attractiveness of countryside, agreeable way of living, and potential for continuing survival. 40. We would further urge you not to accept hurried piecemeal hybrid applications relating to BSS development, but rather a single planning application that would allow the whole picture to be considered at one time and all implications clearly thought through. We note that the District Plan Inspector in her Report did not favour hybrid applications. 41. Finally, OTTRA requests that hybrid planning application BSS 3/18/2253/OUT be refused.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs Sylvia McDonald, chmn OTTRA Cc Thorley pc
Page 183 Annex 1 Objection on Community Consultation
Hybrid Application 3/18/2253/OUT: BSS OBJECTION ON COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
This paper is prepared in response to the Statement of Community Consultation (SCC) and other documents prepared in support of the Hybrid Planning Application submitted by Countryside Properties (UK) Plc (‘Countryside’).
Summary and Conclusion
We have reviewed the SCC, other relevant supporting documents submitted by the applicant, relevant NPPF and District Plan policies on pre-application community consultation and masterplanning and conclude that:
We believe that the Local Planning Authority should be satisfied that the new policy requirements of NPPF 2018 and District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 on community consultation and engagement on masterplanning should be addressed by the SCC and have been met in full before proceeding to Planning Application and that any decision to approve or reuse the application is premature until these requirements are met. In view of the applicant’s failure to meet (or attempt to meet) any of the community consultation or masterplanning requirements of District Plan Policies DES1, BISH5 and NPPF 2018 paragraphs 40 and 42 since the intention to submit a hybrid application was first made public on 17th July 2018, the Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way should be withdrawn and not resubmitted until these consultation policies have been met in full. We find the SCC to be incomplete and inadequate in identifying or consulting with stakeholders most directly affected by or likely to object to the development and deliberately misleading in its analysis of negative public consultation feedback on the development. The stakeholder and community consultation process on the Outline Application reported in the SCC therefore falls far short of the levels of collaboration and open debate that is required by the East Herts District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 and does not provide a basis to proceed to an outline planning application. We believe that the representation on the Masterplanning Steering Group and the way it has conducted its work has fallen far short of the levels of participation, collaboration and open debate that is required by NPPF(2018) paragraph 40, DES1 and BISH5, is incomplete and the resulting MPF is an inadequate basis to proceed to an outline or full planning application.
We therefore object to the Hybrid Application 3/18/2253/OUT: Bishops Stortford South – both to the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development and to the Full Application for 142 houses on Whittington Way – on the grounds that it does not comply with District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 paragraphs 40 and 42 on community consultation and on participation and collaboration in masterplanning. The hybrid application should therefore be refused in part and in full.
Page 184 Review of Community Consultation and Statement of Objection
Our review of the Statement of Community Consultation, the MPF and other documents has been carried out in four areas: New requirements of East Herts District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 on Community Consultation Submission of a Hybrid Planning Application including a Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way Statement of Community Consultation on the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development Establishment and Operation of the Bishops Stortford South Masterplan Framework Steering Group and the Master Planning Process under District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5
1. New Requirements of East Herts District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 on Community Consultation
The Hybrid Application acknowledges that it has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the new District Plan adopted on 23rd October 2018 - 11 days after the application was submitted. With respect to community consultation and collaborative masterplanning of significant developments we note that the relevant policies of the new Plan are DES1 and BISH5(II). The importance of these policies is highlighted by the fact that they were newly introduced in this form by the Inspector’s Modifications which, in turn, were added in accordance with then emerging and now adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) July 2018, paragraphs 40 and 42 on pre-application engagement with consultees and the local community. The relevant NPPF and District Plan policies are therefore:
Paragraph 40 of the NPPF 2018 on pre-application engagement requires local planning authorities to “encourage any applicants … to engage with the local community and, where relevant, with statutory and non-statutory consultees, before submitting their applications”. The guidance to include non-statutory consultees and the local community was specifically added to the 2018 NPPF in addition to the NPPF 2012 requirement to engage with all statutory bodies. Paragraph 42 also advises that the participation of statutory bodies in pre-application discussions “should enable early consideration of all the fundamental issues relating to whether a particular development will be acceptable in principle, even where other consents relating to how a development is built or operated are needed at a later stage” District Plan policy DES1 states that “All ‘significant’ development proposals will be required to prepare a Masterplan setting out the quantum and distribution of land uses; access; … necessary infrastructure; …[which] … will be collaboratively prepared, involving site promoters, land owners, East Herts Council, town and parish councils and other relevant key stakeholders. The Masterplan will be further informed by public participation” DES1 is then applied to all other major developments in the Plan and, in the case of BISH5, states that the process should involve “site promoters, landowners, East Herts Council, Hertfordshire County Council, Bishop’s Stortford Town Council, Thorley Parish Council and other key stakeholders.”
We note that the CCS makes no reference to these important policies or the compliance with them of the consultation process adopted. Section 4.0 of the SCC sets out the policy framework for the pre-application consultation based on:
Page 185 NPPF 2018 paragraphs 16-c and 16-e but is seemingly unaware that these relate to policies applying to local authorities in section 3 on Plan Making rather than to section 4 on Decision Making (on applications) and, in particular, on Pre-application engagement in paragraphs 39-46 Reference to EHC’s Statement of Community Involvement 2013 rather than newly adopted District Plan policies DES1 and BISH5 to which no reference is made in the SCC.
We believe that the Local Planning Authority should be satisfied that the new policy requirements of NPPF 2018 and District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 on community consultation and engagement on masterplanning should be addressed by the CCS and have been met in full before proceeding to a planning application and that any decision to approve or refuse the application is premature until these requirements are met.
2. Submission of a Hybrid Planning Application including a Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way
The hybrid planning application submitted by Countryside comprises an Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development and a Full Application for 142 houses on Whittington Way. The Full Planning Application for 142 houses on the area then known as Development Zone A was first publicly referred to in the Report by the Leader of the Council to East Herts Council Executive Meeting 17th July 2018 and has therefore not been (nor had the opportunity to have been) the subject of any Community Consultation at all before the planning application was submitted on 19th October 2018.
Section 1.0 above sets out the NPPF and District Plan policy framework on community consultation and masterplanning and we note that these apply in full – both jointly and separately - to the Outline and the Full Applications. Indeed Paragraph 42 of the NPPF 2018 requires participation in “early consideration of all the fundamental issues relating to whether a particular development will be acceptable in principle, even where other consents relating to how a development is built or operated are needed at a later stage”
However, we note that there is no specific reference to a full planning application for 142 houses on Whittington Way or any community consultation undertaken on it anywhere in the Statement of Community Consultation. Indeed, consultation on the detailed design proposals for Whittington Way does not form any part of the terms of reference for the SCC which appears to have been largely prepared before the intention to submit a full application was made public and is not referred to in key impact assessments such as the Transport Assessment or any other assessment required under the relevant policies.
It is clear therefore that there has been no community consultation carried out on the Full Application as required by District Plan and NPPF policies. The pre-application public consultation procedures described in the SCC were completed in February 2018 and the full application was not made public until 17th July 2018. This is confirmed by OTTRA’s and Thorley Parish Council’s own consultation events and community engagement since the application was submitted and made public. There was – and still is – great confusion as to whether the application is for 142 or 750 houses, the status of a Full as against an Outline Application and the detailed design and impacts of the development on the community around Whittington Way. There has simply been no attempt or
Page 186 opportunity for the Full Application to “be collaboratively prepared and informed by public participation” as required by DES1.
Within the masterplanning process, the first and only time that the form of any hybrid application including a full application for “142 houses north of Hertfordshire Way accessed directly from Whittington Way” was presented for discussion was to the MPF Steering Group 3 on 2nd August. We note that:
a) This was after the MPF was submitted to the EHC Executive and approved as a basis to proceed to a planning application b) Whilst it is claimed that the MPF “sets the context for both parts of the application”, there is no reference in the MPF document to a hybrid application and no identification or quantification of what was referred to in the Leader’s Report as Development Zone A c) Development Zone A comprises almost entirely the small part of the site located within the Bishops Stortford Town boundary. Bishops Stortford Town Council are not represented on the Steering Group as specifically required by BISH5 and have therefore had no opportunity to participate in a decision which will have a significant impact on Whittington Way and the town.
In view of the applicant’s failure to meet (or attempt to meet) any of the community consultation or masterplanning requirements of District Plan Policies DES1, BISH5 and NPPF 2018 paragraphs 40 and 42 since the intention to submit a hybrid application was first made public on 17th July 2018, the Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way should be withdrawn and not resubmitted until these consultation policies have been met in full.
3. Statement of Community Consultation on the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development.
We have reviewed the Statement of Community Consultation (SCC) submitted in support of the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development above in three key respects:
a) Stakeholder Identification and Engagement
Section 5.0 of the SCC purports to identify “key stakeholders” who were given direct “access the Countryside project team” and invited to “meetings and briefings prior to the formal consultation”. We note however that:
Key stakeholders identified comprise 3 groups of organisations which are either local government elected members directly or indirectly responsible for granting planning consent; other statutory consultees or “Community Groups” with little or no involvement or interest in the development of BSS site area affected. Specifically excluded from this list are the very active residents associations of Thorley and Bishops Stortford – including OTTRA which represents all of the area of the site and it’s immediate surroundings - and the Bishops Stortford Civic Federation (BSCF) which is the umbrella organisation for most of the town’s residents’ associations. Moreover, the views of BSCF and OTTRA opposing the development of BSS were clearly expressed as the only organisations (together with Thorley Parish Council)
Page 187 which gave evidence to the District Plan EiP Hearings on 7th November 2017 (at exactly the same time as BSS stakeholder engagement was planned) and to the Planning Appeal Inquiry which resulted in the refusal development of the site in 2014. It is clear that any organisation expected to oppose the development of BSS was excluded as a key stakeholder. The SCC identifies a “micro-consultation zone” of 40 properties bounding the site who were sent “personal briefing letters” on 27th November and invited to an exhibition preview on 12th December 2017. When the application was submitted and statutory notifications sent to all affected households on 19th October 2018, OTTRA was approached by groups of occupiers of approximately half of the micro- consultation zone properties to the west of Thorley Street most affected claiming that they had had no previous notice of the development. None recalled receiving letters, none attended any exhibition preview and none were followed up on their views.
Section 6.0 of the SCC goes on to describes the level of engagement offered to some of these “key stakeholders” including 11 Presentations and discussions over a period stretching back 3 years from November 2015 to June 2017 including the Salvation Army, Bishops Stortford Canoe Club, Waterside Stortford, Destination Stortford and the Climate Change Group with only the most marginal interest in the development of BSS.
We conclude that the SCC wholly misrepresents attempts to identify or consult with those stakeholders or organisations most directly affected by development or likely to express views known to be against the development.
b) Public/Community Consultation
Section 7.0 of the SCC describes the consultation process with the wider public community which included a website, promotional flyers, posters and press releases inviting comments and a mailshot inviting the public to 2 drop-in exhibitions. This activity largely took place in November – December 2017 nearly one year before the application and, most critically and as the response shows, when the District Plan EiP was in progress. Since the BSS site was in the Greenbelt we are aware that the consultation and exhibitions were seen primarily as an attempt to influence that process and secure Greenbelt release rather than inform the public of an impending planning application. Indeed, it was clearly stated in the Exhibition documentation that no application would be made until Greenbelt status was removed.1
The Exhibitions were the most visible part of the public consultation process but we note that:
2 public exhibitions were held within 2 days of each other, two weeks before Christmas, and both at venues in Bishops Stortford town centre rather than in or around the site in Thorley (for example the St Barnabus’ Centre). Opportunity to attend was also constrained by the limited time of opening – one day-time (10.00 – 14.00) / one evening (16.00 – 20.00).
1 In the event the application was submitted on 12th October 11 days before the District Plan was finally adopted (removing greenbelt status) on 23rd October 2018.
Page 188 An additional exhibition was held at Bishops Stortford High School restricted to parents and teachers – a very high proportion of whom do not live in the area impacted. The High School is recognised by the community as one of the principal beneficiaries of the development and is believed by the local community to be the source of most of the limited positive feed back from the process. c) Analysis of Feedback Finally, we have reviewed the analysis of Feedback presented in Section 8.0 of the SCC. We note that: Only 9 (4%) of the 208 analysed submissions were received from the public exhibitions which might be regarded as the most informed responses whereas 148 (72%) were website or e-mail submissions the origins of which are unknown. The analysis of Feedback Forms indicates that for the only “open” question Q1 on whether the 158 respondents supported “a mixed new development on this site” the overwhelming response was negative – 69% “No” and only 11% “Yes” The follow-up leading Q2 – “which aspects of the scheme do you welcome” – 25% said “None”. Of the remainder the most popular answers were15% for “retention of footpaths” (which would also be retained by no development), and 22% support for new schools. Delivery of new homes was supported by only 10% and new employment area by only 8%. The analysis of Open Comment Responses (not constrained by the leading questions of the Feedback form) was overwhelmingly negative including: o 441 comments (47% of all comment occurrences reported) concerned traffic and transport issues – mainly congestion caused by the development, impact on the wider town traffic and access to the development and schools; o The next largest group of 185 comments (20%) concerned loss of greenbelt. The SCC describes this as a “misunderstanding” (on the assumption that respondents should have been aware that greenbelt status would be removed before application) failing to register the overriding public concern about overdevelopment of the town to which BSS contributes; o 137 comments (14%) on the pressure the development will put on community facilities and other social infrastructure; and o Only 97 comments (10%) on the provision, design and layout of housing – mostly on where this should be improved. Despite the negative response of more than 80% of comments on the key issues of the impact on transport and social infrastructure demand and overdevelopment of the town – and what is described as “unconstructive feedback for the proposed development” – the SCC analysis of feedback falsely concludes that “the majority indicated support for development of facilities on the site by recommendation of what they feel is required by the community”.
We believe that the SCC analysis of the consultation feedback on the BSS development is a disingenuous and wholly unprofessional misrepresentation of the negative views clearly and constructively expressed in the community consultation.
Page 189 In conclusion therefore, we find the SCC to be incomplete and inadequate in identifying or consulting with stakeholders most directly affected by or likely to object to the development and deliberately misleading in its analysis of negative public consultation feedback on the development. The stakeholder and community consultation process on the Outline Application reported in the SCC therefore falls far short of the levels of collaboration and open debate that is required by the East Herts District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5 and NPPF 2018 and does not provide a basis to proceed to an outline planning application.
4. Establishment and Operation of the Bishops Stortford South Masterplan Framework Steering Group and the Master Planning Process under District Plan Policies DES1 and BISH5
Section 10.0 of the SCC also briefly describes engagement in the Bishops Stortford South masterplanning process by Countryside with EHC and others through a Steering Group “established to enable the open debate of issues”. The establishment of the Bishops Stortford South Masterplan Framework Steering Group (the SG) in October 2017 appears to have been in response to the then emerging and now adopted District Plan Policy DES1 (see section 1 above) which requires that “all ‘significant’ development proposals will be required to prepare a Masterplan (which) will be collaboratively prepared, involving site promoters, land owners, East Herts Council, town and parish councils and other relevant key stakeholders” In the case of BSS, Policy BISH5 goes on to state more specifically that the process should involve “site promoters, landowners, East Herts Council, Hertfordshire County Council, Bishop’s Stortford Town Council, Thorley Parish Council and other key stakeholders.” The SCC makes no reference to these policies or how the masterplanning process adopted meets their requirements.
With regard to the membership and scope of the SG, the SCC lists three “Members Working Group Sessions” which have taken place before the hybrid planning application was submitted – in December 2017, and April and August 2018 respectively. With regard to collaborative involvement and preparation, we note that:
The membership/attendance at these preapplication sessions was limited only to two statutory Councils – EHC and Thorley Parish – Countryside and their planning advisors. Thorley Parish were not invited until SG2 in April 2018. Contrary to the requirements of DES1, BISH5 and the NPPF, no other statutory councils, non-statutory or other stakeholders have been invited to participate. Specifically, with regard to the mandatory participation of statutory councils required by NPPF(2018) paragraph 40 and identified by name in BISH5, Bishops Stortford Town Council (BSTC) - in which area the Full Application for 142 houses in Whittington Way falls and was presented publicly for the only time at SG3 – have not been invited to participate.2 Similarly Hertfordshire County Council, as the statutory and competent highways authority, has been excluded from the SG and therefore from informing the debate on the priority issues for the community on (see section 3c above) on traffic management and transport modelling. Key non-statutory stakeholders have also been excluded from the SG contrary to policy, including in particular Bishops Stortford Civic Federation (BSCF), Old Thorley and Twyford
2 EHC have frequently stated that some EHC members invited are also BSTC members and that they “wear two hats”. This neither meets the specific policy requirements of BISH5 or NPPF(2018) paragraph 40 nor reflects the fact that BSTC has consistently voted against the principle of development at BSS whilst EHC has consistently voted for it.
Page 190 Park Residents Association (OTTRA) and other residents’ associations significantly impacted by the development. None of these have been directly consulted during the pre-application masterplanning process despite the fact that BSCF, OTTRA and Thorley Parish Council were the only bodies (statutory or non-statutory) to give evidence at the District Plan EiP Hearings on Bishops Stortford and to make extensive submissions on the Modifications Consultation.
We therefore believe that the representation on the Masterplanning Steering Group and the way it has conducted its work has fallen far short of the levels of participation, collaboration and open debate that is required by NPPF(2018) paragraph 40, DES1 and BISH5, is incomplete and the resulting MPF is an inadequate basis to proceed to an outline or full planning application.
Prepared 4th December 2018 by: Colin Arnott, MRTPI Deputy Chairman, Old Thorley and Twyford Park Residents Association Planning Adviser to Thorley Parish Council
Page 191 Annex 2 Objection on Transport Assessment Impact
Please see separate document on Objection on the Assessment of Transport Impact prepared by Colin Arnott MRTPI; Deputy Chairman, OTTRA
Hybrid Application 3/18/2253/OUT: Bishops Stortford South
OBJECTION ON THE ASSESSMENT OF TRANSPORT IMPACT
This paper is prepared in response to the Transport Assessment (TA) and other documents prepared in support of the Hybrid Planning Application submitted by Countryside Properties (UK) Plc (‘Countryside’).
Summary and Conclusion
We have reviewed the TA, other relevant supporting documents submitted by the applicant, relevant NPPF and District Plan policies on the transport impact of development and mitigation and conclude that:
It is clear that the District Plan process identified and quantified the existing and potentially unsustainable future challenges to the strategic transport network of development in the south and east of the town. However, the Transport Assessment (TA) presented in support of the hybrid application makes no reference to this strategic context and makes no attempt to address the impact of the development of BSS – both independently and cumulatively – on this vulnerable local strategic network. We believe that the TA submission is based on a wholly outdated understanding of the current local transport policy environment demonstrated by a total failure to refer to or review the significance of the current LTP4 or District Plan transport policies adopted in the past eight months – relying instead on LTP3 and District Plan 2007 policies now superseded. The Local Planning Authority and the Highways Authority should be satisfied that the new policy requirements of NPPF 2018, LTP4 and District Plan Policies TRA1 and TRA2 have been addressed by the TA and have been met in full before proceeding to a planning application and that any decision to approve or refuse the application is premature until these requirements are met. With respect to our review of the results of the TA modelling of traffic impacts we find that: o the junction analysis carried in the applicant’s own TA confirms the unsustainable impact on the London Road Corridor which was first estimated by the East Herts Local Plan Support documents TRA001 and 002 and the critical failure of the system at the Pig Lane / London Road junction – including a quadrupling of vehicle delays, a reaching of 100% capacity of the junction in the morning peak and a
Page 192 consequent tailback of 120 vehicles over 700 metres. This situation is clearly unsustainable and the development unacceptable without significant mitigation measures that directly address these impacts. o it is difficult to discern the cumulative impact of the BSS development on town centre congestion from the presentation in the TA but HCC need be satisfied that the claim that the impact is marginal can be substantiated in a situation at Hockerill Junction where future capacities are expected to be unsustainable and is within an Air Quality Management area. o the failure to model the junctions at the Pig Lane light controlled single lane rail bridge, the Pig Lane / Hallingbury Road Junction and junctions in Haymeads Lane represents a significant gap in the understanding of the impact of BSS on the strategic transport highway network in the south and east of the town and have been omitted because the junctions are on the fringe of the County and not well recognised. We believe they should be included in BSS junction modelling before the application is determined. o in view of the applicant’s failure to provide any assessment of the transport impact of the Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way - since the intention to submit a hybrid application was first made public on 17th July 2018 – the Full Application should be withdrawn and not resubmitted until the TA has assessed the strategic and local transport impact in full. In view of the clearly severe effect of the BSS development on the rural an residential character of both Pig Lane and Thorley Street and on the safety of vulnerable road users as a result of unsustainable increases in traffic flows and queuing, we therefore expect that the Highways Authority will resist the development under the terms of the recently adopted LTP4 Policy 5(g) and of paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPF 2018. We believe that the very limited mitigation measure proposed by the applicant to address the severe transport impact problems which they identify in the TA is wholly inadequate to meet the challenge, totally untested and therefore unproven in its ability to mitigate the identified level of impact and not implementable through a S106 agreement with the applicant alone. It therefore fails to “secure developer mitigation measures to limit the impacts of development on the transport network as required by LTP4 Policy 5(d) and does not meet the NPPF para 108 requirement that the impact has been “mitigated to an acceptable degree.” We would therefore expect the Highways Authority to “resist development where the residual impact of development is considered to be severe” (LTP4 Policy 5(d)).
We therefore object to the Hybrid Application 3/18/2253/OUT: Bishops Stortford South – both to the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development and to the Full Application for 142 houses on Whittington Way – on the grounds that it does not comply with NPPF 2018 paragraphs 102, 108 and 109, LTP4 Policy 5 and District Plan Policies TRA1and TRA2 on impact of development on the transport network and on mitigation of those impacts. The hybrid application should therefore be refused in part and in full.
Page 193 Review of the Assessment of Transport Impact
Our review of Transport Assessment (TA) and other documents has been carried out in five areas: Strategic Transport Context in the south of Bishops Stortford and Thorley Requirements of NPPF 2018, LTP4, and East Herts District Plan Policies TRA001 and 002 on Transport and Traffic Assessment Review of the Transport Assessment on the Hybrid Application Impact on rural and residential roads - Pig Lane and Thorley Street Mitigation
5. Strategic Transport Context in the south of Bishops Stortford and Thorley
The strategic transport context within which the impact of major development in the south of Bishops Stortford must be considered was set out in the East Herts Local Plan Support documents TRA 001 and 002 prepared in January and March 2017 respectively and based on HCC Highways Comet Model run. This modelling set out, among other things, the base year traffic flows to and from Bishops Stortford, the “Do Minimum” trip generation from the BSS development and the “Do Something” trip combined distribution from the major East Herts developments proposed in the Plan.
These results clearly showed the challenges facing the strategic traffic impact of development in the south of the town and Thorley which would have to be addressed in the Traffic Assessment (TA) for the BSS development and resolved by mitigation before development could go ahead including:
The overwhelming east and south-east bound direction of a.m. peak outbound and p.m. peak inbound trips which TRA001 concluded “indicates that the town has a close interaction with the A120 (towards Essex) and M11 corridors .. (and) … the interaction with the rest of the district is relatively limited.” Figure 32 of TRA001 (abstract below) clearly shows that the greatest existing a.m. peak movements of outbound movement from the town are therefore around the BSS site along London Road/Thorley Street, Whittington Way and particularly how Pig Lane / Hallingbury Road / Church Road are not “rat-runs” but now act as an informal south-eastern by- pass route to J8 and Stansted Airport.
Page 194
When TRA001 therefore modelled the a.m. peak distribution from the BSS site specifically the weight of the impact of traffic movements therefore predicted a similar distribution around the site to the east and south along Whittington Way, London Road and Pig Lane / Church Road – see Figure 21 abstract below.
When combined with the impact of other major developments in East Herts and highways improvements proposed in the Plan in the TRA002 “Do Something” model run, the predicted a.m. peak distribution from the BSS site dramatically highlights the impact of the development on the strategic road network of the south and east of the town and Thorley around the site – see Figure 18 abstracted below.
Page 195
TRA002 acknowledged the strategic impact problem stating that “the shortest route between this development and M11 J8 is through the town centre. Congestion within Bishop’s Stortford, however, encourages modelled trips to route via Pig Lane and Church Road instead” The full unsustainability of this situation was buried away in Table 6 of Appendix B to TRA001 however which predicted that: o Combined Pig Lane a.m. peak movements are projected to more than double from an existing highly congested level of 437 vehicles to 937 vehicles o Combined Pig Lane p.m. peak movements are projected to increase by nearly 2.5 times from an existing level of 360 vehicles to 871 vehicles. o A1184 London Road a.m. peak northbound movements increase by 65% from 630 vehicles to over 1000 vehicles.
The inevitable impact of this on delays, congestion and capacities on the southern, London Road, entrance to the town and the unsustainable impact on wholly unsuitable local / residential roads such as Pig lane and Thorley Street are examined below.
It is clear that the District Plan process identified and quantified the existing and potentially unsustainable future challenges to the strategic transport network of development in the south and east of the town. However, the Transport Assessment presented in support of the hybrid application makes no reference to this strategic context and makes no attempt to address the impact of the development of BSS – both independently and cumulatively – on this vulnerable local strategic network.
6. Requirements of NPPF 2018, LTP4, and East Herts District Plan Policies TRA001 and 002 on Transport and Traffic Assessment
Page 196 The relevant NPPF, Local Transport Plan and District Plan policies against which the TA should be considered are:
Section 9 of the NPPF 2018 on Promoting Sustainable Transport requires that: (Paragraph 102) Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan- making and development proposals, so that … “the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure can be identified, assessed and taken into account including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects” (Paragraph 108) In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that …”any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree”. (Paragraph 109) states that development may be “prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”
Hertfordshire County Council is the statutory highways authority and in May 2018 adopted a new Local Transport Plan for the County – LTP4 (May 2018). The relevant Plan Policy 5 on Development Management includes policies to work with development promoters and district councils to: Policy 5(d) – Secure developer mitigation measures to limit the impacts of development on the transport network and resist development where the residual impact of development is considered to be severe Policy 5(f) – Only consider new accesses onto primary and main distributor roads where special circumstances can be demonstrated in favour of the proposals. Policy 5(g) – Resist development that would either severely affect the rural or residential character of a road … or which would severely affect safety on rural roads, local roads and rights of way especially for vulnerable road users.
Despite the fact that LTP4 became the approved Local Transport Plan in May 2018 the East Herts District Plan (adopted in October 2018) chapter 18 on Transport states that “Locally, the over- arching transport policy document for the area is Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (LTP3)”. It appears that District Plan Transport policies may not therefore reflect current LTP4 policies – particularly Policy 5. Nevertheless we note:
Policy TRA1(Ib) states that development proposals should “where relevant, take account of the provisions of the Local Transport Plan” Policy TRA2 states that “Development proposals should ensure that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users. Site layouts, access proposals and any measures designed to mitigate trip generation produced by the development should: (a) Be acceptable in highway safety terms; (b) Not result in any severe residual cumulative impact; and (c) Not have a significant detrimental effect on the character of the local environment
Section 2 of the Transport Assessment (pages 10-31) sets out at length the relevant policies that have guided the Assessment including NPPF, LTP and District Plan policies. Unfortunately, with the exception of the review of NPPF 2018 policies, the review of LTP and District Plan policies is wholly outdated and refers to LTP3 (superseded by LTP4 in May 2018 – see above) and to Local Plan 2007 and Draft District Plan TRA policies (superseded by the District Plan 2018 as adopted in October 2018 – see above). Indeed, the whole policy review shows no signs of having been updated to
Page 197 reflect the significant changes in current policy in the last 12 months. This ignorance or disregard of current local transport policy affecting the area is critical with regard to: The significance of the new HCC LTP4 Policy 5 (see above) on Development Management which includes policies to work with development promoters on resisting inappropriate levels of development with severe traffic impacts and securing developer mitigation measures to limit the impacts of development. The failure to even identify LTP4 and this important new policy on the management of development casts doubt on the amount of “work with development promoters” that has taken place between HCC and Countryside in the last year. The level of deferment on transport policy of the new District Plan to the LTP4 policies of the highway authority. The TA cites in full East Herts Local Plan 2007 policies TRA1 to TRA11 without acknowledging that these are now redundant. The new District Plan 2018 is much simplified on transport and contains only three transport policies TRA1 to TRA3 (none of which are cited in the TA, despite citing policy BISH5 on which the whole BSS application relies), the first of which, TRA1 on Sustainable Transport references and reflects LTP4 policies and “says development proposals should … take account of the provisions of the LTP”
We believe that the TA submission is based on a wholly outdated understanding of the current local transport policy environment demonstrated by a total failure to refer to or review the significance of the current LTP4 or District Plan transport policies adopted in the past eight months – relying instead on LTP3 and District Plan 2007 policies now superseded. The Local Planning Authority and the Highways Authority should be satisfied that the new policy requirements of NPPF 2018, LTP4 and District Plan Policies TRA1 and TRA2 have been addressed by the TA and have been met in full before proceeding to a planning application and that any decision to approve or refuse the application is premature until these requirements are met.
7. Review of the Transport Assessment on the Hybrid Application. We have carried out a broad review of the results of the TA modelling of traffic impacts using the HCC TRANSYT Model for the Town Centre, an update of TRANSYT using 2016 survey data for the London Road Corridor and a combination of LYNSYG and JUNCTIONS9 to model junction queues, delays and capacities. We note that: The modelling is of junction delays, queues and capacities. This principally measures the impact on road users. Peak flow data – as provided to the District Plan EiP - is needed to measure the impact on residents and other users. We understand that flow data was required to be prepared but we have not found this important information within the TA or its Appendices.
We understand that the modelling includes “all developments included in the (East Herts) District Plan”. However, it is not clear whether planned developments in the Uttlesford District Plan are included – including in particular the assumptions about Stansted Airport expansion. Since the baseline survey dates from 2016 the modelling is particularly sensitive to assumptions made about all “future” developments since 2016 – of which there have been many The evening peak hour modelled around the site is usually around 5-6 pm whereas the observed peak is 3.30 – 4.30 pm and is school related.
Page 198 We believe the TA should clarify the availability of the above data, results and assumptions made before it is evaluated.
Within these limitations, we have reviewed the Transport Assessment (TA) submitted in support of the Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development above and the Full application for 142 houses on Whittington Way in four key areas:
d) London Road Corridor Impacts
The strategic transport assessment carried out in the East Herts Local Plan Support documents showed (see section 1 above) the unsustainable impact of the development on the strategic road network of the south and east of the town and Thorley – in particular on the London Road Corridor – and the results of the junction modelling undertaken for the TA clearly confirms this. It shows that the main impact is on the Thorley Street, Whittington Way, London Road and particularly Pig Lane junctions. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 of Appendix G of the TA show that: With the growth of traffic and the impact of the BSS development the average delay turning right out of Whittington Way in both the morning and evening peaks grows to an average of over one minute on this important local distributor which. This however does not appear to take account of the impact of and on an additional 4 or 5 access roads direct from Whittington Way to the Full Application development of 142 houses. Table 7.2 dramatically highlights the impact of the development on the London Road Corridor of the London Road / Pig Lane junction – the critical bottleneck in the informal south-eastern by pass to the town. This includes: the longest increase in delays in the system where turning right out of Pig Lane into London Road increases from 24 seconds to nearly 2 minutes in the morning peak. Similar doubling of waiting times occur in the evening peak. Moreover this assumes that left turns out of Pig Lane (where waiting time also doubles) can continue while right turners wait. This is not usually possible and never once the combined queue gets to more than 2 or 3 vehicles. It becomes a single queue behind the right turners. No assessment has been made of the combined queue which would back up to the light controlled single lane rail bridge in Pig Lane 100 metres south of the London Road junction. The rail bridge lights are a junction which has not been modelled and is already critical to operation of the Pig Lane / London Road junction in peak hours. Most significantly, an increase in in the morning peak of the delay in northbound London Road and traffic turning into Pig Lane from an existing 14 seconds without the development to nearly a minute and a half with it – lengthening the northbound London Road queue at this point from 5 to 30 vehicles. As a result of these increases Table 7.2 estimates that this junction will be at virtually 100% capacity on average at the a.m. peak. This demonstrates gridlock as capacity cannot exceed 100%, average capacities over 85% are unacceptable and those over approximately 65% are generally unsustainable with cumulative growth in the system. This junction alone shows 4 movements in the morning and evening peaks which are at 65% capacity or over. Finally, it should be noted that queues, delays and capacities at each of these junctions have been modelled individually – in some cases using separate LYNSYG
Page 199 and JUNCTIONS9 models. Junctions at Whittington Way, London Road, Thorley Hill and Pig Lane (including the Pig Lane rail bridge) are all within 200 metres of each other and queues will accumulate at close junctions, further reducing capacity. Although this has not been measured in the TA, the “Planning Conditions” document submitted in support of the application summarises some of the London Road Corridor impacts but (whilst measuring the additional impact of the schools) also states that the cumulative “queue from Pig Lane (i.e. northbound on London Road to the Pig Lane junction) is predicted to be 108 vehicles with general growth and 121 vehicles with the addition of the school”. Using HCC’s Highways standards that represents a queue of nearly 700 metres stretching through the Whitington Way junction, through Thorley Street almost to the by-pass at St.James’ Way.
It is clear that the junction analysis carried in the applicant’s own TA confirms the unsustainable impact on the London Road Corridor which was first estimated by the East Herts Local Plan Support documents TRA001 and 002 and the critical failure of the system at the Pig Lane / London Road junction – including a quadrupling of vehicle delays, a reaching of 100% capacity of the junction in the morning peak and a consequent tailback of 120 vehicles over 700 metres. This situation is clearly unsustainable and the development unacceptable without significant mitigation measures that directly address these impacts.
e) Town Centre Impacts
At the request of HCC, Town Centre impacts have also been assessed in the TA – in particular the impact on the Hockerill Junction. It appears that absolute levels of impact of the BSS development on the junction and surrounding movements are not presented but the analysis instead focuses on the benefits of the “Smarter Choices” policy to encourage mode switching and the cumulative impact of other developments – particularly the Goods Yard development. Generally, the TA presents the “existing plus growth” impact as so high that additional BSS impact, under the Smarter Choices scenario is described as marginal. We note however that all the major junction movements north and east are at around 90 – 120% capacity a.m. and 90 – 130% capacity p.m. in the base + growth + Goods Yard case.
We conclude that it is difficult to discern the cumulative impact of the BSS development on town centre congestion from the presentation in the TA but HCC need be satisfied that the claim that the impact is marginal can be substantiated in a situation at Hockerill Junction where future capacities are expected to be unsustainable and is within an Air Quality Management area.
f) Unmodelled Junctions and Links
We understand that the applicant agreed with HCC 11 junction which would be modelled as shown in Table 1.1 and Figure 1.2. of Appendix G to the TA. Based on the results of the Comet modelling of the highway network of the south and east of the town and Thorley carried out in support of the District Plan and our local knowledge of the area we believe that this list does not include key junctions and links in the network which can be expected to be critically impacted by the BSS development. The junctions include:
Page 200 Pig Lane light controlled single lane rail bridge – as noted in 3(a) above the traffic light controlled rail bridge in Pig Lane is an alternating single direction junction which has extensive queueing and is frequently blocked in peak hours. Despite the fact that it functions as a junction within approximately 100 meters of the critical bottleneck in the informal south-eastern by pass to the town.at the London Road / Pig Lane junction – no assessment has been made of queuing, delays and capacity. It appears to have been overlooked because while the junction with London Road is a visible bottleneck in the London Road Corridor, the role of the Pig Lane link in the informal by-pass has not been recognized. Pig Lane / Hallingbury Road - Similarly the Pig Lane / Hallingbury Road Junction at the eastern end of Pig Lane has also been ignored. Lengthy eastbound queues extend back along the narrowest section of Pig Lane in the morning peak – frequently preventing westbound movements. The most easterly 10 meters of Pig Lane at the Hallingbury Road junction cross into Essex – as is Hallingbury Road and the junction with Church Road which, with Pig Lane, make up the informal by-pass link from London Road to J8 and the Airport highlighted in the diagrams in section 1 above. Hallingbury Road is a main distributor and the junction with Pig Lane is in a high speed, accident prone “dip” where there are left and right turn movements. The junction appears to have been excluded from modelling because it is in Essex but it is not clear whether it has been evaluated by ECC Highways or Uttlesford District and whether they have been consulted on this junction and the impact of significantly increased traffic movements on Church Road and on Great Hallingbury. Haymeads Lane / Cavell Drive and Haymeads Lane / Dunmow Road – The informal by-pass link from the Hallingbury Road junction also routes via Beldams Lane / Haymeads Lane to Dunmow Road and J8. We understand that it was modelled for the Goods Yard development but It is expected that delays and queues on this route will also increase significantly as a result of the BSS development. We therefore believe that the Haymeads Lane / Cavell Drive junction (including congestion at the Cavell Drive access to the district hospital) and Haymeads Lane / Dunmow Road should be modelled.
We believe that the failure to model the above junctions represents a significant gap in the understanding of the impact of BSS on the strategic transport highway network in the south and east of the town and have been omitted because the junctions are on the fringe of the County and not well recognised. We believe they should be included in BSS junction modelling before the application is determined. g) Transport Impact of Full Application for 142 houses The hybrid planning application submitted by Countryside comprises an Outline Application for the development of 750 houses, schools, employment area and other associated development and a Full Application for 142 houses on Whittington Way. However, we note that there is no specific reference to a full planning application for 142 houses on Whittington Way or any transport assessment of the impact of this first phase of the BSS development anywhere in the TA. Specifically: The local planning authority and the community has been provided with no estimate of the impact of 142 houses on the critical London Road Corridor junctions when the access to and from the development is via Whittington Way / Obrey Way rather
Page 201 than St. James’ Way and the existing Bishop’s Stortford High School access via London Road remains in place. What is the impact of an additional 4 or 5 access roads direct on to Whittington Way on the functioning of the base + growth network generally and on the Whittington Way local distributor and access to surrounding communities of Thorley Park and Twyford Park. Are the mitigating measures proposed to alleviate the impact of the full development assessed in the TA – including for example minor improvements to the layout of the Thorley Hill / London Road – required or being offered in respect of this first phase of development.
In view of the applicant’s failure to provide any assessment of the transport impact of the Full Application for 142 dwellings on Whittington Way - since the intention to submit a hybrid application was first made public on 17th July 2018 – the Full Application should be withdrawn and not resubmitted until the TA has assessed the strategic and local transport impact in full.
8. Impact on rural and residential roads - Pig Lane and Thorley Street
Section 1 above notes that HCC’s traffic model prepared for the District Plan predicted that, in the morning peak, Bishop’s Stortford South would result in a 65% increase in northbound traffic on London Road from 630 to 1040 vehicles while in Pig Lane combined east and westbound traffic would more than double from 437 to 937 vehicles. Section 3 goes on to show that the TA confirms that, without significant mitigation measures, there will be an unsustainable impact on the London Road Corridor in particular – including a quadrupling of vehicle delays, a reaching of junction capacities and a consequent 700 metre tailback.
We also note that HCC LTP4 Policy 5(g) states that the Highways Authority will “Resist development that would either severely affect the rural or residential character of a road or other right of way, or which would severely affect safety on rural roads, local roads and rights of way especially for vulnerable road users”.
In these circumstances, we believe that this policy will clearly apply in the London Road Corridor to:
Pig Lane – Despite its role as a key link in Bishops Stortford’s informal south-eastern by-pass, Pig Lane is a residential road with distinctly rural characteristics. It has a 4-5metre combined carriageway for most of its length with two 45-90 degree bends, no footpaths and residential development with family homes fronting the lane. It is popular with many categories of vulnerable users including walkers, joggers and cyclists and horse riders based at a large livery located on the south-eastern side of the lane. The lane crosses the Stort Towpath at Twyford Lock where canoeists cross the road and there is uncontrolled parking by fisherman and other river users. We have already noted that traffic using the western end of the lane is subject to intermittent single lane use at a light controlled single lane rail bridge at one of its narrowest points which adds significantly to a.m. and p.m. peak congestion at the bridge and at the junction with London Road. The TA engineering studies have examined whether the junction can be improved by widening or other
Page 202 engineering solutions and concluded it cannot. No other mitigation has been offered by the TA and any restriction of access has not been considered because of the lane’s strategic network role. The rural and residential character of Pig Lane will clearly be severely affected by combined a.m. and p.m. peak flows as a result of the BSS development of nearly 1000 and over 800 vehicles respectively – as would the safety of many groups of vulnerable residents and other users.
Thorley Street – is part of a Group 3 village settlement with nearly 50 family homes – many of them in listed buildings – set along the A1184 Thorley Street which is part of the London Road Corridor. The TA has stressed the importance of road layout solutions which avoid increasing the flow and speed of traffic through Thorley Street. The village already has digital speed measuring and warning signs installed. However, the TA also now estimates that as a result of junction delays and capacities at the junctions of London Road with Pig Lane and Whittington Way there will be an (average) 121 vehicle /750 metre queue from the Pig Lane junction in the a.m. peak which would stretch back through Thorley Street almost to the roundabout. Moreover p.m. peaks would also lead to significantly increased queuing through the village and this would occur at an observed 3.30 – 4.30 pm “peak” (which has not been assessed by the TA) as a result of school pick up as well at the 5.00-6.00 pm peak measured by the TA. The residential character of Thorley street will clearly be severely affected by a.m. and p.m. peak queues as a result of the BSS development of an average of around 750 vehicles and a queue this long will also have air quality implications for vulnerable residents and users including schoolchildren.
In view of the clearly severe effect of the BSS development on the rural an residential character of both Pig Lane and Thorley Street and on the safety of vulnerable road users as a result of unsustainable increases in traffic flows and queuing, we therefore expect that the Highways Authority will resist the development under the terms of the recently adopted LTP4 Policy 5(g) and of paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPF 2018.
9. Mitigation
In view of the severe transport impacts of the BSS development on the local strategic network of the south and east of Bishops Stortford and Thorley, both NPPF and LTP4 policies emphasise the need for “impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure (to) be … taken into account including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects (NPPF para 102) and, where they cannot, they must be “mitigated to an acceptable degree” (NPPF para 108). LTP4 is even clearer stating that the local planning authority should “Secure developer mitigation measures to limit the impacts of development on the transport network” and, where it cannot, they will “resist development where the residual impact of development is considered to be severe” (LTP4 Policy 5(d).
The TA and the “Planning Conditions” document submitted in support of the application offer only two areas of mitigation of the severe impacts which the TA itself identifies. In the first area, we welcome the considerable emphasis put by the applicant on “Green Travel” measures for BSS including the promotion of public transport, cycling and other measures to encourage mode switching away from car use and which are in line with NPPF, LTP4 and District Plan policies on green travel. We note however that when applied in the TA as “Smart Choices” assessment options, the
Page 203 level of mode switching from car use assumed to be achieved by these policies is only 5-7% and, at this level, has only minimal impact on flows, queues, delays and capacities in the town centre. The TA is not clear whether this has been similarly applied in the severe impact results for the London Road Corridor or, if not, what further level of mitigation might be achieved by a 5-7% mode switch.
The only other mitigation measure proposed by the applicant – which is mainly aimed at addressing the severe impacts which the TA identifies in the London Road Corridor (see section 3(a) above) – are “previously agreed” minor improvements to the London Road / Thorley Hill light controlled junction at the northern end of the Corridor (see TA Appendix G Figure 7.1) through a S106 agreement. It is evident to regular users of the junction that the improvements which comprise only a peak hour parking restriction at the southbound traffic lights and a minor bus stop relocation northbound, will not address the existing observable or more severe future projected problem which is not, anyway, the cause of congestion further south in the Corridor. Specifically we note that:
The delays, queues and capacities at this junction – both with and without the BSS development – are significantly less than at the London Road / Pig Lane and Whittington Way junctions indicating that mitigation at this junction will have little impact. A peak hour parking restriction at the traffic lights will address only southbound queuing in the peak at the northern end of the corridor which is not a severe observed problem. If it did have any benefits to the northbound flow of traffic into the town centre – diverting the significant growth of traffic generated by the development away from Pig Lane for example – it would have an even more unsustainable impact on traffic routing east through the town to J8 and the Airport through the vulnerable Hockerill junction. The same mitigation measure was offered to the public inquiry which refused the resiting and new development for the Bishops Stortford High School in 2014 as a solution to the then significantly lower traffic impacts and was found to be unsound on examination.
Irrespective of the unconvincing benefits of this proposed mitigation, the applicant has made no quantified assessment of the changes it would make to the severe modelled and reported impacts on queuing, delays, capacities and flows in the London Road Corridor or the town centre. The TA includes qualitative comments that the mitigation “can be expected” to reduce “rat-running” and “might even reduce existing flows” through Pig Lane and deliver other improvements to turning movements at Whittington Way. Without a rerun of the junction modelling with the mitigation assumed to be in place and a quantified assessment of the reduction of impacts to acceptable levels, the mitigation measure does not meet the NPPF para 108 requirement that the impact has been “mitigated to an acceptable degree”.
Finally, it is not clear how the applicant could be made responsible to deliver this improvement through a S106. The costs involved in the improvement would be minimal but it would be the responsibility and require action by the Highways Authority, including obtaining traffic orders to implement it. The mitigation would be ineffective without the agreement of the Authority to take on this role. They have not previously indicated a willingness to do so – despite the existing problems at the Thorley Hill junction.
We therefore believe that the very limited mitigation measure proposed by the applicant to address the severe transport impact problems which they identify in the TA is wholly inadequate to meet the challenge, totally untested and therefore unproven in its ability to mitigate the identified
Page 204 level of impact and not implementable through a S106 agreement with the applicant alone. It therefore fails to “secure developer mitigation measures to limit the impacts of development on the transport network as required by LTP4 Policy 5(d) and does not meet the NPPF para 108 requirement that the impact has been “mitigated to an acceptable degree.” We would therefore expect the Highways Authority to “resist development where the residual impact of development is considered to be severe” (LTP4 Policy 5(d)).
Prepared 6th December 2018 by: Colin Arnott, MRTPI Deputy Chairman, Old Thorley and Twyford Park Residents Association Planning Adviser to Thorley Parish Council
Page 205 This page is intentionally left blank rt to r S ve Ri
The Thorley Centre
The Bishop's Stortford High School
Playing Field
tort er S Riv
r t to S r e iv R
Southern Parkland Country Park
Thorley Street
Southern Parkland Country Park
Owletts Path (um)
Hill Saxons Cottages
Sheep LB Dip Old 85.3m CR Police Cottage Th Path (um) Path o W rley a High rd B dy Hillside Cottage
Pond
FB Thorley Hall Stables The Rainbow Cottage Cottages Lych Gate Thorley Thorley Moorlands Hall Glen View Tk P St James's ath (u m) Church PH Coach and Horses
MP 29.0
55.2m
Pond
T rac El Sub Sta k Elm Trees in Dra T C he otta ges Drain Laburnum Cottage D ra D in R r ose ai Co n El Sub Sta ttag e Pond C R
85.3m The Glade Mast
Dr a in n LC rai Thorley Wash Cottage D
Woodview T ra ck
Dr ain
FB
D ra i n
T ho W CR y rle a d y r B W d Bd t oo y s d n o
C
o C SITE Weir h ) t n a io P t g a n ig i v w a o (N T SL
t SL r o t S n r i
e a v r i R D
k c a r Ward Bdy k T c
a r T n ai Def Dr Mast
MP 28.75
52.7m
Pond
Drain in Dra Drain The Willow Barn
Thorley U nd The Oak Barn n H Wash i a R r m Farm D 78.6m 2 .2 1 Path Def Drain
(um) Path Thorley Wash Und Railway Crossing Grange
FB
n
i
a
r
D
R
C Pa rd Bdy th ED & Wa Def (u m )
ED B dy
Drain
) m u Sisteron ( th a y P d B FB ard Def Drain FB W
R
C
Broo kside
G reen ways
Westwoods
D
r a
i n
54.3m
Rus hmead The n i a r D Wallburys Hill View
n
i
a Wallbury Dells
r Dell V D iew D r y f a d e i n Farmhouse B 67.1m D d Th r e Bungalow a
W D
& C
D
E
Henley Herne Wallbury
Spring White Cottage
MP 28.5 Und
Oak Cottage CD rain Wallbury The Dell D El Sub Sta Dells y D Bd Cottage e d f ar W & ED
d
n
o
P
1 . 2 2 m Wallbury Dells R H House
D
r
a
i
n y
d
B
d r
a
W
D e
f Garage 58.8m Pond
n Drai
f
e
D Shelter Wallbury Pond
C
o
C
o
n
s
t
B
d
y
The 1
.
2
2 Haven
m
ury View D R Walb ra
H in This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528 Address: (BISH5) Land at Bishop's Stortford South, Off East Herts Council Wallfields Whittington Way, Bishop's Stortford Pegs Lane Reference: 3/18/2253/OUT Hertford Scale: 1:5000 SG13 8EQ Tel: 01279 655261 O.S Sheet: TL2616 Date of Print: 7 March 2019 Page 207 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5b
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – 20 MARCH 2019
Application 3/18/1523/FUL Number Proposal Development of 200 homes with associated access, landscaping, parking, private amenity space, public open space and allotments. Location Land At Chalks Farm, South Of West Road, Sawbridgeworth (SAWB3) Parish Sawbridgeworth CP Ward Sawbridgeworth
Date of Registration of 3 July 2018 Application Target Determination Date 11 October 2018 Reason for Committee Major application Report Case Officer David Snell
RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be GRANTED, subject to a legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of this report.
That delegated Authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the Legal Agreement and conditions.
1.0 Summary of Proposal and Main Issues
1.1 The site forms part of the development strategy in the East Herts District Plan 2018 as detailed in Policies DPS1, DPS2 and DPS3 and Sawbridgeworth Policies SAWB1 and SAWB3. The site is allocated for residential development of around 175 units. The principle of the residential development is therefore established.
1.2 The application proposes the construction of 200 dwellings with associated access, landscaping, parking, private amenity space, public open space and allotments. Page 209 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
1.3 The application submission follows from the decision of Council on 25th July 2018 to agree the Master Plan for the site as a material consideration for development management purposes. The application proposals are in accord with the development concept outlined in the Master Plan.
1.4 The main issues for consideration are:
Master planning; Impact on the Green Belt; Layout and design; Housing and affordable housing provision; Highway impact, mitigation and parking provision; Ensuring healthy and safe communities; Flood risk and sustainable drainage; Land contamination and pollution; Impact on the natural environment Heritage impact; Education; Infrastructure delivery.
1.5 Members will need to consider the overall planning balance and whether the proposal will result in a sustainable form of development having regard to the above considerations.
2.0 Site Description
2.1 The site comprises approximately 11.7ha of open land currently in agricultural use situated to the south of existing residential development fronting West Road and to the west of the main settlement of Sawbridgeworth.
2.2 The majority of the site (SAWB3), comprising approximately 9.8ha of land, is allocated for a residential development of around 175 units in the East Herts District Plan 2018.
Page 210 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
2.3 The remainder of the application site comprises land to the west of the allocated site and lies within the Green Belt.
3.0 Planning History
3.1 There is no relevant planning history relating to the site.
4.0 Main Policy Issues
4.1 These relate to the relevant policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the East Herts District Plan 2018 (DP). Sawbridgeworth has no Neighbourhood Plan.
Main Issue NPPF DP policy Principle Section 5 INT1 DPS1 DPS2 DPS3 SAWB1 SAWB3 Master planning DES1 Green Belt Section 13 GBR1 Design and layout Section 12 SAWB3 DES1 DES3 DES4 Housing and affordable Section 5 HOU1 housing HOU2 HOU7 Highways and parking Section 9 TRA1 TRA2 TRA3 Healthy and safe Section 8 DES5 communities CFLR1 CFLR7 CFLR9 CFLR10 Flood risk management, Section 14 WAT1 Page 211 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
including climate change, WAT2 water efficiency and quality WAT3 WAT4 WAT5 WAT6 CC1 CC2 Contamination and pollution EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 Natural environment Section 15 DES2 NE1 NE2 NE3 NE4 Heritage Section 16 HA1 HA3 Education SAWB3 CFLR10 Infrastructure delivery and Section 2 DEL1 planning obligations Section 4 DEL2 Overall sustainability Section 2 Chapter 1 INT1
Other relevant issues are referred to in the ‘Consideration of Relevant Issues’ section below.
5.0 Summary of Consultee Responses
5.1 HCC Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of permission, subject to conditions.
5.2 The Authority notes the materials submitted in support of the application, including the Planning Statement and Transport Assessment.
Page 212 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
5.3 The methodology for the preparation of the Transport Assessment was agreed via a number of pre-application meetings and scoping notes. The Authority is content with the methodology used.
5.4 The site is accessed via West Road which is an unclassified local access road subject to a 30mph speed restriction. An acceptable level of visibility can be achieved at the access point. Noted are the submitted revisions in respect of the access junction radii and site access road widths, which are now satisfactory.
5.5 Lead Local Flood Authority notes the updated surface water drainage strategy and does not wish to restrict the grant of permission, subject to conditions.
5.6 Environment Agency comments that it does not object. The northern pedestrian/cycle route lies within the 1 in 100 year plus 35% flood event extent but this is not an issue as safe access/egress is possible. An EA permit will be required for works within 8 metres of the top of Sawbridgeworth Brook bank.
5.7 EHDC Engineering Advisor advises that the site is mostly within flood zone 1 apart from a narrow strip on the eastern edge associated with the watercourse. The site is away from surface water inundation zones apart from a small isolated area towards the east of the site and a narrow strip along its eastern edge. There are no historic flood events records. The SuDS proposal include ponds, swales and attenuation basins as listed in the Flood Risk Assessment and on drawing 12-039/SK04 Rev B. The measures will reduce flood risk and improve water quality and additionally they will help create new biodiversity and amenity areas.
5.8 Thames Water confirm that there is sufficient sewerage capacity within the existing network to accommodate the proposed development. 5.9 EHDC Housing Development Advisor notes the provision of affordable housing and the provision of adaptable and wheelchair user homes in accordance with policy.
Page 213 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
5.10 EHDC Conservation and Urban Design Advisor comments that to the east of the site are the Grade II listed C19th farm buildings and granary of Chalks Farm. To the north-west of the site are the Grade II listed C16th and C18th large and small barns at Claylane Farm. Opposite the proposed vehicular entrance to the site is the Grade II listed C17th small timber-framed thatched cottage listed as 130, West Road.
5.11 The proposed site plan has been the subject of extensive pre- application advice, and the proposals have evolved over time and responded to all concerns raised by the Conservation and Urban Design Team. The proposed site layout will not harm the setting of the nearby listed buildings. The layout site exhibits excellent levels of legibility, interest, open space, active edges, and permeability, including good links to the rights of way and new bridges across the brook.
5.12 HCC Historic Environment Unit advise that the predetermination trial trenching evaluation concentrated on the north and north western parts of the site, in order to determine whether the main concentration of features identified by the geophysical survey were likely to be sufficiently significant to require preservation in situ as per para 194b (footnote 63) of the NPPF. The remains identified are very significant, but they do not meet the level of ‘wholly exceptional’ as defined in para 194b.
5.13 Due to a judgement on archaeological potential based on a combination of the topography, the geophysical survey results, and previous archaeological finds from the site, the remainder of the site (primarily the centre, south and east) has not yet been subject to trial trenching evaluation, as it was believed that these parts had lesser potential for remains of national significance.
5.14 A second phase of trial trenching should now take place, post consent, prior to any development occurring, concentrating on these parts of the site, but also increasing our knowledge of areas of the site for which further information may be required prior to
Page 214 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
decisions being made on eventual mitigation. Therefore permission can now be granted, subject to conditions.
5.15 EHDC Landscape Advisor broadly supports the proposals, subject to landscape conditions.
5.16 Herts Ecology advise that the site is not of notable ecological interest. Submitted surveys confirm a restricted number of features overall. The mitigation measures detailed in the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment proposed are reasonable and proportionate. The proposals should, if successful, satisfy local and national policy to deliver biodiversity gain. However, a condition is recommended to secure the production of a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan to secure this.
5.17 HCC Environment and Infrastructure request financial planning obligations towards nursery education, child care, primary education, secondary education, youth provision, library provision and the provision of fire hydrants as detailed in the report. In relation to primary education HCC has modelled the level of primary pupil yield resulting from the cumulative impact of strategic sites within the town. This will require expansion of Mandeville School from 1FE to up to 3FE.
5.18 EHDC Environmental Health Advisor advise that following the submission of additional information there is no objection to the grant of permission, subject to conditions.
5.19 Herts Police Crime Prevention Advisor has no concerns about the development as the intention is to achieve the Gold Standard of Secure by Design. The proposal is therefore fully supported.
(Note: EHDC, East Herts District Council; HCC, Hertfordshire County Council)
6.0 Town/Parish Council Representations
6.1 Sawbridgeworth Town Council comments are summarised as: Page 215 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
It is clear that this application is contrary to a number of the Policies contained in the proposed District Plan. In particular the cumulative impact on the neighbourhood of this application and the other applications that can be anticipated as a result of the District Plan will irrevocably damage the nature of the area. Therefore the Town Council objects to the planning application.
The full comments of the Town Council are attached as Essential Reference Paper A.
7.0 Summary of Other Representations
7.1 102 responses have been received objecting to the proposals on the grounds summarised as:
Nice development but unacceptable impact on existing residents; Over-population of Sawbridgeworth; Will ruin character of semi-rural market town; Lack of facilities and services in Sawbridgeworth, including GP provision; Lack of school capacity; Unfair impact on existing West Street properties to the north; Overall traffic impact and traffic impact on West Road; West Road should be widened and this is not possible; Access will result in loss of on-street parking on West Road; Pollution impact from additional traffic on London Road; Inadequate bus services; Blot on the landscape; Adverse impact on wildlife; Adverse impact on water plain; Loss of outlook and views from properties in West Road, Colney Gree and Nursery Fields; Loss of light to 130 and 139 West Road; Lack of sewerage treatment capacity; Pedestrian/cycle link to Colney Gree is unacceptable; Disruption during construction. Page 216 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
8.0 Consideration of Issues
Principle
8.1 The objections of residents and Sawbridgeworth Town Council to the principle of the development are noted. However, the site forms part of the development strategy in the District Plan as detailed in Policies DPS1, DPS2 and DPS3 and Sawbridgeworth Policies SAWB1 and SAWB3 and it is allocated for residential development of around 175 units.
8.2 The development strategy provides that the allocated residential sites in Sawbridgeworth will be delivered by 2022. The developer has advised that they intend to commence construction as soon as possible following a grant of planning permission.
8.3 The proposal would deliver 200 dwellings which amounts to an increase of 14.2% compared to the District Plan allocation of around 175 dwellings. Whilst the increase is noted, unless there is any particular harm that can be identified as a result of the uplift, it is not considered that it should be resisted on that basis. Having regard to the characteristics of the site and the resulting density of development of approximately 20 dph the amount of development proposed is considered to be acceptable.
8.4 The principle of the development is therefore established in the District Plan development strategy and this should be attributed significant positive weight.
Master planning
8.5 Policy DES1 of the District Plan provides that all significant proposals will be required to prepare a Master Plan setting out the quantum and distribution of land uses, sustainable high quality design and layout principles, necessary infrastructure, the relationship between the site and adjacent land uses, landscape and heritage assets and other relevant matters. The Masterplan will be prepared Page 217 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
collaboratively with the Council, town and Parish Councils and other relevant stakeholders.
8.6 The master planning process for the site commenced in November 2017 and involved a series of meetings with the Sawbridgeworth Steering Group, officers, officers of the Highway Authority and officers of the Lead Local Flood Authority, and review by the Hertfordshire Design Review Panel culminating in the production of the Masterplan and a public exhibition.
8.7 The Masterplan submission was approved by the Council on 25th July 2018 as a material consideration for development management purposes. The application proposals are in accord with the development design concept outlined in the Master Plan.
8.8 The early delivery of this strategic housing site and the conformity of the application with the design principles established in the Master Plan carries significant positive weight.
Green Belt
8.9 In accordance with Policy SAWB3 the proposal provides an appropriate structural landscape belt and public open space along the western and southern boundaries of the site to provide a soft edge to the development and the Green Belt.
8.10 The proposed informal recreation area in the northwest corner of the site and the proposed allotments and allotment car park in the southwest corner of the site lie within the Green Belt to the west of the allocated site. Policy GBR1 and paragraph 145 of the NPPF provide that specified categories of development are not inappropriate within the Green Belt. The recreation area would involve a change of use of the land but no buildings are proposed. The change of use to open recreational land would not be regarded as an inappropriate use within the Green Belt.
8.11 Allotment use is classified as an agricultural use and would also not be an inappropriate use within the Green Belt. The provision of the Page 218 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
allotment car park providing 21 spaces would involve operational development within the Green Belt. Paragraph 145(b) of the NPPF provides that the provision of appropriate facilities for the allotment use would not be inappropriate, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.
8.12 It is considered that the car parking provision would be an appropriate facility for the allotment use. Furthermore, the impact on the openness of the Green Belt would be limited and there would be no conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The provision of the allotment car park is therefore considered to be acceptable, subject to a condition relating to the control of any further development on the allotment land (sheds and stores) as this would be likely to detract from the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt.
8.13 Substantive planting is proposed to the allotment area on the borders with the Green Belt to the north, west and south.
8.14 The impact of the proposal on the Green Belt would therefore carry neutral weight.
Design and layout
8.15 The overall layout mirrors the design concept formulated during the master planning process and the master plan adopted by the Council on 25 July 2018 as a material consideration in determining the planning application.
8.16 A main access road with adjoining dwellings running through the development is proposed with more minor shared surface access roads serving groups of dwellings.
8.17 The Masterplan was reviewed by the Hertfordshire Design Review Panel, including an illustrative layout which was not incorporated into the Master Plan. At that point a scheme of 175 units was proposed. Overall, the Panel felt that this was an exciting scheme, Page 219 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
offering fantastic opportunities that needed to be explored further. The importance of attention to the following matters was stressed:
Further development of the landscape strategy; Clarifying the urban design strategy; Treatment of the east and west boundaries; Re-assess the quantum of open space which is excessive.
8.18 These matters have been taken into account in the application proposal. In particular the quantum of development has been increased to 200 dwellings thus reducing the level of open space provision. It should be noted that the main thrust of the Design Panel’s comments was their view that the development should be opened up to the Green Belt countryside by reconsidering the strong landscaped buffers on its periphery. Officer considered that this approach would be contrary to Policy SAWB3 (j) and (k). Policy SAWB3 requires the provision the provision of a structural landscape belt and public open space on the periphery of the development, and in particular along the western and southern boundaries of the site to provide a soft edge to the development and define the new Green Belt boundary. The design approach suggested by the Design Panel was therefore discounted by officers.
8.19 The proposed housing would be sited within this landscaped setting in groups separated by open space and access roads. The application proposes approximately 3.9ha of public open space within the developed area of the allocated site in addition to allotments (0.6ha) and a public recreation area (0.9ha) sited to the west of the development.
8.20 A strong central core of open space is proposed that also accommodates an equipped play area (LEAP), footpath routes and SuDS features. Strong belts of landscaped open space are also provided to the west, south and east boundaries of the sites as required by Policy SAWB3.
8.21 The layout site exhibits excellent levels of legibility, interest, open space, active edges, and permeability. This includes good links from Page 220 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
West Road in the northwest and northeast corners of the site through the development. Two pedestrian/cyclist crossing bridges are proposed across the brook running along the east side of the development linking into Colney Gee and an existing public footpath running north south.
8.22 The built development would be predominantly two storeys in height with some dwellings having accommodation in roofspace. Single storey garages are also proposed.
8.23 The proposed dwellings are of traditional external design appearance reflective of the predominant traditional architecture found in Sawbridgeworth. The house designs provide variety and their external appearance would be of good quality.
8.24 Existing residential properties are sited to the immediate north of the site fronting West Road and to the east of the access road to the site and to the east beyond Sawbridgeworth Brook. The development would adjoin the rear gardens of existing properties fronting West Road. However, these rear gardens are some 33 metres in depth and a landscaped buffer is proposed. It is considered that there would be no material impact on the residential amenity of existing residents.
8.25 The rear elevations of four proposed houses adjoining the access road to the development would face the side garden boundary of No.139 West Road at a distance of approximately 5.4 metres to the proposed single storey garages and approximately 13.8 metres to the proposed houses. The distancing proposed is considered to be sufficient having regard to the residential amenities of the occupiers of this existing property. Existing properties to the east of the site on Coney Gree and Nursery Fields are approximately 62 and 46 metres respectively away from the proposed built development and there would be no material impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of these existing properties.
8.26 Having regard to climate change adaption and mitigation (Policies CC1 and CC2) and the building design requirements of Policy DES4 Page 221 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
the application is supported by a Sustainability Report produced by JPS Ltd and a Sustainability Statement. In summary the following measures are incorporated:
The construction specification of every home will include high levels of insulation in the ground floor, external walls and roof spaces; The detailed house type designs will incorporate the thermal bridging guidance published by the Government and Constructive Details, thereby reducing a significant source of heat loss; An efficient gas condensing boiler will be installed in each property. The heating designs of each house type will include dual zone controls with delayed start thermostats; Energy efficient lamps will be installed in every light fitting; Each property will be naturally ventilated using efficient decentralised extract fans to ensure the internal living environment will be healthy and comfortable; Entrances will be illuminated with an energy efficient external light or provision will be made for a purchaser to install such a fixture. White goods installed in each property or offered to purchasers will be energy efficient with an A+/A rating.
The submitted calculations confirm that the development will better Part L of the Building Regulations by 7,348.07kg/year or 2.17%. Additionally, each home will comfortable pass the Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard included in Part L. The area weighted average betterment is forecasted to be 7.80%.
8.27 In terms of water consumption Policy WAT4 requires that developments achieve a target consumption rate of 110 litres per person per day. Measures are included within the house designs to reduce water consumption and the water calculation for the development is 108.06 litres per person per day.
Page 222 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
8.28 It is considered that sufficient space is available for refuse bin storage to the rear of the houses and a condition is recommended to secure appropriate provision.
Housing and affordable housing
8.29 200 dwellings are proposed in the following mix:
Market housing
Type Number % SHMA One bed flat 0 0 6 Two bed flat 0 0 7 Two bed house 20 16.6 12 Three bed house 59 49.2 46 Four bed house 41 34.2 23 Five bed house 0 0 6 Total 120
Affordable housing
Type Number % SHMA One bed flat 0 0 19 Two bed flat 0 0 11 Two bed house 34 42.5 29 Three bed house 39 48.75 34 Four bed plus 7 8.75 7 house Total 80
8.30 40% affordable housing provision is proposed. The affordable housing provision compares favourably with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and provides a tenure mix of 13 (16.25%) shared ownership units and 67 (83.75%) affordable rent units. The proposed affordable units will be satisfactorily distributed within the development. The affordable housing provision therefore accords with the requirements of Policy HOU3 and should be attributed significant positive weight. Page 223 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
8.31 The mix of market and affordable housing proposed is at some variance with the SHMA. However, the proposed mix is considered reasonable in this location and appropriate to the site.
8.32 The proposed affordable units will be satisfactorily distributed within the development in accordance with Policy HOU3.
8.33 In accordance with Policy HOU7 all dwellings are to meet the Building Regulations Requirement M4(2) Category 2 – Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings and 4 (6.6%) of the affordable units are to meet M4(2) Category 3 – Wheelchair User Dwellings. The wheelchair user provision is considered to be reasonable.
8.34 The provision of housing and affordable housing on this strategic site is in accordance with the District Plan development strategy and is necessary to ensure that housing land supply is maintained. This should be attributed significant positive weight.
Highways and parking
8.35 A Transport Assessment has been submitted, the methodology for which was agreed by the Highway Authority. The Authority considered that the access to the site is satisfactory, subject to an increase in the junction radii to 8.0 metres. The access radii been amended accordingly.
8.36 The principle element of mitigation is the provision of an improved signalised junction at the A1118/West Road/Station Road junction as a joint engineering solution. This is the preferred solution of the Highway Authority and presents significant benefits, including those related to capacity and pedestrian accessibility. The Highway Authority has approved the scheme in principle (subject to a Road Safety Audit) in order to address junction capacity, safety and congestion issues at this location.
8.37 The Highway Authority’s preferred approach is that the signalised junction is delivered by the developers via a Section 278 Agreement (a separate agreement with the Highway Authority under the Page 224 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
Highways Act outside the planning permission/legal agreement), with agreement being reached separately between the respective developers regarding the apportionment of costs.
8.38 The District Plan parking standard for the proposed development is 497 spaces. The site is within Accessibility Zone 4 and an accessibility reduction of up 25% may be applicable providing a parking provision range of 373 to 497 spaces. The application proposes 109 garage spaces and 308 allocated spaces. A total allocated provision of 417 spaces. However, driveways to a number of dwellings would be capable of accommodating an additional parked car. In addition provision is made for 54 visitor on-street parking spaces in laybys adjoining the access roads.
8.39 The parking provision is considered to be satisfactory.
8.40 21 visitor parking spaces are proposed in connection with the allotment provision. This is classified as an agricultural use for which there is no adopted parking standard, however, the provision is considered to be appropriate to the level of allotment provision.
8.41 The proposed garages meet space standards and are capable of accommodating cycles.
8.42 A Travel Plan has been submitted and reviewed by the Highway Authority and found to be robust, subject to monitoring targets and promotion.
8.43 The following sustainable transport measures are proposed:
Pedestrian/cycle routes through the development and two pedestrian/cycle connections into the existing urban area of Sawbridgeworth to the east of the site (via new bridges) linking the development to the town centre and on-wards to the railway station; The provision of electric car charging points to all dwellings; The provision of a pedestrian crossing point on West Road linking the footpath network within the development to Page 225 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
Mandeville School on onward routes to Leventhorpe School to the north; An extension of the south side West Road footpath to the site access.
Healthy and safe communities
8.44 The Herts Police Crime Prevention Advisor has no concerns about the development as the intention is to achieve the Gold Standard of Secure by Design. The proposal therefore complies with DES5 is therefore fully supported.
8.45 The proposals provide for a substantive level of open space provision both within and on the periphery of the development including an informal recreation area, allotments and public open space and a play area.
8.46 It is intended that the allotments and informal recreation area will be handed over to the Town Council for the benefit of Sawbridgeworth residents by means of a separate agreement between the developer and the Town Council.
8.47 These provisions are regarded as positive benefits of the proposal.
Flood risk
8.48 A small part of the site in its southeast corner containing no built development lies with Flood Zones 2 and 3. However, the part of the site containing built development lies within Flood Zone 1. There is therefore no risk from fluvial flooding.
8.49 The proposal is supported by a good quality sustainable drainage strategy. Subject to conditions, the Lead Local Flood Authority has no objection to the grant of permission, subject to conditions.
Page 226 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
Contamination and pollution
8.50 EHDC Environmental Health advise that the reports submitted in respect of contamination and air quality are satisfactory and that these matters can be addressed by conditions.
Natural Environment
8.51 The site lies within Area 84 – High Wych Slopes of the East Herts Landscape Character Assessment and comprises largely arable farmland.
8.52 Herts Ecology advise that the site is not of notable ecological interest. Submitted surveys confirm a restricted number of features overall. The mitigation measures detailed in the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment proposed are reasonable and proportionate. The proposals should, if successful, satisfy local and national policy to deliver biodiversity gain. However, a condition is recommended to secure the production of a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan to secure this.
Heritage
8.53 There are grade II listed buildings in the vicinity of the site 130 West Road (opposite side of West Road) and two barns at Claylane Farm (builders yards on West Road to the northwest). It is considered that the proposed development will not give rise to harmful impact on the setting of these heritage assets.
8.54 The site has been subject to a pre-determination archaeological investigation and high level archaeological remains have been found. In accordance with the recommendations of the HCC Historic Environment advisor a condition is recommended to address the investigation of the remainder of the site prior to its development.
Page 227 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
Education
8.55 HCC have modelled the primary level child product from the Sawbridgeworth Strategic sites as 1.84 forms of entry (FE). The school expansion will comprise a new 16 classroom block, expanded hall and two additional playing pitches.
8.56 The land for the school expansion is to be delivered as part of the development of the SAWB2 site with the build cost proportioned between the Sawbridgeworth strategic developments via financial contributions.
8.57 In respect of nursery and secondary education the recommendation includes contributions as requested by HCC towards the development of High Wych pre-school and the 2FE expansion of Leventhorpe School.
9.0 Infrastructure/Planning obligations
9.1 HCC have requested a financial planning obligation towards Mandeville School expansion costs of £2,220,250.00.
9.2 HCC have requested financial planning obligations towards nursery education, child care, primary education, secondary education, youth provision, library provision and the provision of fire hydrants:
Secondary education £484,103.00 Nursery education £83,232.00 Youth facilities £9,160.00 Library provision £34,622.00
9.3 The Highway Authority requests a financial planning obligation of £325,181.00 towards sustainable transport improvements. However, the main highway improvement to be delivered by the strategic Sawbridgeworth developments is the signalisation and improvement of the West Road/A1184 junction. This will be delivered via a S.278 Agreement with the Highway Authority. This critical mitigation is at the design stage but the costs are likely to be Page 228 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
substantial. As a consequence the Highway Authority has advised that the headline sustainable transport contribution figure may need further negotiation and adjustment.
9.4 The following sustainable transport improvements are identified by the Highway Authority:
A pedestrian crossing point on West Road adjacent to the pedestrian/cycle access to the site; A footway extension the south side of West Road from No.139 to the site access; Improvements to Right of Way Sawbridgeworth 12 running along the eastern boundary of the site.
Any remaining monies from the sustainable transport contribution will be used to fund improvements to walking and cycling links as identified by the Highway Authority within the Town Council’s Sawbridgeworth Local Cycling and Walking Plan document.
9.5 The NHS have requested financial obligations amounting to £141,560.00 towards the expansion of GP provision (Central Surgery, Sawbridgeworth). Contributions amounting to £518,190.00 towards Mental Health, Community Healthcare and Accute costs are also sought.
9.6 The response from the NHS and subsequent discussions confirms that they are unable to identify specific planned projects in respect of hospital improvements. Officers are therefore unable to conclude that the contributions satisfy the tests of reasonableness in Planning Policy Guidance or that they would be compliant with the current Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL). Legal Services have confirmed that this is the position. Subject to confirmation of how the funds are to be used the obligation towards GP provision may meet the above tests.
9.7 The Local Plan Planning obligations SPD dates from 2008. A replacement Open Space, Sport and Recreation SPD is to be prepared now that the District Plan has been adopted. In respect of Page 229 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
this application officers have had regard to the categories of provision that are likely to form the basis of the new SPD. These are health and fitness, indoor sport and recreation, playing pitches and community/village halls. However, in assessing the level of contributions to be recommended officers have taken into account the provision of allotments, public amenity space and the substantive level of public open space provided within the development. Given this on-site provision it is recommended that a contribution only be sought in respect of community/village hall provision amounting to £22,493.00.
10.0 Planning Balance and Conclusion
10.1 The proposal will deliver 200 dwellings as part of the District Plan development strategy, including 80 (40%) affordable units. This carries significant positive weight.
10.2 Overall, it is considered that the design of the layout and buildings is of good quality, such that it complies with the policy aspiration for the strategic sites. The drainage strategy provides for the use of good quality SuDS. The fabric of the buildings demonstrates an appropriate reduction in CO2 emissions and water use. Overall the design characteristics of the development carry positive weight.
10.3 The proposal provides satisfactory access to the development, an appropriate level of parking provision and the required highway mitigation measures. The highway impacts of the development are therefore considered to be neutral.
10.4 Subject to conditions the ecological, contamination and pollution impacts of the development are regarded as neutral.
10.5 The housing mix is considered to be acceptable.
10.6 The proposal delivers appropriate levels of financial contribution towards infrastructure and the provision of allotments and public amenity space on-site. This is assigned positive weight.
Page 230 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
10.7 Overall, on the balance of considerations the scheme is considered to be of good design quality and a sustainable form of development.
RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be GRANTED, subject to a legal agreement and the conditions set out at the end of this report.
That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the Legal Agreement, the contributions to be contained therein and conditions.
Legal Agreement
The provision of land for the expansion of Mandeville Primary School;
The provision of 80 units of affordable housing (83.75% affordable rent and 16.25% shared ownership);
HCC Mandeville School expansion £2, 220, 250.00
HCCSustainable transport £325,181.00
HCC Travel Plan monitoring £6,000.00
HCC
Secondary education £484,103.00 Nursery education £83, 232.00 Childcare £31, 978.00 Youth facilities £9, 160.00 Library facilities £34, 622.00
NHS (expansion of capacity Central Surgery) £141, 560.00
Page 231 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
Arrangements for the future maintenance and stewardship of the public realm/public open space and play equipment.
The provision of fire hydrants
EHDC (subject to the identification of projects and compliance with CIL Regulations)
Community/village halls £22, 493.00
Arrangements for the transfer of allotments and public open space land to the Town Council
Conditions
1. Three year time limit (1T12)
2. Approved plans (2E10) (amended to include approved documents and reports)
3. Samples of materials (2E12)
4. Details of external lighting (2E26)
5. Landscape works implementation (4P13)
6. Prior to above ground construction of the dwellings hereby approved, a scheme shall be submitted for the protection of the dwellings from noise from adjacent industrial and commercial units for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall follow the recommendations identified in the Cass Allen Noise Impact Assessment Report Ref: RP01-18825 Rev 1 dated 21st November 2018 and associated documentation. No dwellings shall be occupied until the scheme providing protection for those dwellings has been implemented in accordance with the approved details. The approved scheme shall be retained in accordance with those details thereafter.
Page 232 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
Reason: In order to ensure an adequate level of amenity for residents of the new dwellings in accordance with policy EQ2 of the adopted East Herts District Plan 2018.
7. Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the plan shall include the following:
a) The construction programme; b) Hours of operation; c) Details of any highway works necessary to enable construction to take place; d) Parking and loading arrangements; e) Details of site compound, parking and materials storage areas; f) Details of hoarding; g) Management of construction traffic to reduce congestion and avoid school pick up/drop off times, including numbers type and routing; h) Control of dust and dirt on the public highway i) Details of public contact arrangements and complaint management j) Waste management proposals k) Mechanisms to deal with environmental impacts such as noise and vibration, air quality and dust, light and odour. l) Details of any proposed piling operations, including justification for the proposed piling strategy, a vibration impact assessment and proposed control and mitigation measures. m) Details of wheel washing facilities and cleaning of site entrance adjacent to the public highway
All works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved CMP.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the control of environmental impacts, in accordance with policies TRA2, EQ2, EQ3 and EQ4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
Page 233 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
8. No development commence until an Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of archaeological significance and research questions; and:
The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording; The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording as suggested by the evaluation; The programme for post investigation assessment; Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording; Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation; Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation; Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation.
The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the programme of archaeological works set out in the approved Written Scheme of Investigation. The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the approved Written Scheme of Investigation and the provision made for analysis and publication where appropriate.
Reason: To safeguard assets of archaeological interest in accordance with Policy HA3 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
9. No development shall take place until a Phase II site investigation and report, as recommended by the previously submitted T and P Regeneration Ltd Phase 1 Desk Study dated 5th July 2018 (Ref: 2018Jul_SAW2039_DS Issue 2), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where found to be necessary by the phase 2 report a remediation strategy to deal with Page 234 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
the risks associated with contamination of the site shall also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall include an options appraisal giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The strategy shall include a plan providing details of how the remediation works shall be judged to be complete and arrangements for contingency action.
Reason: To minimise and prevent pollution of the land and the water environment and in accordance with Policy EQ1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
10. No above ground development shall take place until a scheme for protecting and enhancing local air quality has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall follow the recommendations identified in the Redmore Environmental Air Quality Assessment report (Ref: 1870-1r1) dated 19th July 2018. None of the dwellings shall be occupied until such a scheme has been implemented in accordance with the approved details and it shall be retained in accordance with those details thereafter.
Reason: In order to ensure an adequate level of amenity for residents of the new dwellings in accordance with Policy EQ4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
11. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved surface water drainage strategy carried out by Odyssey, as indicated on the Preliminary Drainage Strategy layout, drawing number 12-039/SK04, revision C, dated 18 October 2018 and the following measures detailed within the FRA:
Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the critical storm events so that it will not exceed the surface water run-off rate of 19.9 l/s during the 1 in 100 year event plus 40% of climate change event; Providing storage to ensure no increase in surface water run-off volumes for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 Page 235 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
year + climate change event providing a total storage volume in attenuation basins and a swale; Discharge of surface water from the private drainage network into the main river running adjacent to the development site.
The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: To prevent risk of flooding in accordance with Policy WAT1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
12. No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site based on the approved drainage strategy and sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before completion of the development. The scheme shall include:
Detailed engineered drawings of the proposed SuDS features including cross section drawings, their size, volume, depth and any inlet and outlet features including any connecting pipe runs; A detailed Management Plan to include arrangements for the adoption and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.
Reason: To prevent flooding in accordance with Policy WAT1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
13. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved full details of the proposed arrangements for the future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance Page 236 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a Private Management and Maintenance Company has been established.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory development of the site and to ensure estate roads are managed and maintained thereafter to a suitable and safe standard.
14. Prior to the commencement of the development, a visibility splay measuring 4.5m (to the west) x 43m (to the east) shall be provided to each side of the site access respectively where it meets the highway and such splays shall thereafter be maintained at all times free from any obstruction between 600mm and 2m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
15. Prior to first occupation of the development, detailed plans shall be submitted which show a public footway (2.0m minimum width) on the sites northern boundary (south side of West Road), connecting from the site access to the footway commencing at 139 West Road. Prior to first occupation of the development the footway shall be constructed in accordance with the approved detail.
Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety.
16. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, the vehicular access shall be provided and thereafter retained at the position shown on drawing No. 12-039-001 Rev H – Proposed Western Site Access.
Reason: To provide safe access in accordance with Policy TRA2 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
17. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, a zebra crossing shall be implemented on West Road, as shown on drawing No.12-039-002 E. Page 237 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety.
18. Prior to the commencement of above ground development details of all materials to be used for hard surfaced areas within the site, including roads, drainage details, driveways and car parking areas shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of good design having regard to Policy DES4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018 and to ensure that internal roads, drainage and parking areas are built to Highway Authority standards and requirements.
19. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the signalisation of the existing double mini roundabout at the A1184/West Road/Station Road junction, as illustrated on approved in principle drawing number 12-039-SK-01 Rev C, POTENTIAL A1184/WEST ROAD/STATION ROAD SIGNAL JUNCTION shall be implemented in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, amenity and free and safe flow of traffic in accordance with Policy SAWB2 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
20. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved a details of a mechanism for promotion of the approved Travel Plan Document and the continual review of the transport impacts of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The findings of Travel Plan monitoring shall thereafter be shared with the Local Planning Authority and the Highway Authority.
Reason: To promote sustainable travel in accordance with Policy TRA1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
Page 238 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
21. The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Sustainability Statement prepared by JSP Sustainability Ltd February 2019.
Reason: To promote sustainability and sustainable design and construction in accordance with Policies SAWB2, DES4 and WAT4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
22. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved details of the play equipment to be installed within the Local Equipped Play Area (LEAP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the LEAP shall be equipped in accordance with the approved detail.
Reason: To provide for the outdoor play needs of the development in accordance with Policy CFLR1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
23. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved a pedestrian crossing point to West Road shall be provided linking the development to the north sde of West Road and Mandeville School.
Reason: In the interests of accessibility and the promotion of sustainable transport in accordance with Policy TRA2 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
24. Prior to first occupation of the development details of the pedestrian/cyclist bridge crossings over the watercourse (Sawbridgeworth Brook) running along the eastern boundary of the site, as shown on the approved plans, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The crossing points shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of promoting sustainable transport options in accordance with Policy TRA1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
25. Prior to the commencement of above ground development measures to facilitate the provision of high speed broadband internet connections to the development shall be submitted to and Page 239 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include a timetable and method of delivery for high speed broadband for each residential unit. The details shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details and made available for use prior to first occupation of the residential unit to which it relates.
Reason: In order to ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure to support the future sustainability of the development in accordance with Policies DES4 and SAWB3 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
26. Refuse storage facilities (2E24)
Informatives
1. Other legislation (01OL)
2. Street naming and numbering (19SN)
3. Highway works (06FC2)
4. The applicant is advised that compliance with condition 25 of this permission will require a works permit from the Environment Agency.
Summary of Reasons for Decision
East Herts Council has considered the applicant's proposal in a positive and proactive manner with regard to the policies of the Development Plan and any relevant material considerations. The balance of the considerations is that permission should be granted.
Page 240 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
KEY DATA
Residential Development
Residential density Approximately 20 units/Ha Bed Number of units spaces Number of existing units 0 0 demolished Number of new flat units 1 0 2 0 3 0
Number of new house units 1 0 2 54 3 98 4+ 48 Total 200
Affordable Housing
Number of units Percentage 80 40
Residential Vehicle Parking Provision
District Plan Parking Standards
Parking Zone Zone 4 Residential unit size Spaces per unit Spaces required (bed spaces) 1 1.50 0 2 2.00 108 3 2.50 245 4+ 3.00 144 Total required 497 Accessibility Page 241 Application Number: 3/18/1523/FUL
reduction 25% 124 Resulting 373 requirement Proposed provision 417 plus 51on-street visitors
Page 242 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Page 248 4 3
2 3 41
27 38
6 2
2 14 2
2 1
9
1
Football Pitches
7
4
58 4
48 2
38
3 8
The Three Horseshoes 0
6
(PH)
2 7
178
180 2 6
5
2
3
6
7 0 2
0 1
2
3 3
9 3
1 7
3
2 3
4
a
1 4
4
7
1 3
140 6 138 1
30 Mandeville 3
Primary 3 b
e 7
1 School
a
7
& Nursery 1
3
5 W 2
Claylane Farm
5 7
1 7 1 e 1 2 1 22 s 30
3 t 1
4 3
t
r
6 R u 8 1 o 0 4 6 C
o i t
n
1
e
l 9 3 E 1 oa 1 to 29
Highfield
0
d 9 4 9
5 1
7
2
1 3 5 4 4
70
1
60
5 1 1
48
36
32 9
7
1 0 1 28
18
9 6
12
9 5
a
7 5
7
5
a
5 5
5 5
3 2
5
a
1 5
1
5
a 9 4
9 4
2
1
3 1 4
1 2 1
t Alic o
n
e' s 4 C a e o i ttag 1 l s
es g u
n o
7 A H 2
3 2 24
27
12
3 1
7 1 45 7 to 12
3
3
o t
2 1 to 1
6
1 5 1
19 5 9 6 Tudor Court
2
1
3 1 1
1
2 7
SITE 7
1 7 West
1 4 3
6
9
Court 5
0 2 1
1 107a 5 y
h 1 t i
m 7 7 S
0 2 e 1 1 h
T 9
3
1
Farriers
2 10 1 2 1
0
1 3
9
6 1
1 2
5 1 0
2 2
2
7
2
3 15
3
1
3 7
a 3
7 0 b 2 a 1 0 c 2 2 2 4 0 2 a 2 2 2 4
2
2
9
6 2
e e
2 n
g
o
6 3 3 n 4 h
1 a p h e l c
e x
24 T E 6
22 6
6 16 2 7
8
1 a
12
9
2 8
4
9 5 8 4
1 PH
5 1 1
8 1 Chalks Farm The Mo 4 s
t Ho 3 ly Re dee mer
6 5 7
4
8 5 8 1 8
7 7
8 3 39 t o 48 49 2 to 5 9 4 6
4
8 3 Fil ling S
tation
1
5 5
s
e l 9
p o
t a 0
M 8 1
e
h
T 4 s
e 8 e
s
v
u o
r o
G H
6
1 Kings
5
1
1 Head
7 1
1 8 3 Court
3
6 2
79 73
76
3
4 C
8
2
3
4
B
2 2 4
6
3 2 9
2 4
A
o 9 t 1
Shelter 3 2
3 6 7
2 8
5 3
2
0
2
1
3
1
1 5 0
2 7
1
2 1 1
3
2
7 1
8 Bells
0 1 3 2 Walk 5 Factory 1 5
0 6
4
4
1 5
t o 1 7
7 W
5 hite Lion
9 1 2 to 4 H K 6 o ings tel M o 3 e 1 ws t
7 H ealt 4 h Ce
ntre
4 2
8 1
3 6
5 1 7 1 1 1
1
1 5 5
1 4
4 9 1 1
0
1 8
3
4
6
1 1 7
3 2 1 1
4
9 3
3 5
60 Sur
gery
4 3
0
3 5
9
4 5
y e l s r e v
2 E
6
5
1 2
48 8
2 6 24
0
6
3 4
10 Acorn Cottage
8 2
1 1 4
8 8
6 9
4 Beechwood Oakroyd
13 1 2
6 5
1
4
3
1 Green Ways 1
3 1 9 The
9 New 3 House 2
3
Northern
7
5
4 3 House
5
5 0 7
105 1 8
95
5
1 3 7
1 M 6 idd 23 le Ho 3 25 use 8 Longlast
Carpenters 2
1 8
7 3 o 3 3
t
1
9 3
6 0
5 1
9
2 Hadley
7
7
1
1
3 1 Frodsham
Pav
7 5 Mayfield
1 1
5
2 This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528
East Herts Council Address: (SAWB3) Land At Chalks Farm, South Of West Road, Wallfields Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire Pegs Lane Reference: 3/18/1523/FUL Hertford SG13 8EQ Scale: 1:5000 Tel: 01279 655261 O.S Sheet: TL4715 Date of Print: 20 February 2019 Page 249 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5c
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – 20 MARCH 2019
Application 3/18/1960/FUL Number Proposal Proposed three storey extension and internal extension of first floor level within the existing building, together with change of use from former police station, fire station and citizens advice office (Sui Generis) to form new D1 Medical Centre with B1 Office Space and A1 Retail Pharmacy. Enlarged, altered and new ground floor and first floor window openings. Creation of cycle parking shelter. Location Meade House, 85 High Street, Ware, SG12 9AD Parish Ware Town Council Ward Ware Christchurch
Date of Registration of 31 August 2018 Application Target Determination Date 21 March 2019 Reason for Committee The proposal relates to a site in which Report EHDC has a landowning interest, to which an objection has been made. Case Officer David Snell
RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.
1.0 Summary of Proposal and Main Issues
1.1 The application proposes a three storey extension and internal extension of first floor level within the existing building, together with change of use from former police station, fire station and citizens advice office (Sui Generis) to form new D1 Medical Centre with B1 Office Space and A1 Retail Pharmacy. The proposal is to replace the existing Dolphin House surgery. The floorspace would comprise:
Page 251 Application Number: 3/18/1960/FUL A1 Pharmacy 117sqm B1 Office 218sqm Medical Centre 991sqm Total 1,326sqm
The main issues for consideration are:
The principle of the development; The quality of the layout and design; Heritage impact; Highway impact; Flood risk management;
1.2 Members will need to consider the overall planning balance and whether the proposal will result in a sustainable form of development having regard to the above considerations.
2.0 Site Description
2.1 The site comprises land and buildings situated within Ware Town Centre to the rear of the Public Library and adjoining the existing public car park. Access is off Burgage Lane. The former maltings site was previously used as a fire station and citizens advice office. The site includes part of the existing public car park.
2.2 The site lies within the Ware Conservation Area, an area of Archaeological Significance covering the core of Ware and it is adjacent to Ware Priory a Scheduled Monument.
3.0 Planning History
3.1 There is no relevant planning history relating to the site.
4.0 Main Policy Issues
4.1 These relate to the relevant policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the East Herts District Plan 2018 (DP). There is no neighbourhood plan for Ware. Page 252 Application Number: 3/18/1960/FUL Main Issue NPPF DP policy Principle, including the Section 5 and CFL7 provision of community 8 CFL9 facilities in sustainable locations and the health and wellbeing of the community Design and heritage impact Section 12 DES3 DES4 HA1 HA2 HA3 HA4 Highways and parking Section 9 TRA1 TRA2 TRA3 Flood risk management Section 14 WAT1 WAT2 WAT5 CC1 CC2
Other relevant issues are referred to in the ‘Consideration of Relevant Issues’ section below.
5.0 Summary of Consultee Responses
5.1 HCC Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of permission, subject to conditions.
5.2 Lead Local Flood Authority does not object, subject to conditions.
5.3 Environment Agency does not object, subject to conditions.
5.4 Thames Water does not object, subject to an informative regarding the proximity of their infrastructure.
5.5 EHDC Conservation and Urban Design Advisor have been involved in the pre-application design process and welcome the retention and refurbishment of the existing buildings and the designPage of the 253 Application Number: 3/18/1960/FUL proposed extension. The conversion of the former Priory Maltings/Fire Station building retains its remaining character, and retains the positive contribution it makes to Ware Conservation Area. The scheme is well designed and sympathetic to the Conservation Area location. Subject to the use of quality materials the proposals are supported as they retain the historic building in sustainable long-term use, and which would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
5.6 HCC Historic Environment Unit comment that following the submission of a Ground Investigation Report they are now able to recommend that no objections are raised, subject to the imposition of a pre-commencement archaeological investigation condition.
5.7 Herts Ecology advise that there are no ecological constraints to the grant of permission, subject to an informative regarding bat roosts.
(Note: EHDC, East Herts District Council; HCC, Hertfordshire County Council)
6.0 Town/Parish Council Representations
6.1 Ware Town Council Ware Town Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that the shape and form of the design are out of keeping with the Conservation Area and are detrimental to the riverside environs. The Town Council does not understand why the application includes provision of a retail pharmacy when there are 3 pharmacies within 2 minutes’ walk.
7.0 Summary of Other Representations
7.1 3 responses have been received, including a response from the Ware Society.
Page 254 Application Number: 3/18/1960/FUL 7.2 2 responses object to the proposals on the grounds summarised as:
Building too imposing and out of character with the Conservation Area; Loss of parking; The development will exacerbate existing road safety issues in Burgage Lane.
7.3 The Ware Society make comments summarised as:
Applaud the decision to provide new GP facilities in this Location subject to compliance with District Plan policy; Question the need for a pharmacy as this will result in closures elsewhere in Ware; Object to a 3 storey extension and consider that a two storey extension would be more appropriate; Consider loss of parking short sighted.
8.0 Consideration of Issues
Principle
8.1 The site lies within the built up area of Ware wherein development is acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with the District Plan.
8.2 Policies CFLR7 and CFLR9 support proposals for new and enhanced uses of land and buildings for public and community uses and development that promotes healthy communities. Such proposals should be in sustainable locations, served by a choice of sustainable travel options.
8.3 The proposed building is sited within Ware Town Centre within Accessibility Zone 2 close to public transport facilities. The site is therefore a sustainable location for the proposed use.
8.3 The building would accommodate a range of medical facilities including consultation rooms, treatment rooms and multi-purpose rooms (20 rooms in total). Other accommodation includes Page 255 Application Number: 3/18/1960/FUL supporting office accommodation, staff room, telephone operators’ room, IT room, meeting room, associated plant rooms and a retail pharmacy (17.1sqm). The proposal would clearly promote healthy communities.
8.4 The proposal is clearly supportive of the health and wellbeing of the community and this is regarded as positive aspect of the proposed development.
Design and heritage impact
8.5 The design of the proposed development has been developed through pre-application discussions involving substantive input from the Conservation and Urban Design Team. The conversion of the former Priory Maltings/Fire Station building retains its remaining character, and retains the positive contribution it makes to Ware Conservation Area. The Team consider that the scheme is well designed and sympathetic to the Conservation Area location. Subject to the use of quality materials the proposals are supported as they retain the historic building in sustainable long-term use, and which would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
8.6 The views of Ware Town Council and the Ware Society in respect of the height of the proposed extension being out of keeping with the Conservation Area are noted. However, Officers do not consider this to be the case. It should be noted that there are a number of 3 storey buildings in Ware High Street, including the library building and The Brewery Tap building at the junction of High Street and Burgage Lane.
8.7 The proposal is considered to be well designed and sympathetic to its Conservation Area setting. The retention and refurbishment of the historic building and its viable re-use is regarded as a positive aspect of the proposal in that it would serve to enhance the character and appearance of the building and Conservation Area. It is considered that the proposal not adversely impact on the setting of the Scheduled Monument Ware Priory. Page 256 Application Number: 3/18/1960/FUL Highways and parking
8.8 The Highway Authority has assessed the Access and Transport Statements submitted in support of the application. The Authority advises that the proposal will not result in a material impact on the highway network. The Authority also advises that the Town Centre location is within walking distance of a wide range of shops for linked trips, public transport and footway connections to surrounding residential areas. The proposal is therefore consistent with the provisions of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan 4 and the NPPF.
8.9 The new built part of the proposed development is located within the existing Burgage Lane public car park accommodating approximately 106 pay and display spaces. Approximately 41 public parking spaces and 6 library staff parking spaces will be lost as a result of the development. The Highway Authority considers that this represents a relatively small number of spaces in the context of the overall public car parking provision in Ware Town Centre. Approximately 320 public parking spaces are available within 500 metres of the proposed development.
8.10 12 parking spaces are proposed for the Medical Centre use and 18 cycle spaces are also provided. The adopted car parking standard would require 3 spaces per consulting room and 1 space per employee other than doctors. The consulting rooms would require 60 spaces. The level of staffing is currently unknown.
8.11 The site is restricted and further car parking provision cannot be achieved. Whilst this is a negative aspect of the proposal it should be balanced against the highly assessable and sustainable location of the site. The negative weight should therefore be limited.
Flood risk management
8.12 The site is situated within Flood Zone 2.
8.13 Initially an objection was received from the Environment Agency (EA) due to the proximity of the development to the Bourne culvert. Page 257 Application Number: 3/18/1960/FUL Following the submission of additional information the objection has been withdrawn, subject to a condition.
8.14 The LLFA also initially objected to the proposal on the grounds that the agreement of the EA should be obtained prior to the grant of permission. Concern is also raised that the existing drainage network on site has not been designed to cope with the additional flows. Additional information was provided by the applicant and the objection of the LLFA has been withdrawn, subject to conditions.
Other matters
8.15 The site lies within an Area of Archaeological Significance. HCC Historic Environment Unit advises that this matter may be addressed by the imposition of a pre-commencement archaeological investigation condition.
8.16 The comments of the Town Council and the Ware Society regarding the provision of a pharmacy in proximity to existing pharmacies are noted. However, competition with other outlets is not a material planning consideration in this respect. Facilities will remain so overall, this would not result in any substantive harm.
Planning Balance and Conclusion
8.17 The proposal is clearly supportive of the health and wellbeing of the community and this is regarded as positive aspect of the proposed development having regard to Policies CFLR7 and CFLR9.
8.18 The scheme is considered to be well designed and sympathetic to its Conservation Area setting. The retention and refurbishment of the historic building and its viable re-use is regarded as a positive aspect of the proposal in that it serves to enhance the appearance of the building and Conservation Area.
8.19 The Highway Authority considers that the proposal will not result in a material impact on the highway network. The Authority advise that the Town Centre location is within walking distance of a wide range of shops for linked trips, public transport and footway connections Page 258 Application Number: 3/18/1960/FUL to surrounding residential areas. The proposal is therefore consistent with the provisions of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan 4 and the NPPF. Whilst, the loss of public parking carries some limited negative weight this is not considered to be significant within the context of the overall public parking provision in Ware Town Centre.
8.20 Similarly, whilst the lack of parking provision for the Medical Centre use carries some limited negative weight. The siting of the use within the town centre and Accessibility Zone 2 should be regarded as highly sustainable.
8.21 Having regard to the above considerations, and in particular, the positive community and health benefits of the proposal, it is considered that the scheme amounts to a sustainable form of development and the application is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the conditions/ reasons set out below:
Conditions
1. Three year time limit (1T12)
2. Approved plans (2E10)
3. Prior to installation details of the materials to be used for the surfacing of hard surfaced areas of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Programme of archaeological work (2E02)
5. Samples of materials (2E12) – Prior to above ground development
6. Refuse disposal facilities (2E24) – Prior to first occupation
Page 259 Application Number: 3/18/1960/FUL 7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMP shall include:
Details of vehicle, type numbers and routing; Details of construction storage, compounds, offices and car parking; Details of construction vehicle wheel washing facilities; Details for maintaining the safe operation of the public car park during construction.
The development shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved CMP.
Reason: To ensure that the impact of construction the highway network is minimised.
8. The development hereby permitted shall not encroach within 1 metre of the Bourne culvert, and shall not be commenced until such time as a foundation design scheme including loading calculations to ensure the culverted Bourne is protected from structural compromise has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure the structural integrity of the Bourne culvert thereby reducing the risk of flooding.
9. The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved surface water drainage assessment carried out by Richard Jackson Ltd, project number 48607, issue B, dated 8 November 2018 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the Flood Risk Assessment:
Page 260 Application Number: 3/18/1960/FUL Limiting the surface water run-off from the extension area generated by the critical storm events so that it will not exceed the surface water run-off rate of 1 l/s during the 1 in 100 year event plus 20% of climate change event. Providing storage to ensure no increase in surface water run-off volumes for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year + climate change event providing a minimum of 50 m2, 0.6 m deep (or such storage volume agreed with the LLFA) of total storage volume in permeable paved with a sub-base area. Discharge of surface water from the private drain into the culverted main river crossing the development site.
The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: To prevent risk of flooding in accordance with Policy WAT1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
10. No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site based on the approved drainage strategy and sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall include:
The detailed drainage layout to include the existing drainage network on site and the proposed surface water drainage network. This should include all surface water discharge points from the site with indicated discharge rates. Final, detailed modelling for the entire drainage network within the site for up to and including the 1 in 100 year including plus 20% for climate change allowance. The modelling should include the existing surface water network on the site and the
Page 261 Application Number: 3/18/1960/FUL new, proposed drainage network. The final surface water discharge rate from the entire site should be calculated. Detailed engineered drawings of the proposed SuDS features including cross section drawings, their size, volume, depth and any inlet and outlet features including any connecting pipe runs. Final detailed management plan to include arrangements for adoption and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.
Reason: To prevent risk of flooding in accordance with Policy WAT1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
Informatives
1. Other legislation (01OL)
2. Bats (32BA)
Summary of Reasons for Decision
East Herts Council has considered the applicant's proposal in a positive and proactive manner with regard to the policies of the Development Plan and any relevant material considerations. The balance of the considerations is that permission should be granted.
Page 262 Application Number: 3/18/1960/FUL KEY DATA
Non-residential Vehicle Parking Provision
Use type Standard Spaces required Proposed Surgeries/clinics 3 spaces per For consulting 12 spaces consulting room rooms 60 spaces plus 1 space per employee other Staffing unknown than consulting at present staff
Page 263 This page is intentionally left blank S
t
M
a
r
y
' s
C
o
u
r
t
y 8 a 1 Swan Church Row r d House Mews 1
1
6
1
Black Swan 6 1
1
1
5 TTTT 1 TTTT
1
2 EEE
7 EEE
1 EEE
2 0 1
4 EEE
5 RRR 6 RRR
BBBBBBB RRR
BBBBBBB TTTTRRR Court BBBBBBB 2 TTTT
BBBBBBB TTTT
2 TTTT 8 AAAAAAA SSS
AAAAAAA 4 SSS AAAAAAA SSS
LLLLLLL 1
LLLLLLL 3
6 DDDDDDD 7 DDDDDDD
9 OOOOOOO C
OOOOOOO
1 OOOOOOO
7 h H H H H
CCCCCCC H H H H r
CCCCCCC
1 CCCCCCC i
o CCCCCCC CCCC s t CCCC KKKKKKK CCCC t KKKKKKK RRRR a
RRRR d
UUUU e 1 UUUU HHHH lp HHHH h CCCC i
CCCC an
SSSS 0
2 SSSS
TTTT
TTTT 9 1 RRRR RRRR EEEE
EEEE 1
EEEE 3 EEEE 2
1 TTTT 1 TTTT St Mary's Church 7
Tudor Walk
SA Hall 5 6
1 3 War 24 Memorial 26
12 1 to 1 1 2 14 5 Tu 1
dor S 3 qu
are t o
Yorkes Mews
2 4 1 Shelter
44
1
2
o t
6
3 4 42
WWEEE
WWEEESSSTTT SSSTTT
9 1 SSSTTTRRREEE 8 16 TTTRRREEEEEETTT 118 114 TTT 11 PC PPPRRRIIIIOO EEEEEETTT Museum 2 RRRIIIIOORRRYYY RRREEE RRRYYY SSSTTTRRR PH SSS 108 104 102 PH
98
7 8 7
92
3 8 8 4
y r
a
r
9 b 7 H i ig 8 L h 2 PH St
reet
Town Council Offices a 3
7 Bank 7 1
7 7
9 6
b 4 7
7 3 5
3 b 9 6 7
e 1 s 2 6 u 6 e o
h h
T e k o 1 b
m 3
S 6
BBB
UUU
5 RRR 8 The Old RRR GGG AAA GGG Catherine Fire Station EEE L LLL Wheel LLLL a
LLLLAAA 1 AAA Mews
9 NNN 3
NNN
EEE 6
o EEE t EEE
c 7 1
6
o t
5 a 1 1
6
t r u
o
0 C 1
4 r 1 e h p 9 t o 2 r t to u
s o 6 i 1 C r e h g ga
C ur
3 B 1
1
1
2 1 SITE
This copy has been produced specifically for Map Control Scheme purposes only. No further copies may be made Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2009 East Herts Council. LA Ref: 100018528
East Herts Council Address: Meade House, 85 High Street, Ware, SG12 9AD Wallfields Reference: 3/18/1960/FUL Pegs Lane Scale: 1:1250 Hertford SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3514 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 20 February 2019 Page 265 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 EAST HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITEMS FOR REPORT AND NOTING January / February 2019
Application Number 3/17/0251/FUL Decsn Refused Level of Decision Committee Address Land At North DriveHigh CrossHertfordshire Appellant Mr Sean Harries Proposal Erection of 20 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping and access Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/17/2342/FUL Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address Land To Rear Of The Bird In Hand26 Green EndBraughingWareHertfordshireSG11 2PG Appellant Mr R Pugh Proposal Erection of two detached dwellings together with associated off street car parking for 5 vehicles. Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/17/2560/FUL Decsn Granted Level of Decision Delegated Address 1-3 Kingsmead RoadBishops StortfordHertfordshireCM23 2AG Appellant Mr Larry Tucker Proposal Demolition of dwellings and erection of 4 no. 2 storey 3 bed dwellings with parking and landscaping. Appeal Decision Allowed
Application Number 3/17/2995/OUT Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address Land At Gaylors FarmCherry Green LaneWestmillBuntingfordHertfordshireSG9 9LD Appellant Mrs Lynette Hodge And Miss Caroline Howe Outline permission for demolition of existing barns and erection of two detached bungalows - all matters reserved Proposal except for access. Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/0165/OUT Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address The Old OrchardOld Hertingfordbury RoadHertfordSG14 2LA Appellant Mr And Miss Victor And Tamar Garber Outline planning permission for the erection of 1 no. 4 bedroom dwelling, with all matters reserved apart from Proposal access. Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/0251/FUL Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address Land Adjacent To Tudor ManorWhite Stubbs LaneBayfordHertfordHertfordshireSG13 8QA Appellant Mr James Wedge Demolition of annexe, stables, storage and garage buildings, construction of new house with associated Proposal landscaping. Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/0403/OUT Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address AcremoreAcremore StreetLittle HadhamWareHertfordshireSG11 2HD Appellant Mr David Fuller Proposal Outline application for the erection of 1 no. detached dwelling with all matters reserved except access. Appeal Decision Allowed Page 267 Application Number 3/18/0416/HH Decsn APPCON Level of Decision Delegated Address Beechview14 Amwell LaneStanstead AbbottsWareHertfordshi reSG12 8DX Appellant Mr David Sorrentino Proposal Erection of one and a half storey double garage with storage and study above (Amended scheme) Appeal Decision Allowed
Application Number 3/18/0478/FUL Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address 8 Warren Park RoadHertfordHertfordshireSG14 3JA Appellant Mr And Mrs Easter Proposal Demolition of dwelling and outbuilding. Creation of 2 no. 4 bedroomed dwellings and associated parking Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/0785/FUL Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address Land Adjacent To2 Middle Farm CottagesCottered RoadT hrockingBuntingfordSG9 9RN Appellant Mr & Mrs Daniel and Lauren Snelling Remove existing concrete garage and steel container and build new dwelling in land adjacent to 2 Middle Farm Proposal Cottage Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/0814/ADV Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address Bus Shelter O/S Charrington HouseLink Road Stop NBishop s StortfordCM23 2JW Appellant Ms ANITA MARTIN Replace existing double sided paper advertising unit with a double sided internally illuminated digital advertising Proposal unit forming integral part of bus shelter. Appeal Decision Allowed
Application Number 3/18/0897/VAR Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address Lodge FarmEpping GreenHertfordHertfordshireSG13 8NQ Appellant Mr Lord Removal of conditions 2 (removal of householder permitted development rights) and 4 (restricted occupancy to 12 weeks) of the application reference number: 3/17/2456/FUL - change of use and conversion of 2 no. barns to a Proposal total of 5 no. holiday lets, including demolition of lean-to, erection of single storey rear extension and alterations to fenestration. Insertion of new doors and windows to both barns.
Appeal Decision Allowed
Application Number 3/18/0918/FUL Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address Land South Of Cherry Green LaneWestmillHertfordshire SG9 9LD Appellant Mr Dale Stacey Proposal Retrospective planning application for the retention of a field shelter structure. Appeal Decision Withdrawn
Application Number 3/18/1045/FUL Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address 55 Thorley Park RoadBishops StortfordHertfordshireCM23 3NG Appellant Mr D Shrimpton Change of use from C3 to Sui Generis - house of multiple occupancy to acCommitteeodate 9 rooms. Single storey front extension and two storey side extension with gabled dormer to the rear roof of the side extension. Proposal Loft conversion with rear dormer and 2no rooflights to existing loft space. Creation of 4no parking spaces to front of property. Page 268 Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/1147/HH Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address 2 Woodcock Lodge Farm CottagesTylers CausewayNewgat e StreetHertfordHertfordshireSG13 8QN Appellant Mr & Mrs Pottinger Proposal Single storey rear and side extension Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/1178/HH Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address 16 Revels RoadBengeoHertfordHertfordshireSG14 3JU Appellant Mrs Fiona Reynolds Proposal First floor front and side extension and creation of rear dormer Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/1305/HH Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address BarnacresErmine StreetColliers EndWareHertfordshireSG11 1ER Appellant Mr And Mrs Appleby Change of use of garage to ancillary acCommitteeodation. Enlargement of footprint, raising of roof and Proposal alterations to fenestration. Appeal Decision Allowed
Application Number 3/18/1319/HH Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address 90 High Oak RoadWareHertfordshireSG12 7NZ Appellant Mr Jamie Dunlop Proposal Two storey side extension and single storey front extension. Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/1463/HH Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address Hammonia2 Gypsy CloseGreat AmwellWareHertfordshireSG1 2 9RW Appellant Mr And Mrs E And Y Groom Side, front and rear extensions; conversion of garage to habitable acCommitteeodation; raising of roof and Proposal installation of 4no dormer windows. Balcony on first floor to rear elevation. Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/1602/HH Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address Timbertops34 Firs WalkTewin WoodTewinWelwynHertford shireAL6 0NZ Appellant Mr D Lowe Single storey front extension, first floor front extension, replacement of garage door with casement window, two Proposal front elevation dormers, bi-fold doors to rear elevation, juliet balcony to rear elevation. Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/1603/HH Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address The Willow BarnThorley StreetThorleyBishops StortfordHe rtfordshireCM23 4AT Appellant Mr & Mrs E BOWLER Demolition of existing outbuilding and replacement with single storey building to be used as ancillary residential Proposal acCommitteeodation in connection with the Willow Barn. Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/1669/HH Page 269 Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address 1 BritanniaPuckeridgeWareHertfordshireSG11 1TG Appellant Mr AND Mrs Walker Proposed first floor front elevation extension, single storey rear extension, conversion of garage and first floor side Proposal window opening. Appeal Decision Allowed
Application Number 3/18/1787/HH Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address 14 Great MolewoodHertfordHertfordshireSG14 2PN Appellant Mr Kevan Elliott Proposal Raising of roof ridge and insertion of dormer window. Alterations to fenestration. Appeal Decision Dismissed
Application Number 3/18/1808/HH Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address 28 Page HillWareHertfordshireSG12 0RZ Appellant Mr Robert Nimmo Proposal First floor rear extension including insertion of 2 roof lights Appeal Decision Allowed
Application Number 3/18/1819/PIP Decsn Refused Level of Decision Delegated Address Chapel LaneLittle HadhamHertfordshire Appellant Oakhall Group Proposal Erection of 4 no. 2 bedroomed dwellings (2 x affordable). Appeal Decision Dismissed
Background Papers Correspondence at Essential Reference Paper ‘A’
Contact Officers Sara Saunders, Head of Planning and Building Control – Extn: 1656
Page 270
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 October 2018 by Jonathan Hockley BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: Thursday, 28 February 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/17/3181608 Land at North Drive, High Cross SG11 1AR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Sean Harries, Beechwood Homes Ltd against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref 3/17/0251/FUL, dated 1 February 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 June 2017. • The development proposed is the erection of 21 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, open space and access. • This decision supersedes that issued on 22 March 2018. That decision on the appeal was quashed by order of the High Court
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. During the planning application the number of proposed dwellings on the site reduced from 21 to 20. While the description of the proposal in the banner above references that applied for in the application form, I have dealt with the scheme for the lower number of houses as dealt with by the Council in their decision.
3. Both main parties considered that the appeal could be dealt with under the written representations procedure. Having considered the matter I am of the view that the planning issues involved in the case can be readily understood from the appeal documents and site visit, and furthermore that the issues raised are not complex and do not require questioning.
4. During the course of my consideration of the appeal the East Herts District Plan was adopted, on 23 October 2018 (the District Plan). Policies which are referred to in the Council’s decision notice from the previous Local Plan have subsequently been superseded. Both parties were given further opportunities to comment on this change to the development plan during the appeal process.
Main Issues
5. The main issues in this case are as follows:
• the effect of the proposed development on the setting of nearby listed buildings; and
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 271 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/17/3181608
• the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Reasons
6. High Cross is a fairly small settlement, based around the old Roman road of Ermine Street (called High Road in the vicinity of the village) and the junctions of this road with Marshalls Lane and North Drive. Aside from Marshalls Lane, development is largely focused on the road itself and on land to the east of the road. On the northern side of the village lies the Grade II listed Church of St John the Evangelist which visually forms the focal point for the settlement. North Drive is fairly well built up from the junction with High Road, particularly on the southern side. On the northern side of the road development is more spread out, largely due to the appeal site which is a reasonably large open paddock/field encircled by trees.
7. The appeal site is roughly square in shape, and aside from the trees is bordered by North Drive to the south, with an access track to the Church, Rectory and an additional property running along the west side of the site and a small Church car park to the north west of the appeal site. To the north of the site lies the Grade II listed Rectory and its grounds. To the east of the site lies the rear of gardens to properties on Poplar Close, as well as a property on North Drive at the south east side of the site.
Listed Buildings
8. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects the setting of a listed building, special regard should be had to the desirability of preserving its setting.
9. Paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) says when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of a heritage asset, or by development within its setting. The Framework defines setting as the surroundings in which the asset is experienced. Elements of setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance, or may be neutral.
10. The Church of St John the Evangelist was constructed in 1846 to a design by Anthony Salvin, and is constructed in ragstone with limestone dressing. A tower with ashlar battlemented parapet and small copper spire was added in 1906, and is sited on the south west of the Church, close to the appeal site. The building has a steep slate roof and diagonal corner buttresses are noticeable.
11. The Rectory is noted by the listing to date from 1846, and is stated to have also probably been designed by Anthony Salvin. The property is substantial and appears from public areas and the appeal site to in effect have two façades; towards the south and the site, and towards the west and the Church. The residential house is constructed in red brick with a red tile roof. The brick work contains interesting black diaper patterns at first floor level and on the
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning272 -inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/17/3181608
chimney breasts, with distinctive tall lower windows each side of French doors. Decorative patterns of glazing bars in squares and octagons in mullioned and transomed 3-light windows are visible in its south elevation. The appellant notes that the Rectory’s principal relationship is with the Church as signified by the addition at the end of the listing as “included for group value”. However, even though the listing states that is is listed for group value it is nonetheless a listed building, which falls to be considered as such.
12. The significance and special interest of the Church derives from its stature, its architectural design and detailing, with the Rectory also attaining significance from its detailed design. The setting of the two buildings is enhanced by each other, and encompasses the appeal site. My site visit took place in early October when much of the tree cover to the sides of the site remained; nevertheless the Church was clearly visible to the south east and substantial glimpses of the Rectory’s south façade could be seen from the site and more distantly from North Drive. Distinctive and attractive views of the Church’s tower and spire could be clearly seen from North Drive, particularly from the south east where there is a lack of trees adjacent to the entrance to Little Duncans. From this angle when travelling towards the west the Church is very noticeable and the empty green space of the site clearly contributes to its setting.
13. The appellant’s evidence notes that the appeal site was a glebe; that is, land devoted to the maintenance of the incumbent of a church and hence the appeal site also has a historical connection to the Church. While I appreciate that a glebe does not have to be located close to the Church, its close physical connection in this case, sited close to an entrance to the Church and its graveyard, and overlooked by the south façade of the Rectory, adds to its significance as part of the setting of the heritage assets.
14. The development would involve the construction of a range of houses and apartments largely located around the edge of the site, aside from the boundary with North Drive which is kept reasonably open adjacent to the access. The interior of the site would have a fairly large open space and play area. However, despite these measures the proposal would still have a significant effect, altering it from an open space close to the heritage assets to one with the appearance of a small housing estate.
15. While there is existing surrounding development to the south of the Church, the construction of the proposal would have an adverse effect on the setting and therefore the significance of the Church, altering substantially the character of the appeal site and bringing built development close to the Church in an area which has been historically linked to the Church and free from development. The effect would be particularly noticeable from the south east corner of the graveyard, where instead of the current open vista beyond the small car park there would be a view of the side and rear of two storey houses, and would be more significant in views of the heritage asset from North Drive adjacent to Little Duncans. In such views the primacy of the Church tower and spire would be diluted and replaced to a fairly large extent by the pyramidal roof of units 16-18 and the hipped roof of plots 19-21. While distance, proposed planting and the height of the proposed dwellings would slightly lessen such effect, and the height of the church tower and spire would mean that it would still remain visible, harm would still be caused.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 273 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/17/3181608
16. The primary relationship for the Rectory is with the Church, which the proposal would not alter. However, there would remain an adverse effect upon the setting of the Rectory; while lesser than that upon the Church it would still be impacted upon adversely by the development of a site that would historically have been overlooked as an open space from the grand openings on the south façade of the Rectory.
17. Having regard to the advice in the Government’s planning practice guidance I consider that the scheme would not reach the high hurdle of substantial harm (as defined in the Framework) to the setting and therefore the significance of the heritage assets. However, though less than substantial, there would, nevertheless, be real and serious harm which requires clear and convincing justification. I note in this respect that the appellant also considers that the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the two listed buildings. Paragraph 196 of the Framework indicates that such harm is to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
18. The public benefits of the scheme include the economic and social benefits arising from the provision of additional housing, both market and affordable, in the heart of the village. The scheme would generate economic benefits through both its construction and the activities of future residents of the proposed houses; such residents would also contribute socially to the village. While 20 houses is not an especially high number of dwellings, in the context of a village the size of High Cross it would be a reasonably significant development.
19. Benefits are also outlined of the ecological effect of the scheme. Due to the scale of the site and available land used for planting such benefits would be limited. A benefit to the wider community would also be accrued through the provision of public open space and a play area on the site, which is not publically accessible at present.
20. In terms of the provision of sustainable drainage, flood alleviation for an off site development and the maintenance of a watercourse along a site boundary, the necessity for these works largely arise from the development of the site itself. Benefits are also described in terms of financial contributions towards various community facilities; however, such contributions are contained within a Section 106 Agreement and are as such agreed by the parties as being necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. I also note the letter from the landowners, the Diocese of St Albans (the Diocese) stating that the sale of the Diocese’s properties is essential to the mission of the Diocese, in terms of providing income towards the payment of parochial clergy. However, be that as it may, I am not convinced that this constitutes a public benefit to the scheme.
21. Finally, the proposal also includes a scheme to improve North Drive. This road is a shared surface private road owned by the District Council and serves a reasonably high number of dwellings, both on North Drive and linked side roads. The quality of the road was fairly mixed at the time of my visit and the proposal would improve this via the resurfacing of the road and associated works. I note however that there does not appear to be significant public support from local residents for this aspect of the scheme.
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning274 -inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/17/3181608
22. I have concluded that the proposal would fail to preserve the setting, and result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II listed Church and the Grade II listed Rectory. I have paid special regard to the desirability of preserving these settings, and note that I am required to give considerable importance and great weight to preserving the setting of such heritage assets. Having considered the range of public benefits provided by the scheme I consider that they attract moderate weight and consequently would not outweigh the clear harm caused. Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. The proposal would be contrary to Policies HA1 and HA7 of the District Plan which together state that development proposals should preserve and where appropriate enhance the historic environment, and that proposals that affect the setting of a Listed Building will only be permitted where the setting of the building is preserved.
Character and appearance
23. Policy VILL2 of the District Plan states that in High Cross limited infill development will be permitted provided, amongst other criteria, that it relates well to the village in terms of location, is of a scale appropriate to the size of the village, is well designed and in keeping with the character of the village, does not represent the loss of a significant open space or gap important to the form and/or setting of the village, and would not unacceptably block important views or vistas.
24. Despite its lack of public access, the open space of the site contributes to the semi-rural character and appearance of the village; as a fairly large field/paddock in the heart of the village and via the positive effect of the site upon the setting of the Church and the Rectory the site adds to the appearance of the settlement, providing a break in development and enhancing the character of the village. However, its lack of public access or community use and the encircling of much of the site by protected trees restricts the site’s role in defining the form of the village, albeit that for the reasons given above I still consider that the site has such a role.
25. However, the design of the proposal with a reasonably sized centrally located area of publically accessible open space would mitigate such an effect such that in my view overall, and notwithstanding the adverse effect that I have found above on the setting of the two nearby heritage assets, the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. Subsequently the scheme would comply with policy VILL2 of the District Plan.
Other Matters
26. A Section 106 Agreement has been submitted which provides for various community contributions, affordable housing, maintenance of the public open space, the road improvement works and fire hydrants. I have considered the public benefits of the proposed affordable housing and road improvement works above; aside from this as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds I have not considered this matter further.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Page 275 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/17/3181608
Conclusion
27. To summarise, I have concluded that the proposal would harm the setting of nearby listed buildings, and that this harm would not be outweighed by the identified public benefits of the scheme. As such the proposal would conflict with the Framework and the District Plan policies HA1 and HA7. Furthermore, I do not consider that such harm would be outweighed by the financial benefits of the scheme to the Diocese.
28. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Jon Hockley
INSPECTOR
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning276 -inspectorate 6
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 January 2019 by Graham Chamberlain BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3212492 The Bird in Hand, 26 Green End, Braughing, Hertfordshire SG11 2PG The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr R Pugh against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. The application Ref 3/17/2342/FUL, dated 5 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 September 2018. The development proposed is described as ‘erection of two detached dwellings’.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. Since the Council issued its decision it has adopted The East Hertfordshire District Plan 2018 (EHDP). This has superseded the East Herts Local Plan Review 2007, which was referred to in the reasons for refusal. It is incumbent upon me to base my decision upon the most up to date planning policy and this is what I have done. The appellant had an opportunity to address the change in policy through his appeal submissions.
Main Issues
3. The main issues in this appeal are:
Whether the proposed development would; 1) Preserve the setting of Braughing Chapel and Nos 24-26 Green End, which are Grade II listed buildings; 2) Preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Braughing Conservation Area, including the effect on trees; and 3) Whether any harm to designated heritage assets would be outweighed by public benefits; and
4) The effect of the proposed development on local amenity with particular reference to parking.
Reasons
The effect on the setting of listed buildings
4. The list description for Nos 24-26 Green End explains that the building probably dates from the 17th Century but could be earlier. This historic character is still very evident. It is an imposing structure that would have once had a large curtilage and been a local landmark as a public house. The garden has been https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 277 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3212492
subdivided following the change of use to two dwellings but the remaining area is still large and enables a semi-rural view from the appeal site over the river valley and towards the Parish Church. There are two timber outbuildings along the northern boundary of the appeal site. The one nearest the road appears on historic maps and may be curtilage listed. Both are single storey, finished in black boarding and are subservient to the main listed building. This gives a logical hierarchy to the built form within the appeal site.
5. The erection of two dwellings within the appeal site would harmfully disrupt the built hierarchy currently evident, as the proposed dwellings would visually compete with the massing and scale of the listed building. The appeal scheme would also further reduce the historic curtilage of the building and interrupt the visual connectivity currently evident between the listed building and the river valley landscape. As such, the proposal would impose upon, and harm, the setting of Nos 24-26 Green End.
6. To the south of the appeal site is Braughing Chapel. This is a modest, unassuming and attractive historic building set in a small curtilage. It is only accessed via a public footpath and there are no other buildings within its immediate setting. Although in the heart of the village it has a sense of separation and tranquillity and this is important to the way it is experienced as a chapel. The appeal scheme would harmfully erode the building’s sense of tranquillity and separation as the two dwellings would be imposing and positioned relatively close to it, albeit separated by the garden of No 24. Moreover, the houses would be comparatively large and this would have the visual impact of over powering the diminutive scale and massing of the chapel.
7. I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme would harm the setting of both Braughing Chapel and Nos 24-26 Green End. This would be contrary to Policies HA1 and HA7 of the EHDP1 and Policy 10 of the Braughing Neighbourhood Plan 2018 (NP), which seek to secure development proposals that preserve and where possible enhance the historic environment of East Herts. This includes a requirement to only permit proposals that would not have an adverse impact on the setting of listed buildings.
Whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Braughing Conservation Area
8. The significance of the CA is multifaceted and is evident in the period architecture, the landscape setting and the form of the village. The CA is made up of two historic settlements – Braughing and Green End. These two areas are separated by the River Quin, the immediate banks of which are largely open and undeveloped. This creates a green swathe through the CA which is distinctive and attractive. The long open gardens of the properties in Green End contribute to the overall quality of the river valley and act as a point of transition between the river and the frontage development along Green End.
9. The development along Green End is mainly residential frontage development arranged in a discernible building line with some variation in the extent properties are set back from the road. There is little development in depth away from the road save for a modern housing estate that has been built to the north of the appeal site. This includes a cul-de-sac arrangement untypical
1 Within its first reason for refusal the Council has referred to emerging Policies HA2 (Non- Designated Heritage Assets) but this does not appear relevant to any of the main issues.
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning278 -inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3212492
of the pattern of development in the CA and is generously described in the Conservation Area Appraisal as being a neutral feature.
10. The erection of two properties behind No 26 would disrupt the frontage pattern and grain of development along Green End. Moreover, due to their location towards the end of the existing garden, the dwellings would appear as discordant interlopers in the green swathe formed by the river valley. The dwellings would also appear unusually cramped and dense given the extensive site coverage that would arise from two large houses of modern proportions and massing being squeezed into relatively small plots. The dwellings would not be discrete additions as they would be visible from neighbouring properties, Green End, Fleece Lane and Church End to a lesser extent.
11. The appeal site drops as it falls towards the river and drawing 12854-P003-1st appears to suggest that only part of the roof top of the proposed dwellings would be visible from Green End. However, this drawing shows a two dimensional perspective and therefore underestimates the impact of the proposal. Moreover, this is only a single viewpoint. The dwellings would be more widely visible. Thus, the change in levels would not mitigate the impact on views from Green End. Instead, the properties would be strident features given their incongruous siting and the extensive scale and massing. This would interrupt the existing view from Green End over the appeal site towards the Parish Church and the river valley.
12. The appeal scheme would necessitate the removal of a feature tree that is currently in the position of the proposed turning head. Pressure to fell other trees may also materialise because the rear garden of ‘Unit A’ would be dominated by the trees currently in the north eastern corner of the appeal site. The trees, particularly the feature tree, are visible from a number of public vantage points, including Green End. As a consequence, they contribute to the verdant setting of the river corridor and the appearance of the CA and are therefore of amenity value. The appeal scheme lacks adequate information justifying the removal of these trees and therefore their loss would be a further harmful impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the CA.
13. I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme would harm the character and appearance of the CA. This would be contrary to Policies HA1, HA4, VILL1, DES2, DES3 and DES4 of the EHDP and Policies 2 and 10 of the NP, which seek to secure development proposals of a high standard of design that preserve and where possible enhance the historic environment of East Herts, including conservation areas, and are designed to be in keeping with the village and its landscape character.
Whether any harm to heritage is outweighed by public benefits Para 134
14. The harm I have identified would be reasonably localised and therefore ‘less than substantial’ within the meaning of the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 196 of the Framework requires such harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
15. The proposal would deliver two new homes and this would contribute towards the Council’s housing supply. However, the contribution would be very modest and the Council are currently able to demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of five years. As a consequence, this benefit would be limited. More locally, the proposal would assist in meeting the housing target for the village
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 279 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3212492
outlined in the EHDP. However, this is of limited weight because the houses would not meet the local need for two bedroom properties and the NP has identified other sites that would meet the housing target.
16. The proposal would result in benefits to the construction industry and future residents may spend locally. However, the contribution to the construction industry would be short lived and I have seen nothing to suggest the ‘spend’ from two additional households would have a notable effect on the viability of facilities in the village. Moreover, evidence has not been provided to suggest local facilities are suffering for lack of patronage. As such, the economic benefits carry limited weight.
17. Thus, when giving considerable importance and weight to the special regard I must have to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings and the character or appearance of a CA2, I find that the significant harm that would arise from the appeal scheme would not be outweighed by its cumulative public benefits. Accordingly, there would be a conflict with Paragraph 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework as harm to designated heritage assets would not have a clear and convincing justification.
The effect of the proposed development on local amenity with particular reference to parking
18. Policy TRA3 of the EHDP states that vehicle parking provision will be assessed on a site specific basis and should take into account the District Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Vehicle Parking at New Developments’. This document suggests that three spaces should be provided at a four bedroom property but it does not appear to be up to date and grounded in extant policy and evidence.
19. The appeal scheme would provide two parking spaces per property along with a generous turning head. The appeal site is well placed to enable future residents to access many everyday services on foot or by bicycle. It is also close to bus stops. As a consequence, future residents of the appeal scheme are unlikely to be reliant on private motorised transport and therefore the parking demands may be satisfied by two spaces per dwelling. Even if this judgment is incorrect, the proposed turning head would be large and therefore parking within this area would not result in vehicles having to reverse onto to the road or perform manoeuvres that would be of danger to pedestrians. Moreover, I have seen nothing to suggest that occasional on street parking would harm the amenity of the area by, for example, contributing to parking stress or the safe movement of traffic and pedestrians.
20. Although not specifically identified on the drawings there would be space within the appeal site, or land within the appellant’s control, to provide secured cycle parking and vehicle parking space to serve the existing property. The existing access drive is sufficiently wide in this respect. Such provision could have been secured through a suitably worded planning condition had the scheme been otherwise acceptable. There is no evidence before me as to why powered two- wheeler storage facilities would be appropriate in this instance and therefore this omission is of little consequence. Accordingly, the proposal would include adequate vehicle parking provision and therefore a harmful impact on local amenity, and a conflict with Policy TRA3 of the EHDP, would not occur.
2 See Sections 66(1) and 72(1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning280 -inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3212492
Other Matters
21. Various concerns have been raised by interested parties regarding the setting of the Parish Church (Grade I listed) and Braughing Bury (Grade II* listed). I would need to see further evidence, including comments from Historic England, before coming to a conclusion on whether the appeal site is in the setting of these structures and what effect the appeal scheme would have upon them. However, given my findings it has not been necessary for me to seek this evidence. For similar reasons I have not specifically addressed the other concerns raised such as the effect on living conditions and wildlife.
Conclusion
22. The proposed development would provide adequate parking facilities but it would significantly harm the significance of designated heritage assets. Consequently, it would not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.
Graham Chamberlain INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Page 281
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 January 2019
by Jonathan Price BA(Hons) DMS DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12th February 2019.
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3204495 1 and 3 Kingsmead Road, Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire CM23 2AG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a grant of planning permission subject to conditions. • The appeal is made by Mr Larry Tucker against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref 3/17/2560/FUL, dated 1 November 2017, was approved on 8 December 2017 and planning permission was granted subject to conditions. • The development permitted is demolition of nos. 1 and 3 Kingsmead Road, Bishop’s Stortford and construction of 4 no. two-storey 3 bed dwellings with parking and landscaping. • The condition in dispute is No 6 which states that: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of any dwellinghouse as described in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, and the enlargement of the dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof as described in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the Order shall not be undertaken without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. • The reason given for the condition is: To ensure the Local Planning Authority retains control over any future development as specified in the condition in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy ENV9 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and the planning permission 3/17/2560/FUL for demolition of nos. 1 and 3 Kingsmead Road, Bishops Stortford and construction of 4 no. two-storey 3 bed dwellings with parking and landscaping, granted on 8 December 2017 by East Hertfordshire District Council, is varied by deleting condition 6 and substituting this with the following condition: 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargement of any of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof as described in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the Order shall be undertaken without the prior written permission of the local planning authority. Procedural Matters
2. Since the appeal was made the Council has adopted the East Herts District Plan October 2018 (DP), where Policy DES4 over the design of development is considered relevant. My decision is based on this as the currently adopted development plan. This replaces the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning282 -inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3204495
2007 and its Policy ENV9 as referred to in the reasons given for the condition in dispute.
3. On 24 July 2018, also since this appeal was made, Government published the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Having granted the main parties an opportunity to make further comment, my decision reflects this.
Background and main issue
4. The tests for planning conditions, as set out in paragraph 55 of the Framework, are that they should be imposed only where necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. Paragraph 53 prior to this states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification for doing so. The national Planning Practice Guidance advises that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights will rarely pass the test of necessity and should only be used in exceptional circumstances.
5. The condition in dispute relates to approval for a scheme to replace two detached bungalows with two pairs of semi-detached, two-storey houses. The application approved was made following refusal of an earlier scheme for the same nature of development, only of a different design and with accommodation on three floors, and where a subsequent appeal was later dismissed and to which I have had regard.
6. The approved scheme was considered by the Council to have overcome the concerns with the previous proposal over the size and bulk of the roofing being out-of-keeping in the street scene and harming the outlook from the next-door house at No 1A. This was through providing shallower-pitched hipped roofs without the previously proposed flat-crown elements. However, to address concerns over future changes to the roofs, Class B permitted development rights for such additions and alterations were removed by the condition in dispute.
7. This condition also removed the Class A permitted development rights to subsequently enlarge, improve or make other alterations to the approved dwellings. This was to maintain control over alterations that might harm the character and appearance of the area or have an adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbours.
8. The main issue in the appeal is whether the condition is justified by being reasonable and necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to those residing at No 1A.
Reasons
9. The shallow-pitched, hipped roofs to the approved houses would help avoid them appearing over-bulky and dominant in the street-scene, which was a concern with the previous scheme. In the light of this, the exceptional circumstances do exist for a condition removing Class B permitted development rights, to allow the Council to have control over any further changes to the rear and sides of the roofs. The Council has suggested this as a condition should
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 283 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3204495
the removal of the present condition 6 be allowed and the appellant is amenable to this.
10. Unlike the findings of the Inspector with the previous scheme, that approved was found by the Council not to have an over-bearing impact on the occupiers of No 1A. This relates to the design whereby the adjacent Plot 1 dwelling has a hipped roof and retains a side wall cut back from the rear to preserve the neighbour’s side outlook. The appellant advises me that permission has recently been granted to extend No 1A to the rear by 3.3 metres which reduces the case for restricting the Class A permitted development right on the approved scheme. However, at the date of my visit, No 1A had yet to be extended and I must appraise this case on the basis of present circumstances.
11. The scheme approved, whilst of an acceptable design, represents a significant increase in the amount and scale of the housing occupying the two plots. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that Class A permitted development would have no materially adverse impact on the appearance of the housing within the street scene. I have no reason to suppose that extensions permitted at No 1A would not be carried out. In any event, there would not be the degree of harm to the living conditions of any neighbouring occupiers for a condition restricting Class A permitted development rights to meet the test of necessity.
12. On the basis of the above, I consider that the current condition 6, removing both Class A and B permitted development rights, would not meet the tests set out in the Framework. However, a revised condition replacing this, that restricted only Class B roof developments, would be justified.
Other Matters
13. Consideration has been given to the further matters raised by interested parties. There is not the justification to both dismiss the appeal and refuse permission. The effects of the development on character and appearance and living conditions, along with any further issues such as adequacy of foul drainage and parking space, do not amount to reasonable grounds for this.
14. Regarding the imposition of further conditions, there are not the exceptional circumstances to restrict Class E permitted development rights for rear garden outbuildings and other features incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellings. Although the appellant is amenable to this, there are also not the exceptional circumstances to restrict the permitted development rights over the change of use of the dwellings to small houses in multiple occupation. There is not the evidence over a proliferation of such uses causing adverse impacts in this locality or a DP policy which would support such a condition.
Conclusion
15. Subject to the condition applied, which is necessary in the interests of character and appearance and to comply with DP Policy DES4, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Jonathan Price
INSPECTOR
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning284 -inspectorate 3
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 14 January 2019 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DiP TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3209955 Gaylors Farm, Cherry Green Lane, Westmill, Buntingford, Herts SG9 9LD The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Mrs Lynette Hodge and Miss Caroline Howe against the decision of East Herts Council. The application Ref 3/17/2995/OUT, dated 18 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 March 2018. The development proposed is the erection of two detached bungalows.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matters
2. I have taken the spelling of ‘Miss Howe’ from the application form, although I note that elsewhere, including on the appeal form, it is written as ‘How’.
3. The application was made in outline, with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access. As part of the application, drawings were submitted to show the layout of two bungalows on the site, together with a section to indicate massing. However, other than the proposed access, I have considered those drawings on the basis that they were submitted for indicative purposes only.
4. The Council’s decision referred to policies in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. However, both those documents are now superceded, and I have had no further regard to them.
5. In its appeal statement letter dated 13 November 2018 the Council refers to policies in the East Herts District Plan 2018 (‘EHDP’), adopted on 23 October 2018. Copies of those policies it considered relevant were provided with the appeal questionnaire. The EHDP had been submitted for examination at the time of the Council’s decision, and its emerging policies were referred to in the delegated officer report.
6. I have therefore considered the proposal against the EHDP policies, and other material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (‘Framework’), which was referred to by both principal parties.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 285 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3209955
Main Issues
7. The main issues are:
i) The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area;
ii) Whether or not the proposal would accord with policies which generally seek to direct development to locations within villages with reasonable accessibility to services and amenities, or where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities; and
iii) Whether or not there is a reasonable likelihood of protected species being present on the site and affected by the development.
Reasons
Character and appearance
8. The appeal site lies in the countryside, a little way beyond the edge of Westmill village. The land between the village and the site comprises predominantly fields, trees and hedgerows, with very few buildings. There is however, a small group of buildings on, and close to, the appeal site, which include a few dwellings set slightly back from Cherry Green Lane (‘lane’).
9. The structures on the site are set to the rear of most of the other nearby buildings. Collectively, their footprint covers a significant proportion of the site. However, they are generally of a limited height, and have roofs which slope down towards the field boundary to the rear, which helps assimilate them into the countryside. In their form, and their construction, they look like typical agricultural buildings, and they do not appear out of place in this countryside location. Additionally, given their siting, height, colour and form, and some intervening landscaping, they are not prominent from the lane.
10. Whilst ‘scale and ‘layout’ are reserved for future consideration, the proposed bungalows would, in all likelihood, have a combined footprint, and a mass, significantly smaller than the structures they would replace, and they could be appropriately designed to reflect the local vernacular. However, in this countryside location, set well-back from the lane, and with other buildings between them and the highway, the siting of these dwellings would appear isolated and incongruous, and at odds with the area’s prevailing character.
11. Consequently, the scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area, albeit that harm would be limited, given that existing poor quality structures would be demolished, and that views of the replacement bungalows from the lane would be limited. Nevertheless, the scheme would not constitute any of the acceptable development types listed in EHDP Policy GBR2, and it would conflict with its objective of concentrating development within existing settlements in order to maintain the countryside as a valued resource. As it would not respect the character and appearance of this rural area, it would also conflict with EHDP Policy DES4.
12. Given the context here, the proposed bungalows would appear physically isolated and remote from a settlement. As the scheme would not address any of the listed circumstances at Framework paragraph 79 where isolated homes in the countryside may be acceptable, it would also conflict with that policy.
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning286 -inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3209955
Accessibility
13. The lane leading to Westmill is narrow, unlit and without footpaths, and the village offers a very limited range of services and facilities. Consequently, occupants of the proposed bungalows would be likely to travel by car to larger settlements, to meet many of their day to day needs. That could include Buntingford, which is approximately two miles away, but it appears to me likely that residents would regularly travel to more distant settlements. Whilst in rural areas accessibility to services and facilities is often limited, given this scheme’s context, its accessibility to services would be significantly worse than from housing in nearby villages.
14. Framework paragraph 84 recognises that to meet local business and community needs in rural areas sites may have to be found beyond existing settlements and in locations that are not well served by public transport. However, it also sets out at paragraph 78 that, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, and that development in one village may support services in a village nearby. As this proposal is for housing on a site which is not within a village, and given its context, it would not comply with that approach.
Protected species
15. The Council maintains that barns on the site could house protected species, particularly bats and their roosts. For their part, the appellants state that there is no evidence of protected species, but that the scheme would include bat and bird boxes, and measures to encourage hedgehogs.
16. However, Circular 06/2005 (‘the Circular’) states that the presence of protected species is a material consideration when a proposal is being considered which would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. It goes on to say that it ‘…is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision’.
17. This scheme was not accompanied by an ecological survey, and neither principal party has provided evidence to back-up their respective position. However, the structures on the site have many openings, and given their countryside location, on the basis of the very limited evidence before me, I consider that there is a reasonable likelihood of bats, and possibly other protected species, being present, and being impacted by the proposed development. Consequently, the scheme would conflict with the precautionary approach in EHDP Policy NE3 and the Circular.
Other matters
18. The site’s existing structures are described by the appellants as disused, or used only sporadically for agricultural storage. However, I have no cogent evidence to support their assertion that there is no realistic possibility of them ever being used for agricultural purposes again. Moreover, whilst the appellants state that other uses for the site have been thoroughly investigated, and that local residents were generally opposed to any intensification of traffic, I have very few details of that.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 287 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3209955
19. As I have no cogent evidence that an agricultural use here is no longer needed or viable, or that improvements to the premises would not make employment generating uses viable, the scheme would conflict with EHDP Policy ED2. However, that policy sets out that its objective is to support sustainable economic growth in rural areas and to prevent the loss of vital sources of employment. Other that citing Policy ED2, the Council’s evidence does not address this issue.
20. As the existing buildings are in a poor condition, and the site does not appear to provide any meaningful economic activity or employment, there would not be a significant conflict with the thrust of that policy. Additionally, I have very little evidence regarding the need for employment-generating uses here, and I consequently give this matter very little weight.
21. Whilst the access would be shared with other traffic, I have no persuasive evidence that the arrangement would be unsafe. The limited traffic associated with this modest scheme would not result in severe impacts on the highway, or a significant detrimental effect on the character of the local environment. The Highway Authority raised no objection, and the delegated officer report states that there are no objections regarding access. The scheme would not therefore conflict with EHDP Policy TRA2.
22. I have considered the appellants’ and their families’ physical and medical needs, and their understandable objective to live near each other, and to provide mutual help as they get older. However, I have not been presented with a mechanism by which occupancy of the bungalows would be restricted to the appellants, or evidence to demonstrate that this scheme is the only way in which their objective could be achieved. Moreover, the harm that I have identified would be likely to persist long beyond those needs.
23. I have no persuasive evidence that rain falling onto the existing panelled roofs causes significant noise disturbance. Whilst there is new housing around Buntingford, I have few details of that, and it does not change my conclusions regarding the harm that would be caused here. As these buildings have an agricultural use, the site is not previously developed land.
24. Permitted development rights apply to the change of use of agricultural buildings to dwellings. However, such rights come with various restrictions, and are subject to a prior approval process. Whilst I acknowledge the government’s general approach with regards the conversion of buildings in the countryside, I have no such scheme before me here, and in their Design and Access Statement the appellants set out that these buildings are not suitable for conversion.
25. The scheme would however make an efficient use of an under-utilised site to deliver two bungalows. It would make a small contribution to the Framework’s objective of boosting the supply of homes. Those homes could include various sustainable technologies. These are limited benefits in its favour.
26. There were representations in favour of the proposal, as well as some against. However, I have considered the scheme on its merits against planning policies.
Planning Balance and Conclusion
27. Summing up, given the scheme’s location, the occupants would have poor access to services, facilities and amenities, and the bungalows would appear
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning288 -inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3209955
visually isolated, thus causing limited harm to the character and appearance of the area. Additionally, I am not satisfied from the available evidence that protected species would not be adversely impacted by the proposal.
28. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (‘PSED’) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. However, whilst the appellants and family include persons who share a protected characteristic it is not clear that this scheme is the only way in which their needs could be addressed. Additionally, applying the equality principles set in the Act, even if both bungalows are required by the appellants, given the precautionary approach to protected species set out in the Circular, this does not change my overall conclusion.
29. The scheme’s limited benefits do not outweigh the totality of the harm that I have found it would cause. It would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole, and it is not sustainable development as defined by the Framework. Consequently, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Chris Couper
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Page 289
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2018
by Andrew Owen BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3202578 The Old Orchard, Old Hertingfordbury Road, Hertingfordbury SG14 2LA The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Victor & Miss Tamar Garber against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. The application Ref 3/18/0165/OUT, dated 25 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 16 April 2018. The development proposed is construction of 4 bedroom detached house.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural matters
2. The application was submitted in outline form with matters of access to be considered at this stage, but all other matters reserved for later consideration. I have determined the appeal on the same basis so give little weight to the drawings showing illustrative floor plans, elevations and siting of the dwelling.
3. Since the time of the Council’s decision, the East Herts District Plan (the ‘District Plan’) has been adopted and supersedes the East Herts Local Plan Second Review (the ‘Local Plan’). As such policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the Local Plan referred to in the decision letter no longer have any effect. I have been provided with copies of policies DES3, DES4 and TRA2 of the District Plan and have considered the proposal against these policies.
Main Issue
4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including protected trees.
Reasons
5. The site comprises a portion of the undeveloped woodland bank between Old Hertingfordbury Road and Ladywood Road. The area is covered by a tree preservation order and in my view it forms part of the valuable vegetative buffer between the busy A414 and the houses at the western end of Hertford.
6. Though the precise siting and scale of the proposed dwelling are reserved matters, it is inevitable that wherever on the site a four bedroom house would be located, it would involve the removal of a number of the protected trees. The appellant suggests nine trees would be removed if the dwelling were built as shown on the illustrative plan. Though this number corresponds with the
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning290 -inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3202578
submitted Arboricultural Implications Assessment, the Arboricultural Implications Plan shows seven trees would be removed. A further discrepancy is that the Assessment fails to recognise the removal of T88 which is identified as a 14 metre high, category B, field maple and is located in the same part of the site as the dwelling in the illustrative plans.
7. Notwithstanding T88, trees T77, T79, T89 are all are identified for removal. These are tall, mature trees which appear prominently from the footpath to the east of the site, from the properties to the north, and from the parking area between Nos 139 – 142 and Nos 143 – 146 Ladywood Road. The tree survey identifies these as all having over 20 years remaining life expectancy and classes them as category B trees.
8. I recognise the appellant’s offer to plant four new trees, but this area is already well populated with short trees, and new ones may struggle to compete with the mores established trees. Moreover it would take many years for the new trees to be comparable replacements for the mature trees lost.
9. In summary, it is inevitable that a four bedroom dwelling on this site would involve the removal of protected trees, and most likely those identified on the Arboricultural Implications Plan. These trees contribute considerably to the important landscape buffer on this bank and therefore their removal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal would conflict with policies DES3, which aims to ensure proposals protect existing landscaping features, and DES4 which expects development to respect the character of the site and its surroundings.
10. I find no conflict with policy TRA2 which requires proposals to provide safe and suitable access, as the proposed access would appear to be satisfactory. Indeed no objection is raised by the Council in this regard. Nonetheless, this does not outweigh the harm identified above.
Other matters
11. The appellant refers to criminal activities taking place on the site. However, aside from some litter on the site, I saw no evidence of this. In any case, as the site forms just a small part of the longer embankment I would anticipate that if any such activity does currently occur on the site, the development would merely result in it relocating elsewhere along the bank.
12. I understand that the site was put forward as part of the Council’s 2009 call for sites and that it was identified as being suitable for one dwelling in 6 – 10 years. However I have not been provided with any document showing site allocations which would substantiate this, so can give it little weight.
13. It is not disputed that the site is sustainable in terms of its proximity to services and facilities, but this would be expected of all development and does not carry significant positive weight in my considerations.
Conclusion
14. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all other considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew Owen INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 291
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2018
by Andrew Owen BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3208328 Land adjacent to Tudor Manor, White Stubbs Lane, Bayford SG13 8QA The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr James Wedge against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. The application Ref 3/18/0251/FUL, dated 2 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 27 March 2018. The development proposed is demolition of annexe, stables, storage and garage buildings, construction of new house with associated landscaping.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural matter
2. Since the time of the Council’s decision, the East Herts District Plan (the ‘District Plan’) has been adopted and supersedes the East Herts Local Plan Second Review (the ‘Local Plan’). As such policy GBC1 of the Local Plan referred to in the decision notice no longer has any effect. I have been provided with copies of policies INT1, GBR1, DES3, DES4, TRA1, TRA2, TRA3, NE1 and NE3 of the District Plan, though it is policies GBR1, TRA1 and DES4 which appear particularly relevant to the main issues identified below and so I have primarily determined the proposal against these policies.
Main Issues
3. The main issues are: whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and development plan policy; the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; whether this development would be suitably located having regard to local and national policy; the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and if the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning292 -inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3208328
Reasons
4. Paragraph 145 of the Framework states that new buildings are inappropriate in the Green Belt unless they fall within the given list of exceptions. One exception is the replacement of a building provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. Policy GBR1 refers directly to the Framework so is consistent with it.
5. The proposal involves the demolition of four buildings ancillary to the main dwelling at Tudor Manor. The appellant has provided detailed calculations of the floor area and volume of these buildings and states that the proposed dwelling would represent a 7% reduction in volume and a 49% reduction in footprint compared with those buildings to be demolished. This is not disputed by the Council. On the basis of these figures the development would clearly not be materially larger that the buildings it replaces.
6. However, an assessment of whether a building is materially larger can also include matters of height and visual perception as well as floor area and volume. In this case, three of the four buildings to be removed are single storey and the fourth, and largest, is one and a half storeys. The proposed dwelling would be two-storey with dormers at roof level and therefore effectively a storey taller than the largest existing building. This would also give it a greater visual bulk.
7. So, though smaller in volume and footprint, due to its greater height, I consider the proposed building would, overall, appear to be materially larger than all the various buildings to be removed combined. As such the proposal would not fall within the above exception listed in paragraph 145 and so would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.
Openness
8. Spatially there would be no impact on openness as the figures show that more of the site would become undeveloped as a result of the proposal. However there is a visual aspect to openness, and the greater height of the proposal compared to the buildings to be demolished, plus its prominent position alongside the main house and almost directly in line with the access, means it would have a greater visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt when seen from the road albeit, due to landscaping on the front boundary, the impact would not be severe. My view is not inconsistent with the appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which concludes that the impact on the Green Belt would not be significant. Nonetheless, there would be some harm to openness and this harm is in addition to its inappropriateness. I recognise that additional landscaping may be provided, but this could not be relied upon in the long term, to wholly obscure views of the building.
9. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Development should not be approved unless the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I therefore need to consider whether any other harm is caused by the development and then balance the other considerations against the totality of that harm.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 293 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3208328
Location
10. There are a few houses and businesses located along White Stubbs Lane in the vicinity of the site. However I do not consider they are sufficiently numerous or concentrated such that they form a settlement. In addition the site is significantly detached from Bayford and Little Berkhamsted and could not be considered part of those settlements. Consequently, whilst I note the presence of dwellings to either side of Tudor Manor, I nonetheless consider that the site is isolated.
11. I accept that in rural areas access to services and facilities should not be expected to be comparable to that of more urban environments. Nonetheless, I do not consider the closest services or facilities are within a distance of the site that makes them readily accessible by sustainable modes of transport. As such I consider any benefit to those rural communities resulting from the proposal would be limited.
12. As a result the proposal would be isolated, would not enable sustainable journeys to be made, and would fail to support the vitality of rural communities. It therefore would conflict with policy TRA1 which promotes sustainable transport, and would be inconsistent with chapter 5 of the Framework1 which identifies that housing in rural areas should maintain or enhance the vitality of rural communities and should not be isolated.
Character and appearance
13. The area is generally characterised by detached dwellings in verdant and spacious rural surroundings. The development would be positioned roughly equidistant between the existing dwelling at Tudor Manor and the gatehouse and it would maintain significant gaps between those buildings. This would afford it its own spacious surroundings. Furthermore by being set significantly back from the road, alongside Tudor Manor, it would not appear incongruous in its setting. Its impact on the wider landscape would be minimal, as concluded in the appellant’s LVIA, though this is different from its impact on openness.
14. Overall, I do not consider the dwelling would harm the rural character and appearance of the area. Consequently it would accord with policy DES4 which requires development to have regard to its context.
Other considerations
15. It has been suggested the gatehouse is a separate dwelling from Tudor Manor but that the proposal would involve this separate use ceasing. However if this building does has a lawful use as a separate dwelling, my decision could not enforce this cessation. As such the proposal would represent one additional dwelling.
16. Furthermore though I recognise the appellant’s offer to have the permitted development rights for this gatehouse removed, this would not affect the impact on the openness Green Belt resulting from the height of the proposal.
17. The design of the proposed house is impressive. However I do not consider the buildings to be removed are unattractive, and therefore any aesthetic benefit would be limited.
1 which updates chapter 6 in the previous version of the Framework referred to in the Council’s decision notice
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning294 -inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3208328
Planning Balance and Overall Conclusion
18. I consider that the development causes harm to the Green Belt by way of its inappropriateness and to its openness, and substantial weight should be given to these harms. It also would constitute isolated development which fails to support sustainable modes of transport or the vitality of nearby communities. Its lack of harm to the character and appearance of the area carries neutral weight.
19. I conclude that the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harms and therefore there are no very special circumstances to justify the development. Consequently, the development conflicts with the Framework and policy GBR1 which aims to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
20. Therefore, for the reasons given above, and taking account of all other considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew Owen
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Page 295
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 January 2019
by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 February 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3205669 Southacre, Acremore Street, Bury Green, Little Hadham SG11 2HD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr David Fuller against the decision of East Herts Council. • The application Ref 3/18/0403/OUT, dated 22 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 23 April 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a detached dwelling.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for the erection of a detached dwelling at Southacre, Acremore Street, Bury Green, Little Hadham SG11 2HD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/18/0403/OUT, dated 22 February 2018, subject to the conditions on the attached schedule
Procedural Matters
2. On the application form the property is cited as ‘Acremore’. However, in an email dated 7 January 2019 the appellant states that it is actually called ‘Southacre’, and that ‘Acremore’ is the neighbouring property. As the address on the application form is misleading, I have referred to the site as Southacre in my decision.
3. The application was made in outline, with all matters other than access reserved for subsequent approval. I have dealt with the scheme on that basis and, other than the access arrangements, I have treated the proposed site layout plan as indicative only.
4. The Council’s decision referred to policies in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007, and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. However, both those documents are now superceded, and I have had no further regard to them.
5. During the appeal process both main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the adopted East Herts District Plan 2018 (‘EHDP’), and the new National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’). It is the policies in those documents that I have considered in my decision, with particular regard to the policies cited in the Council’s email dated 24 January 2019, which it states replaced those in its decision.
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning296 -inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3205669
Main Issues
6. The main issues are:
• Whether or not the proposal would accord with policies which generally seek to direct development to locations within villages with reasonable accessibility to services and amenities;
• The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and
• Whether the proposal would result in the loss of a significant employment use.
Reasons
Accessibility
7. The site lies in the countryside, a little distance from the nearest villages of Bury Green and Little Hadham, the latter being identified in the EHDP as a larger Group 2 Village with more services. Both villages are reached via Acremore Street, which is a narrow, unlit, without footpaths, and without public transport. Consequently, I do not consider that the site is located with easy access to services and facilities, other than by car.
8. However, there is a large building on the appeal site which is permitted for B1 and B8 commercial uses. The appellant states that the proposed dwelling would be erected in place of that commercial building, and that is what is shown on the drawings. He continues that he currently travels by car to work at the site, and that, if the appeal were allowed, he would live there, and work from home.
9. For my part, I consider that, whoever were to occupy the dwelling, they would, in all likelihood, be largely reliant on private vehicles to get to and from the site. However, that could be said equally of any employees or visitors to the commercial use.
10. Consequently, with regards the site’s accessibility to services and facilities, whilst there would be a slight conflict with the Framework, including its requirement to manage patterns of growth to promote walking, cycling and public transport, the scheme would be very small scale and it would not result in significant harm. As EHDP Policy GBR2 seeks to protect the countryside as a valued resource, and as its part (d), which addresses replacement buildings, does not refer to the sustainability of the location, on this issue there would be no conflict with that policy.
Character and appearance
11. According to the appellant’s calculations, the building on the site measures approximately 23 x 14 metres. It is certainly a substantial structure, which is of a rather crude and eclectic construction, finished in a mix of materials including blockwork, timber and sheeting. Although not untypical of some former agricultural buildings, in this location close to other dwellings, some of which are listed buildings, it detracts from the area’s character.
12. As the application was made in outline, I have no details of the proposed dwelling’s scale, layout and appearance. However, subject to the consideration
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 297 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3205669
of those matters at reserved matters stage, a dwelling on this site would respect the general arrangement and character of its surroundings. That dwelling could be constructed in materials, and of a form, appropriate to its context, and would be likely to result in a significantly reduced quantum of built development compared to the building it would replace.
13. EHDP Policy GBR2 permits various forms of development, provided that they are compatible with the character and appearance of the rural area. That includes the replacement, extension or alteration of a building, providing that its size, scale, mass, form, siting, design and materials are appropriate to the site and its surroundings. Subject to detailed consideration at reserved matters stage, the scheme would not conflict with that policy.
14. Whilst the site sits amongst a very small scattering of buildings, the scheme would result in an isolated dwelling in the open countryside, contrary to Framework paragraph 79. However, for the above reasons, rather than causing harm, this scheme involving the replacement of an unsightly building, would significantly enhance the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.
Employment uses
15. EHDP Policy ED2 seeks to prevent the loss of vital sources of rural employment, and sets out that where a proposal would result in the loss of an employment generating use, justification will be required.
16. I understand that the appellant runs his business from the site, but that he is the only person working there. I do not have detailed evidence, such as marketing, to demonstrate that a commercial use here is not needed or viable. However, a letter from the Chartered Surveyor at Sworders dated 15 February 2018 concludes that, in their experience of letting commercial property, there is a lack of demand for isolated rural properties such as this, given their constraints, such as poor access.
17. I observed that Acremore Street is single-track, narrow, sinuous, and in a poor condition. Little Hadham Parish Council reports that it is permanently covered by running water. Given those characteristics, and the site’s relatively isolated location, I consider that the existing building would be unlikely to generate significant interest from other B1 or B8 uses.
18. Consequently, from the available evidence, I am not persuaded that the scheme would result in the loss of a significant employment site. I therefore conclude on this issue that, whilst there would be a conflict with EHDP Policy ED2, it would be very limited.
Other matters
19. There are Grade II listed buildings to the north and east of the site. However, given that the scheme would involve the demolition of an existing commercial building, and having regard to the distance to those buildings, intervening landscaping and other features, I agree with the Council that their settings would be preserved.
20. Having regard to the condition and configuration of Acremore Street, and the site’s commercial use, I am not persuaded that, even if there would be a slight net increase in traffic as a result of this single dwelling, that would result in
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning298 -inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3205669
significant harm to highway safety. My conclusion on this matter is supported by the absence of an objection from Hertfordshire County Council as Highways Authority.
21. The appellant’s statement refers to the Council’s inability to demonstrate a five year housing land supply as required by the Framework, although it acknowledged that that could change upon adoption of the EHDP. The Council maintains that it can demonstrate such a supply. That position was not challenged by the appellant in his letter dated 4 February 2019. On the basis of the available evidence, I accept that the Council has the required housing land supply, and I have not considered the proposal against Framework paragraph 11 d).
22. In its favour, the scheme would make use of previously developed land, enhance the character and appearance of the area, and would contribute to the supply of housing. Those are significant benefits, which find support from the Framework. There would also be economic benefits during construction, and social and economic benefits from the occupants’ use of services and facilities in nearby villages.
23. The appellant states that the existing building could be converted to a dwelling under Class P of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, subject to the prior approval procedure. Whilst I have no details of any such scheme before me, given that this appeal has been made, and that the appellant states that he intends to live on the site and continue to run his business from it, I have no persuasive reason to doubt that that is what the appellant would seek to do, should the appeal be dismissed. That would involve the retention of a large building which I have found to be harmful to the area’s character, and is a fallback to which I give some limited weight.
24. Finally, I have dealt with this scheme on its planning merits; the appellant states that he is the owner of the land, and any ownership disputes are a civil matter.
Conditions and conclusion
25. Summing up, policies in the development plan and the Framework weigh both in favour and against the scheme. I have found that whilst the proposed dwelling would not be accessibly located other than by private vehicle, that could be said equally of the existing commercial use.
26. In providing a new dwelling on previously developed land, and in enhancing the character of the area, the scheme would contribute to the social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development as defined at paragraph 8 of the Framework. Although there would be a loss of employment land, I am not persuaded that that would be significant, and there would be some economic benefits from the dwelling’s construction and from its use. Finally, there is the prospect of the appellant implementing the fallback position.
27. The conflict with the development plan would be very limited. Having regard to all material considerations, and considered as a whole, the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the very modest harm that I have found it would cause, and it would accord with the general thrust of EHDP Policy INT1. Consequently, the appeal will be allowed.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Page 299 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3205669
28. The Council proposed a number of conditions, which I have considered against the relevant tests in the Framework, making amendments where necessary to improve precision, clarity and enforceability. I have imposed the standard time limit conditions for an outline permission, and, in the interests of certainty, a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, but only insofar as the details of access are concerned. As limited details of car parking and turning facilities have been provided, a condition requiring further details to be submitted is necessary in the interests of highway safety.
29. Given that the site is in commercial use, and in the interests of pollution prevention and ensuring appropriate living conditions, my pre-commencement condition no. 6, which has been agreed by the appellant, is necessary, and which requires the submission of a contamination survey and the implementation of appropriate remediation.
30. In the interests of protecting nearby residents from noise during demolition and construction, and to protect future occupants of the proposed dwelling from adjacent uses, my condition nos. 7 and 8 are necessary.
31. The Council’s suggested conditions requiring the submission of sample materials, and the submission and implementation of landscaping, are unnecessary as those are matters that would be addressed at reserved matters stage.
32. The application was made, and the appeal has been allowed, on the basis that the existing building on the site would be demolished. To ensure that that would occur, and following consultation with both main parties, I have imposed my condition no. 9.
33. Finally, Hertfordshire County Council as Fire Authority has requested that a fire hydrant be provided by means of a planning obligation, although it acknowledges that if adequate hydrants are already available, no extra ones will be needed. No obligation is before me, and as I have limited information to assess this matter, including whether a hydrant is required, I cannot conclude that an obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable.
34. Subject to the conditions on the attached schedule, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. Chris Couper
INSPECTOR
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning300 -inspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3205669
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than 3 years from the date of this permission. 3) The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 4) In so far as the details of access are concerned, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. 217231 DWG 004 Rev A. 5) Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, a vehicle car parking and a vehicular turning area shall be provided in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and shall be retained for those purposes thereafter. 6) The development hereby permitted shall not begin until a scheme to deal with contamination of land and/or groundwater has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA, and until the measures approved in that scheme have been fully implemented. The scheme shall include all of the following measures unless the LPA dispenses with any such requirement specifically and in writing: 1. A desk-top study carried out by a competent person to identify and evaluate all potential sources and impacts of land and/or groundwater contamination relevant to the site. 2. A site investigation shall be carried out by a competent person to fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of any land and/or groundwater contamination and its implications. The site investigation shall not be commenced until (i) A desk-top study has been completed satisfying the requirements of paragraph (1) above; (ii) The requirements of the LPA for site investigations have been fully established; and (iii) The extent and methodology have been agreed in writing with the LPA. Copies of a report on the completed site investigation shall be submitted to the LPA on completion. 3. A written method statement for the remediation of land and/or groundwater contamination affecting the site shall be agreed in writing with the LPA prior to commencement and all requirements shall be implemented and completed to the satisfaction of the LPA by a competent person. No deviation shall be made from this scheme without the express written agreement of the LPA. 7) Prior to the erection of the dwelling hereby approved, a scheme shall be submitted for the protection of the occupants of that dwelling from noise from adjacent uses for written approval by the Local Planning Authority. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the scheme has been implemented in accordance with the approved details. The approved scheme shall be retained in accordance with those details thereafter.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6 Page 301 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3205669
8) In connection with all site demolition, site preparation and construction works, no plant or machinery shall be operated on the premises outside the hours of 0730hrs to 1830hrs on Mondays to Fridays, and 0730hrs to 1300hrs on Saturdays. There shall not be any such work at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. 9) Prior to works commencing on the dwelling hereby approved, the existing building on the site, as identified on drawings 217231 DWG 001 Rev A and 217231 DWG 002 Rev A, shall be fully demolished and any materials not used in the development permitted shall be removed from the site. ------
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning302 -inspectorate 7
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2018 by Andrew Owen BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3207306 Beechview, 14 Amwell Lane, Stanstead Abbotts SG12 8DX The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a grant of planning permission subject to conditions. The appeal is made by Mr David Sorrentino against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. The application Ref 3/18/0416/HH, dated 13 February 2018, was approved on 17 April 2018 and planning permission was granted subject to conditions. The development permitted is erection of one and a half storey double garage with storage and study above. The condition in dispute is No 4 which states that: “The proposed rooflights upon the rear (south western elevation) of the building hereby approved shall be fitted with obscured glass and fixed shut, and shall be permanently retained in that condition.” The reason given for the condition is: “To safeguard the privacy of occupiers of the adjoining property, in accordance with policies ENV1 and ENV5 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.”
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 3/18/0416/HH for erection of one and a half storey double garage with storage and study above at Beechview, 14 Amwell Lane, Stanstead Abbotts SG12 8DX granted on 17 April 2018 by East Hertfordshire District Council, is varied by deleting condition 4.
Application for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mr David Sorrentino against East Hertfordshire District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Procedural matter
3. Since the time of the Council’s decision, the East Herts District Plan (the ‘District Plan’) has been adopted and supersedes the East Herts Local Plan Second Review (the ‘Local Plan’). As such policies ENV1 and ENV5 of the Local Plan referred to in the reasons for the condition no longer have any effect. I have been provided with copies of policies HOU11, DES4 and WAT1 of the District Plan, though it is policies HOU11 and DES4 which appear particularly relevant to the main issue identified below and so I have primarily determined the proposal against these policies.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 303 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3207306
Main Issue
4. The main issue is the effect of removing condition 4 on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with respect to their privacy.
Reasons
5. The double garage subject of the extant planning permission would be positioned at the end of the back garden. It would face out towards an access track which runs along the rear of the properties on Amwell Lane. The rear, south-west, facing rooflights would therefore point towards the main house and generally towards the rear of the other neighbouring houses fronting Amwell Road. It is not disputed between the main parties that the bottom edge of the rooflights would be 1.5 metres above the floor level of the room above the garage, and hence would be below most people’s eye level.
6. The adjacent property at No 16 has a number of trees in its garden along the boundary with the appeal site. These are of a size and height that would prevent any significant views from the development into the garden at No 16, or the properties on Woodham Way perpendicular to the site, such that the privacy of the residents would be harmed.
7. The other adjacent property at No 12 is separated from the appeal site by a close boarded fence around 2 metres in height and with little else to obscure views from the development into this adjoining property. However I take into account that the two roof lights would be small, that the distance between the development and the rear conservatory at No 12 would not be short, and that the room served by the rooflights would be a study/store detached from the main house and therefore is not likely to be used as intensely as habitable rooms like bedrooms or living rooms in dwellings. Therefore any loss of privacy for the neighbouring occupiers of No 12 would be limited.
8. Moreover, a degree overlooking between properties is not uncharacteristic in this area and I noted dormer windows at 9 Woodham Way, and rooflights at 5 and 7 Woodham Way, which all very closely face 16 Amwell Lane. There is also a large outbuilding at 4 Amwell Lane which has two rooflights facing towards No 6. Indeed there is even the opportunity for overlooking to properties near the appeal site from passengers waiting on the platform of St Margarets station and from the 3-storey flats on the other side of the railway line, albeit at a greater distance.
9. I note the concerns of neighbours regarding the intended use of the development. However condition 6 of the planning permission restricts its use solely to purposes ancillary to the residential use of No 14 and I have no reason to consider any such ancillary uses would be unacceptable. Also though the building would be large, I do not consider it would appear obtrusive to neighbours nor incongruous in the context of other outbuildings in nearby gardens. I acknowledge the concerns from the occupiers of No 12 with regard to the main house at No 14, but that is not a matter for me to consider in this appeal.
10. In summary, I do not consider that the removal of condition 4 would result in the privacy of the occupiers of the nearby properties being significantly affected and therefore their living conditions would not be unacceptably harmed. Therefore without condition 4 in place, the development would remain to
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning304 -inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3207306
accord with policies DES4, which seeks to avoid significant detrimental impacts on the occupiers of neighbouring properties, and HOU11 which aims to ensure development is appropriate to the character of the surrounding area.
Conclusion
11. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all other considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and I vary the planning permission by removing condition 4. Andrew Owen INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 305
Costs Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2018
by Andrew Owen BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 January 2019
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3207309 Beechview, 14 Amwell Lane, Stanstead Abbotts SG12 8DX The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). The application is made by Mr David Sorrentino for a full award of costs against East Hertfordshire District Council. The appeal was against the grant subject to conditions of planning permission for erection of one and a half storey double garage with storage and study above.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary expense in the appeal process. It goes onto state that local planning authorities are at risk of an award of costs if they behave unreasonably with respect to the substance of the matter under appeal.
3. In his appeal statement the appellant draws attention to windows at other nearby properties, particularly No 12, which he feels affect his privacy and so suggests inconsistency on the Council’s part in imposing the disputed condition on the planning permission. Though failing to determine cases in a consistent manner can give rise to an award of costs, I have little information on these other examples, including if they required planning permission. Moreover, the windows at No 12 are on the main house which is a different form of development to the proposal. Therefore I cannot consider that the other examples are directly comparable such that the inclusion of the condition represented inconsistency on behalf of the Council.
4. As such, notwithstanding the fact that I consider the condition is not necessary, it has not been demonstrated that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense on behalf of the applicant, as described in the PPG, has occurred. Consequently the application for an award of costs is refused. Andrew Owen
INSPECTOR
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning306 -inspectorate
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2018 by Andrew Owen BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3205962 8 Warren Park Road, Hertford SG14 3JA The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Easter against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. The application Ref 3/18/0478/FUL, dated 3 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 10 May 2018. The development proposed was originally described as demolition of existing dwelling and outbuilding with creation of 2 new dwelling houses and shared car port.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary matters
2. Since the time of the Council’s decision, the East Herts District Plan (the ‘District Plan’) has been adopted and supersedes the East Herts Local Plan Second Review (the ‘Local Plan’). As such policies ENV1, HSG7 and BH6 of the Local Plan referred to in the decision letter no longer carry any weight. I have been provided with copies of policies INT1, HERT1, HOU7, DES3, DES4, TRA1, TRA2, TRA3, HA1 and HA4 of the District Plan, though DES4, HA1 and HA4 appear particularly relevant to the main issues identified below and so I have primarily determined the proposal against these policies.
3. The appellant’s statement says that they wish to remove the car port from the proposal. I consider no parties would be prejudiced by this step and so I have considered the proposal on that basis.
Main Issues
4. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Hertford Conservation Area (HCA) and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining properties with respect to their privacy, outlook and light.
Reasons
Character and appearance
5. The HCA covers a large part of the town including its commercial centre and some of its residential suburbs. The appeal site is located in a part of the HCA which is largely characterised by substantial, detached houses in spacious https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 307 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3205962
plots. The grand houses at Beech House, York House and Hartham House and the building comprising Bengeo Grange and Tunley, all to the east of the site, are particularly striking albeit different in their detailed design. Nos 3, 5 and 7 opposite the site are more modest in their scale but still appear as sizeable detached dwellings sitting comfortably on their plots. No 6, to the west, is a rare example of a much smaller single storey property on a small plot but has the appearance of being associated with the adjacent Duncombe School as it shares its access with that of a car park at the school.
6. The existing dwelling at the site, in the context of its neighbours, is not attractive. Its combination of singe storey and two storey aspects and mix of materials, including some tired looking weatherboarding at first floor level on its front elevation, result in an appearance that detracts from that of its surroundings. However it is not prominent in the street scene, being set well back from the road and partially obscured by vegetation and a brick wall on the front boundary.
7. The proposed development would provide two, five bedroomed dwellings, side by side. Though their height would be broadly comparable to the adjacent dwelling at No 10, their higher eaves, use of mansard roofs and narrower width gives the houses a strong vertical emphasis. They would appear cramped on their narrow plots, and would contrast harshly with the more spacious buildings nearby, especially with No 10. Furthermore although I recognise the proposed mansard roof would have pitched elements, the incorporation of a significant amount of flat roofing in the development, such as to the side of the house at unit 2, on the front facing bay windows and at eaves level on the front and rear faces, would predominate and would provide an additional area of contrast with the surrounding houses which all have traditional pitched roofs.
8. Overall, due to their height, form and design, I consider the dwellings would jar starkly with the character and appearance of the other houses in the immediate area. I note there are houses further along Warren Park Road, which are similar in their width and plot size to the proposal. However, these are some distance from the site and are not seen in the same context. Indeed those properties lead up to the junction with New Road where the dwellings are considerably smaller and so their scale is appropriate for their location.
9. I understand planning permission was granted in 2012 for an extension to the existing dwelling which, from the plans of it before me, would have comprised substantial alterations to the appearance of the house including to its height. Though I gather the proposed houses would be only a little taller than that approved scheme, they would be considerably narrower and be on narrower plots, and so would appear far more cramped. Moreover, that planning permission was granted over 6 years ago and as it has not been suggested that it has been implemented, it is no longer extant and I give it little weight.
10. As such, although the existing dwelling does not contribute positively to the character and appearance of the HCA, the proposal’s contrast with its context means it would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the HCA. The development would therefore conflict with policies DES4, which aims to ensure development reflects local distinctiveness, HA1 which states that development should preserve the historic environment, and HA4 which requires proposals to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas.
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning308 -inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3205962
11. The harm to the significance of the HCA would be less than substantial and therefore it is necessary, in accordance with paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework, to consider any public benefits from the proposal. Though the development would provide an additional dwelling this does not outweigh the harm that the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the HCA.
Living conditions
12. Both dwellings would have large rear balconies at first floor level. The balcony at Unit 1 would be close to the boundary with No 10 which comprises a fence around 2 metres in height. Though there is a small tree and a tall hedge in the neighbouring garden along parts of the boundary, these would not wholly obscure views from the balcony over the rear garden, particularly of that part of the garden nearest the house. Therefore I consider the occupiers of No 10 would suffer an unacceptable loss of privacy. I note the offer from the appellant of a obscurely glazed panel 1.8 metres in height along the edge of the balcony, but this is not shown on the plans and it would not be appropriate to secure such a change through a planning condition as this would deprive the occupiers of No 10 from the opportunity to comment on an alteration fundamental to this issue. As such I must determine the appeal on the basis of the plans before me.
13. The balcony at Unit 2 would be a significant distance from No 10 such that I do not consider the neighbours would suffer a loss of privacy resulting from the use of this balcony. Also, though it would be close to the western boundary of the site, the adjoining land is a car park.
14. The house at Unit 2 would be around 3 metres from the rear garden of No 6. Though there is some vegetation on this boundary, the proposed dwelling would tower over the small rear garden appearing overdominant from here and most likely from within the dwelling itself, particularly its conservatory. In addition, its position to the south east of No 6 means it is likely that it would obscure direct sunlight to the property in the morning. Consequently, I consider the proposal would unacceptably harm the outlook from, and obscure light to, this property.
15. In summary the development would result in a loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 10 and would harm the outlook from, and the light received by, the dwelling at No 6. This would result in the living conditions of the occupiers of these properties being unacceptably harmed. The development would therefore fail to accord with policy DES4 which aims to ensure development does not significantly impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
16. I accept no objections were received from either adjacent neighbour. Nonetheless, I must consider the amenities for existing and future occupiers.
Conclusion
17. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all other considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew Owen INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 309
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 14 January 2019
by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DiP TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3211924 2 Middle Farm Cottages, Cottered Road, Throcking SG9 9RN The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Daniel and Lauren Snelling against the decision of East Herts Council. The application Ref 3/18/0785/FUL, dated 15 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 June 2018. The development proposed is the removal of an existing concrete garage and steel container and the building of a new dwelling on land adjacent to 2 Middle Farm Cottage.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matters
2. The Council’s decision refers to policies in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007, and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. However, both those documents are now superceded, and I have had no further regard to them.
3. In its appeal statement letter dated 20 November 2018 the Council states that in reaching its decision it had regard to emerging policies in the East Herts District Plan. It continues that the East Herts District Plan was adopted on 23 October 2018 (‘EHDP’), and that, in light of those policies, the Council would not have made a different decision on the application. Copies of those policies it considers relevant to the appeal were provided with the appeal questionnaire.
4. The emerging policies, including the alleged conflict with Policy GBR2, were clearly referenced in the delegated officer report. Whilst that policy was not cited in the Council’s reason for refusal, the appellants have had an opportunity to comment on it, and on other EHDP policies during the appeal process.
5. I have therefore considered the scheme against the EHDP policies referred to by the parties, and against the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (‘Framework’) and other material considerations.
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning310 -inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3211924
Main Issues
6. The main issues are:
i) Whether or not the proposal would accord with policies which generally seek to direct development to locations within villages with reasonable accessibility to services and amenities, or where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities; and
ii) The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Reasons
Accessibility
7. The EHDP identifies village development boundaries for Group 1 and Group 2 Villages. Those settlements not identified as either Group 1 or Group 2 Villages are labelled Group 3 Villages, where Policy VILL3 applies. These are villages with a poor range of services and facilities, where it is often necessary for residents to travel outside the village for most of their daily needs. They are therefore regarded as the least sustainable locations for development in the District, although limited infill in accordance with an adopted Neighbourhood Plan will be permitted.
8. EHDP Policy GBR2 seeks to maintain the rural area as a valued countryside resource, but permits various forms of development provided that it is compatible with the character and appearance of the rural area, including the limited infilling and redevelopment of previously developed land in sustainable locations, or rural exception housing.
9. The proposed dwelling would be sited on garden land between the semi- detached dwelling at 2 Middle Farm Cottages and the semi-detached pair at 3 and 4 Middle Farm Cottages. Just to the west of that very small group, are a range of buildings around the Bluntswood Hall wedding venue, and, after a short gap to the east, there is a small cluster of buildings around Lower Farm. However, the site is otherwise surrounded by fields and countryside, and there is a significant gap with little or no built development to the west of Bluntswood Hall before the small settlement of Throcking is reached around the Church – about 610m from the site. Consequently, whilst Throcking is a Group 3 Village to which EHDP Policy VILL3 applies, in my view, this site is not within it.
10. Cottered, a Group 2 Village, which has some facilities and services as identified on page 16 of the appellants’ statement, is roughly 2km to the west of the site. Buntingford, with its much more extensive facilities, including an hourly bus service to the nearest railway station 12km away, is about 2.4 to 3km to the east. The facilities at Walkern are about 5km from here. However, all those settlements are some distance from this site, and are generally reached via narrow and unlit lanes with no footways, and limited public transport.
11. Consequently, whilst the occupants of the proposed dwelling might work from home in common with a significant proportion of residents in this parish, they would have poor access to services and facilities, and would be highly dependent on the private car to meet their day to day shopping, social, and other needs. Whilst a condition could be imposed requiring the development to be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 311 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3211924
vehicles, that would not address the site’s poor accessibility. The scheme would therefore conflict with the overall development strategy of the EHDP, including its Policy GBR2.
12. Framework paragraph 78 sets out that, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, and that development in one village may support services in a village nearby. The National Planning Practice Guidance notes that rural housing is essential to ensure viable use of local services and community facilities. It advises that all settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable development in rural areas. However, as this site is not within a village or a settlement, the proposal would not comply with that policy and that guidance.
13. Whilst I have taken account of the different opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions between urban and rural areas, I conclude on this issue that the proposal would not be accessibly located.
Character and appearance
14. In terms of design, the proposed dwelling would respect the siting, form and materials of its neighbours either side. It would be within an existing garden, which is previously developed land, and which includes a small garage and a small steel container – both of which would be removed.
15. Nevertheless, in consolidating built development in an otherwise visually isolated countryside location, the scheme would harm the landscape and visual character of this open and prominent site, and the wider rural area. However, given my findings regarding the proposed dwelling’s design, that harm to the character and appearance of the area would be very limited. Nevertheless, as the scheme would conflict with the objective of concentrating development within existing settlements in order to maintain the countryside as a valued resource, it would not accord with EHDP Policy GBR2.
16. Whilst there is a loose scattering of buildings nearby, this dwelling would not be within, or closely associated with, a community or a settlement. It would appear physically isolated. As the scheme would not address any of the listed circumstances at Framework paragraph 79 where isolated homes in the countryside may be acceptable, it would also conflict with that policy.
Other matters
17. Whilst the Council states that there would be insufficient off-street parking for the proposed development, having regard to section 6 of the appellants’ statement and the site plan, I am satisfied that two or three cars could be parked within the site.
18. Despite the appellants’ intention to undertake additional native planting, I have no detailed evidence to conclude that the scheme would significantly enhance biodiversity.
19. This single dwelling would provide good living conditions for its occupants, and its design and construction would take account of Lifetime Homes requirements, and would incorporate sustainable technologies and practices. It could be swiftly delivered, and thus make a very small contribution to the
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning312 -inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3211924
supply of housing, on previously developed land, in accordance with the Framework.
20. The provision of a three bedroom family home would address an identified need in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, and could help re-balance the rather aged population structure in this parish. There would be limited and general economic benefits through, for instance, additional Council Tax receipts, New Homes Bonus payment, financial expenditure and employment. Those are modest benefits in the scheme’s favour.
21. The Council states that it can demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by the Framework. I have no cogent evidence to the contrary. Consequently, I do not consider the relevant development plan policies to be out-of-date, and Framework paragraph 11d) does not apply.
22. Finally, whilst I do not have full details of the appeal decisions elsewhere referred to by the appellants, from the available evidence, many of those sites are within a settlement, or the Council could not at that time demonstrate a five year housing supply. Consequently, there are significant material differences compared to the circumstances here. According to the officer report, the site at Stocking Pelham referred to in the appellants’ final comments is also within a village.
Planning Balance and Conclusion
23. Summing up, given this site’s location and context, it is not within a village, and the occupants of the proposed dwelling would have very poor access to services and amenities. I am not persuaded that they would significantly contribute to the vitality of Throcking, or other villages and rural communities in the area.
24. Additionally, whilst the scheme’s detailed design would respect its immediate neighbours, it would appear visually isolated, thus causing limited harm to the character and appearance of the area. As this development would not be in the right place, it would not fully satisfy the social, environmental and economic objectives of sustainable development as defined at paragraph 8 of the Framework.
25. The scheme’s modest benefits do not outweigh the harm that I have found it would cause. I have had regard to representations both in favour and opposed to the scheme, and note that there was no objection from Cottered and Throcking Parish Council. However, having considered the scheme on its planning merits, it would conflict with the development plan and, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is therefore dismissed. Chris Couper
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Page 313
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 January 2019
by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 22nd February 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/Z/18/3208972 Bus shelter at Stop N, O/S Charrington House, Link Road, Bishops Stortford, CM23 2JW • The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 against a refusal to grant express consent. • The appeal is made by Ms Anita Martin, Clear Channel UK Ltd, against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref 3/18/0814/ADV, dated 9 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 June 2018. • The advertisement proposed is a replacement of existing double sided paper advertising unit with a double sided digital advertising unit.
Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and express consent for the display of the advertisement as applied for is granted. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the following additional condition:- 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Site location plan, Dwg No 204173 Rev C
Main Issue
2. There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed advertising panels on the character and appearance of Link Road and the surrounding area, including the Bishops Stortford Conservation Area (CA).
Procedural matter
3. The application form refers to the appeal site as being outside Charmingtons House and in the town of Hertford. However, it is clear from the evidence, including my site visit that the building is known as Charrington House and the site is in Bishops Stortford. I have used the correct name throughout my decision.
4. The Council has referred in its decision notice to Policy BH15 which relates to advertisements in conservation areas. This has been superceded by Policy HA6 of the East Herts District Plan, October 2018, which was adopted by the Council on 23 October 2018. I have therefore had regard to Policy HA6 in place of the earlier policy.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Page 314 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/Z/18/3208972
Reasons
5. The Regulations require that decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety. This is reiterated in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council’s policy alone cannot be decisive, but I have taken it into account as a material planning consideration. The NPPF makes clear that advertisement control should be efficient, effective and simple in concept and operation. Only those advertisements which will clearly have an appreciable impact on a building or on their surroundings should be subject to local authority’s detailed assessment.
6. The appeal site is situated on the western side of Link Road, a busy modern street which appears to provide a bypass for the nearby town centre. The highway is illuminated by tall, street lights. The bus shelter stands adjacent to a large modern office building and a short distance from a surface car park. To the south, the modern Jackson Square shopping centre building is prominent in the street scene.
7. Link Road is not identified in the Bishops Stortford Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, adopted in December 2014, as making a positive contribution to the conservation area and although trees and verges soften its appearance I would agree that it is neutral in this regard. To the east of Link Road lie the Castle Gardens and Waytemore Castle, a Scheduled Ancient Monument. These are important heritage assets. However, they are sufficiently well separated from the appeal site for it to have any material effect on their character, appearance or historic significance.
8. Owing to its busy, urban character, the proposed advertising panels, which would be modest in size and form an integral part of a bus shelter, would not appear out of place on Link Road. Although they would be digital and internally illuminated, this would not necessarily make them brighter or more prominent in the street scene than the existing display which is also internally illuminated. Rather, it would modernise the technology and appearance and that would not be out of place in this essentially modern setting. Given the proximity of Link Road to the town centre, a car park and large shops, including a supermarket, it is likely to be busy and well lit after dark. The LED lighting would not therefore be out of place or have a materially detrimental effect on the area.
9. It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed advertising panels would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or appearance of Link Road and the surrounding area and would preserve the character and appearance of the Bishops Stortford CA. In consequence, their effect on visual amenity would be acceptable.
10. In addition to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations, the Council suggests a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. I agree that for the avoidance of doubt this is necessary and reasonable.
11.For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the representations of the Town Council, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
K E Down INSPECTOR
2 Page 315
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2018
by Andrew Owen BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14th January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3206385 Lodge Farm, Epping Green, Hertford SG13 8NQ The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. The appeal is made by Mr Lord against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. The application Ref 3/18/0897/VAR, dated 18 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 25 June 2018. The application sought planning permission for change of use and conversion of 2 No. barns to a total of 5 No. holiday lets including demolition of lean-to, erection of single storey rear extension and alterations to fenestration, and insertion of new doors and windows to both barns without complying with conditions attached to planning permission Ref 3/17/2456/FUL, dated 28 March 2018. The conditions in dispute are Nos 2 and 4 which state that: “2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no building, structure or other alteration permitted by Classes A, B, D, E and F of Part 1 and Classes A and B of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be erected or constructed on the application site.” “4. This permission relates solely to the use of the premises hereby approved for short- let holiday residential use. The property shall not be occupied as a permanent dwelling and shall not be occupied by any one person for a period exceeding 12 weeks in any calendar year. The owner shall maintain a register of occupants for each calendar year, which shall be made available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority on request.” The reasons given for the conditions are: “2. To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development, to preserve and safeguard the openness of the Green Belt and to protect the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies GBC1 and ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review (2007) and Policies GBR1 and DES3 of the East Herts District Plan Pre- submission Consultation (2016).” “4. To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and to avoid the creation of isolated dwellings in the countryside in accordance with Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use and conversion of 2 No. barns to a total of 3 No. holiday lets including demolition of lean-to, erection of single storey rear extension and alterations to fenestration, and insertion of new doors and windows to both barns at Lodge Farm, Epping
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning316 -inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3206385
Green, Hertford SG13 8NQ in accordance with the application Ref 3/18/0897/VAR dated 18 April 2018, without compliance with condition number 2 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 3/17/2456/FUL dated 28 March 2018 and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin before 28 March 2021. 2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes C3 and C4 of Part C of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), the holiday let accommodation hereby approved shall be used to provide holiday accommodation only and shall not be used as permanent unrestricted accommodation or as a primary place of residence. 3) This permission relates solely to the use of the premises hereby approved for short-let holiday residential use. The property shall not be occupied as a permanent dwelling and shall not be occupied by any one person for a period exceeding 12 weeks in any calendar year. The owner shall maintain a register of occupants for each calendar year, which shall be made available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority on request. 4) No development approved by this permission shall take place until a Phase 2 investigation report, as recommended by the previously submitted GEMCO Phase 1 Geo-environmental Assessment report dated August 2015 (Ref No. 701 R01 Issue 1), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where found to be necessary by the phase 2 report a remediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall include an options appraisal giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The strategy shall include a plan providing details of how the remediation works shall be judged to be complete and arrangements for contingency action. 5) The materials to be used in the construction of all external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match, in type, colour and texture to those on the existing buildings known as 'Denzils Barn and 'The Old Stables'. 6) All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 7) Before the access is brought into use for the proposed development, visibility splays of 2.4m x 45m and 2.4m x 62m (west and east respectively), within which there shall be no obstruction to visibility between a height of 600mm and 2m above the carriageway shall be provided and permanently maintained. 8) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: FPES1.0 A, 320 P1, 320 P2, 320 P3 A, 320P4 A, 1804/RW and FPES2.0.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 317 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3206385
Procedural matters
2. Since the time of the Council’s decision, the East Herts District Plan (the ‘District Plan’) has been adopted and supersedes the East Herts Local Plan Second Review (the ‘Local Plan’). As such policies GBC1 and ENV1 of the Local Plan, which are referred to in the reasons for the conditions no longer have any effect. I have been provided with adopted versions of policies GBR1, DES4 and ED5 of the District Plan and so I have determined the proposal against these policies.
3. The extant planning permission describes the development as comprising five holiday lets. The parties agree however that the approved drawings show only three holiday let units. My decision therefore refers correctly to three holiday lets.
Main Issues
4. Based on the reasons for the two conditions, I consider the main issues are the effect that removing condition 2 would have on the openness of the Green Belt, and the effect of removing condition 4 on the character of the countryside.
Reasons
Condition 2 – openness of the Green Belt
5. Paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) advises that planning conditions should not be used to restrict permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. The planning practise guidance (PPG) adds that such conditions will rarely pass the test of necessity and should only be used in exceptional circumstances.
6. Condition 2 removes permitted development rights relating to extensions or alterations to dwellings, means of enclosure and means of access. The Council do not refer to the means of access or enclosure in their statement so I have focussed my attention on the potential for extension of the buildings.
7. The site is within the Green Belt and one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt is its openness. Were the condition not in place, the buildings could, without further recourse to the Council, be extended which would reduce the openness of the Green Belt. However given the close arrangement of the buildings and the relatively constrained nature of their curtilages I consider the opportunities to take advantage of this would generally be limited, particularly at Unit B which is the most visually open part of the site due to the open paddocks to the east. The area with the greatest scope for extension would be to the west of Units A and C but, due to the wooded nature of the land, the visual impact on the Green Belt would be restricted. As such, whilst extending the buildings would impact on the openness of the Green Belt, it is likely that that impact would be minimal.
8. Overall, I do not consider there is clear justification or any exceptional circumstances to justify condition 2 and therefore it is unnecessary. In removing the condition the proposal would still accord with policy DES4 which requires all development to be of a high standard of design, policy ED5 which ensures tourist development does not harm the environment, and policy GBR1 which, in combination with the Framework, seeks to retain the openness of the Green Belt.
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning318 -inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3206385
Condition 4 – character of the countryside
9. The Council state condition 4 is imposed in order to ensure the buildings do not become permanent dwellings. Condition 3 restricts the use of the properties to being just for holiday accommodation and the only requirements specific to condition 4 are the prevention of any guest staying more than 12 weeks, and the need to keep a register of occupants. The appellant suggests the need to keep a register can be incorporated into condition 3.
10. I accept the 12 week period is somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless I consider it is necessary to have some time limit. Without it, guests could in theory stay for an unlimited period of time on holiday away from their home address. This would be akin to a permanent residence and dwelling in the countryside, which is what the condition seeks to avoid. Moreover, the time limit gives precision which assists in the Council’s ability to enforce the use of the buildings.
11. Whilst this may dissuade some potential customers from choosing Lodge Farm as a holiday venue, I would anticipate this would be rare and retaining the limit would have little effect on the viability of this rural business.
12. The appellant refers to the support given by paragraph 79 of the Framework to the re-use of redundant or disused buildings for homes. This paragraph closely repeats paragraph 55 of the previous version of the Framework. The Inspector in a previous appeal at this site1 concluded the conversion of the barn into a dwelling would not accord with this paragraph and would be isolated. I have no reason to come to a different view. Consequently, the use of the barns as dwellings would also fail to accord with paragraph 79 and therefore it is necessary to retain condition 4 to ensure their use does not become comparable to that of dwellings in this isolated location.
13. In summary I consider it necessary for the condition to remain. Without it, the development would be akin to a permanent home and so would fail to accord with the advice in the Framework which guards against isolated homes in the countryside.
Conditions
14. The guidance in the PPG makes it clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permissions under section 73 should also repeat the relevant conditions from the original planning permission, unless they have already been discharged. The appellant states no conditions have been discharged.
15. I have altered the standard condition relating to the commencement of the development as the PPG states that a planning permission granted under section 73 cannot extend the time limit within which a development must be started. The development therefore must be commenced within three years of the date of the original planning permission.
16. The conditions relating to the use of the barns and setting the time limit for the length of stays are necessary as explained above. The condition relating to land contamination is necessary in order to protect the living conditions of future occupiers and nearby occupiers, that relating to materials and landscaping are necessary so as to protect the character and appearance of the area, and that concerning vehicle visibility is necessary in the interests of highway safety. I
1 Ref APP/J1915/A/13/2194060 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Page 319 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3206385
have included the condition specifying the relevant plans in order to provide certainty.
17. One condition requires compliance prior to the commencement of development so that the effects of the proposal are properly mitigated in order to make it acceptable, and the appellant has agreed to this.
Conclusion
18. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all other considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and a new planning permission granted without condition 2 as previously imposed. Andrew Owen INSPECTOR
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning320 -inspectorate 5
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 January 2019 by I A Dyer BSc (Eng) MIHT an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 February 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3208058 55 Thorley Park Road, Bishops Stortford CM23 3NG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr D Shrimpton against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref 3/18/1045/FUL, dated 4 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 3 July 2018. • The development proposed is described as: ‘Change of use from C3 to large house of multiple occupation to accommodate nine bedrooms. Single storey front extension and two storey side extension with accommodation within the new loft space and gabled dormer to the rear of the side extension. Conversion of the existing loft space with rear box dormer. Insertion of two No roof lights to existing loft space. Provision of off street car parking for four No cars’.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matters
2. The East Hertfordshire District Plan (2018) (the District Plan) has been adopted by the Council since the decision on the planning application. The parties have had an opportunity to comment on the District Plan in relation to the case during the appeal process. The saved policies within the East Hertfordshire Local Plan Second Review (2007) are no longer extant.
3. Following the Council’s decision on the application that led to this appeal, a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published and is a material consideration in decision-taking from the date of its issue (per paragraph 212 of the Framework). The parties had the opportunity to make comments on the bearing of this on the appeal. Whilst there have been further revisions since to the Framework contained in the new version published in February 2019, no changes have been made to the content directly relevant to the subject matter of this appeal. Consequently, I consider that no prejudice would occur to any parties as a result of me taking the Framework into account in my assessment of the appeal’s merits.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 321 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3208058
Main Issues
4. The main issues are: -
• The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street scene and its host dwelling, with particular reference to the massing and built form of the development
• The effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular reference to noise and disturbance
• The effect of the development on the living conditions of future occupiers of the appeal site with particular reference to off-street parking provision
• The effect of the development on the living conditions of future occupiers of the appeal site with particular reference to provision of sufficient refuse storage.
Reasons
Character and appearance
5. Thorley Park Road is a residential street with properties of varying styles, both detached and semi-detached. The dwellings are set back from the road by moderately sized front gardens. Many of the dwellings have been enlarged with single and two storey side extensions, reducing the original openness of spaces between buildings. Similarly, many have had single storey front extensions added and/or dormer windows built in the roof.
6. The development proposed is for the conversion of the existing dwelling house to a large house of multiple occupation (HMO) with nine bedrooms. The property would be enlarged by a single storey front extension and two storey side extension adding a gabled dormer to the rear of the side extension with accommodation within the new loft space. The existing loft space would also be converted into living accommodation with an additional rear box dormer and the insertion of two roof lights. The development would also provide an increase in the number of off-street car parking spaces.
7. Whilst some of the extensions in the vicinity are considered by the appellant to be comparable to the proposal, many of the extensions appeared, to a greater or lesser degree, to be subservient to the original building.
8. No 55 Thorley Park Road is a semi-detached house, the attached dwelling, No 53, has a front and side extension that increases the massing of the combined semi-detached dwellings. The proposed side extension at No 55 would extend the frontage of the structure formed by Nos 53 and 55 by over half of the width of No 55, further increasing its overall massing.
9. I saw, on the opposite side of the road, Nos 44 and 46, and 48 and 50 have been extended to produce similar frontages to the one proposed in this case. However, the single storey element of No 50, on its wider frontage, alleviates the massing of the gable end of that block. Moreover, the proximity of No 48 to No 46 helps to conceal their adjacent gable ends. The eastern gable of No 44 is
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning322 -inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3208058
on the inside of a bend in the street alignment and is alleviated by the single storey element. As a result of the combination of these factors it does not appear prominent in the street scene.
10. In contrast, the proposed gable of No 55 would, by virtue of the gap between No 55 and No 57 and the bend in the alignment of Thorley Park Road to the west of the site, appear prominent in the street scene and would, taken together with its rear element, appear as a bulky and a dominating structure considerably at odds with the prevailing character of the area.
11. Policy HOU11 advises that roof dormers may be acceptable if appropriate to the design and character of the dwellings and its surroundings and that dormers should generally be of limited and modest proportions, so as not to dominate the existing roof form.
12. Notwithstanding the appellant’s view that the scale of the rear dormer is acceptable, the proposed dormer occupies a significant area of the rear roof slope of No 55 and would be likely to be visible from adjacent rear gardens. Whilst dormer windows have been added to properties in the area, this is not the case on the immediately adjacent roofs. I therefore consider that such an addition would be a dominant addition to the roof structure and incongruous with the form of adjacent roofs.
13. The appellant has suggested that by using materials to match those used in No 55 and adjacent buildings the extensions could be blended into the existing street scene. However, the use of matching materials, of itself, could not sufficiently soften the overly dominant massing and form of the proposed development and therefore would not overcome its impacts to the street scene and its host building.
14. I therefore conclude that the massing and built form of the development would result in considerable harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and host dwelling contrary to Policies DES4 and HOU11 of the District Plan, which, taken together and amongst other matters, seek to ensure that the design and layout of development, including extensions, does not impact unacceptably on the character and appearance of its surroundings.
Living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties
15. No 53 has windows on both floors of its front elevation, adjacent to the boundary with No 55. These windows would be next to the proposed bin storage area and a short distance from the entrance for the development.
16. Whilst a single-family unit would be likely to have mutual friends and interests and therefore a degree of co-ordination in their lifestyle, scheduling and daily comings and goings, the unrelated occupants of an HMO would be likely to have more disparate lifestyles and interests.
17. The appellant has suggested that the future development, with nine bedrooms could be likened to a large family dwelling, with several generations of the same family living together. However, the dwelling as it currently stands is of a different scale, with only three bedrooms. This would be likely to constrain occupant numbers below those suggested by the appellant. As a result, the number of comings and goings currently generated by the site would be increased by the development.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 323 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3208058
18. Given that the plans indicate several of the bedrooms are of an appropriate size for double occupancy, there is considerable potential for partners and friends of residents also to be present. For these reasons, and notwithstanding that the number of permanent residents could be restricted by planning condition and HMO licensing regulations, the number of people present at any one time could nevertheless be considerably higher than nine.
19. I accept the appellant’s view that London and Stansted Airport are likely to be a source of employment opportunities. Nevertheless, the distances involved in commuting and potential shift working would suggest that there would still be a degree of dependency upon the private car.
20. The appellant has suggested that average motor noise generated by traffic has decreased generally over time, although no substantive evidence has been put before me to support this opinion, or that future occupiers would keep these more modern vehicles. Engine noise is not the only noise and disturbance associated with the use of motor vehicles. Drivers and passengers arriving by vehicle would generate noise such as through the opening and closing of car doors and boots and, with the likely increase in total trip numbers, this disturbance would be proportionally increased.
21. The positioning of the waste bins would be in close proximity to habitable rooms in No 53. With a number of unrelated occupants, use of the extended property as an HMO would be likely to result in a greater level of activity associated with the area around the bins than would be the case currently with occupation by a single family. Further the bins would be accessed for collection through the proposed parking area, which would be likely to be obstructed by parked vehicles making movement difficult. These issues would result in increased noise levels and disturbance to the occupants of No 53.
22. I note the proposal by the appellant to resolve issues of lack of refuse storage provision by the siting of additional bins, proposing a layout utilising space adjacent to the boundary with No 53. Such a solution would, by virtue of the proximity, increase the disturbance from noise for the occupiers of the adjacent property above that associated with the layout shown on the plans.
23. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring properties with particular reference to noise and disturbance. The development would thus be contrary to Policy DES4 of the District Plan which seeks, amongst other things, to safeguard the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties to ensure that their environments are not harmed by development.
Living conditions of occupants of the property with reference to off-street parking provision.
24. Most of the dwellings in the vicinity have off street parking, in the form of driveways and many retain garages. Whilst admittedly only a snapshot of the situation, on the morning of my site visit I noticed little pressure on on-street car parking, although some vehicles were encroaching on footways, presumably to avoid obstructing the flow of traffic. I observed that the speed of motor vehicles in this environment was, generally, low.
25. Paragraphs 105 and 106 of the Framework explain the Governments approach to parking provision for development, seeking to balance the provision of car
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning324 -inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3208058
parking to satisfy the needs of residents whilst avoiding over-provision and encouraging the use of softer transport modes with a lesser impact upon the environment. Policy TRA3 of the District Plan requires vehicle parking provision to be in accordance with the current Vehicle Parking at New Development Supplementary Planning Document (2008, amended 2015) (the SPD) and that car parking should be incorporated into the design of development to ensure good quality, safe, secure and attractive environments.
26. These require a maximum of five parking spaces for an HMO with nine bedrooms, however this may be reduced to allow for accessibility to local services. The site does have access to public transport and there are some local services nearby which would justify the slight reduction in parking provision in this case, when assessed against the relevant development plan requirement. The proposed provision of four spaces would, therefore, comply with the policy. The proposed development would therefore make adequate arrangements for car-parking; and I therefore find no conflict with Policy TRA3 of the District Plan, or the SPD, insofar as they seek to ensure that appropriate levels of off-street car parking are provided.
Living conditions of occupants of the property with reference to provision of sufficient refuse storage.
27. Policy DES4 of the District Plan seeks, amongst other things, to ensure adequate provision and storage of refuse bins to make sure adequate facilities are provided for future residents through good design. Paragraph 127 (f) of the Framework requires development to deliver a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
28. Space for four refuse bins is identified on the plans, which falls short of the requirements of the Council. There would be very limited space on the frontage to accommodate additional refuse bins and whilst additional bins could be provided, as suggested by the appellant, adjacent to the boundary with No 53, this provision could not be made without impacting further upon the living conditions of the occupants of that property. I have limited evidence before me to demonstrate why a provision which is below the Council’s standard would be justified or whether this issue could be satisfactorily addressed.
29. Therefore, I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would not make adequate arrangements for refuse storage and would therefore conflict with Policy DES4 of the District Plan insofar as it seeks to ensure that all developments are of a high standard of design and layout.
Other Matters
30. The appellant asserts that the design of the extensions would not have any adverse impact in terms of loss of outlook or light, that the individual bedrooms all exceed the minimum standards set out in the Technical Housing Standards- nationally described space standards (2015) and that appropriate levels of amenity space would be provided and that the development would not place any significantly greater demands on infrastructure. These matters would be of very limited public benefit.
31. I note the benefits that the development would have in terms of contributions to the local economy by accommodating additional residents and providing
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Page 325 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3208058
work for local builders. However, in view of the limited scale of the development it would only have limited public benefits.
Conclusion
32. I have found that the proposed development’s car parking arrangements would be acceptable. Nevertheless, this points to an absence of harm in this respect rather than a positive benefit of the appeal scheme, and thus has a neutral effect on the overall planning balance. The other matters outlined above weigh only marginally in favour of the development. On the other hand, the proposed development would cause considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area, to the living conditions of the occupants of adjacent properties and would fail to make appropriate provision for the storage of bins. Taken together, these aspects of the appeal scheme carry significant weight and tip the overall balance firmly against the proposed development.
33. Consequently, no material considerations have been advanced in this case of a sufficient weight to justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan, with which, in terms of the above-cited policies, the appeal scheme would clearly conflict.
34. Accordingly, For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. I Dyer
INSPECTOR
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning326 -inspectorate 6
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 January 2019 by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3215886 2 Woodcock Lodge Farm Cottages, Tylers Causeway, Hertford SG13 8QN. The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Neil Pottinger against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. The application Ref 3/18/1147/HH, dated 16 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 September 2018. The development proposed is single storey side and rear extension.
Procedural Matter
1. Since the appeal was submitted the East Herts District Plan 2011 to 2033 (2018) (DP) has been adopted. I therefore refer to the policies of that plan in my decision below.
Decision
2. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
3. The main issues are:
a) Whether having regard to development plan policy and national policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) the proposal comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt
b) The effect on Green Belt openness and the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area
c) Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations
Reasons
4. The appeal property is a semi-detached two storey dwelling within a relatively isolated rural location about 1.5 km from the nearest village. In addition to the attached dwelling, there is a farmhouse to the south and bungalow with associated buildings to the west but otherwise the site is surrounded by open farmland.
Whether inappropriate development
5. The site lies in the Green Belt wherein the construction of new buildings is to be regarded as inappropriate development subject to the exceptions which are https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 327 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3215886
set out in paragraph 145 of the Framework. That includes the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. DP Policy GBR1 states that applications will be considered in line with the provisions of the Framework.
6. The parties agree that the proposed extensions, involving the part removal and alteration of the existing rear single storey element, would amount to a 51.6% increase in floorspace over and above the size of the original dwelling. The appellant has referred to a Council ‘guideline’ of a desired maximum of 60% increase for Green Belt situations such as this by reference to a report relating to an application determined in 2014. However, this is not supported by any other ‘official’ policy or guidance document and it is unclear if this is still the Council’s ‘guidance’. No reference is made to it in the officer report for the appeal application.
7. However, notwithstanding the above, I consider that, on the basis of the agreed increases, the proposed extensions would not in any event result in disproportionate additions to the size of the original building. I therefore find that the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 143 of the Framework, it is not necessary for very special circumstances to be demonstrated in this instance.
Impact on Green Belt openness and character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider rural area
8. The proposed extensions would in part replace an existing sizeable shed which is located to the rear of the dwelling, though would extend out to the side of the dwelling and result in an increase in the overall ‘spread’ of the built footprint. I consider that this would result in some impact on the openness of the Green Belt, albeit this could be mitigated to an extent by the proposed planting. The site is visible from the public footpath to the east though in this view the proposed extensions would be largely seen against the backdrop of the existing built form of the semi-detached pair of cottages, including the various extensions that have been carried out to the attached property, No. 1 Woodcock Lodge Farm Cottages. However, overall I consider that there would be a limited impact in this respect and thus conflict with national policy which identifies openness as an essential characteristic of the Green Belt.
9. In terms of design I note that the proposed extension would not be finished in materials to match the existing cottage, but would have largely rendered walls with low sloping grey pre-patinated zinc roof. Although the low roof would assist in minimising the overall bulk of the additions, it is my view that the design and external appearance of the extension would fail to complement the character and appearance of the existing cottage with its brick elevations and hipped tiled roof. In this context, and whilst noting that the nearby bungalow is finished in render, I do not consider that the proposal would be well designed nor appropriate to its setting which in my view predominantly comprises the pair of cottages.
10. I therefore find that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider rural area. This would be contrary to DP policies DES4 and HOU11 which seek a high standard of design and layout that reflects and promotes local distinctiveness and the best possible use of available land by respecting or improving upon the character of the site and the surrounding
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning328 -inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3215886
area; also that development should be of a size, scale, mass, form, siting, design and materials that are appropriate to the character, appearance and setting of the existing dwelling and surrounding area.
Conclusions
11. The appellant has referred to the possibility that the dwelling could be extended under permitted development rights. Whilst full details of a scheme have not been provided, such rights are conditional on any materials used in any exterior work being of similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. The appeal scheme would not therefore be directly comparable in this respect. I also note that the proposed extensions would provide enhanced accommodation for the existing small cottage. However, I consider that these factors do not outweigh the harm to Green Belt openness and to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider rural area identified above.
12. I therefore conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.
P Jarvis
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 329
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 January 2019
by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3215970 16 Revels Road, Hertford SG14 3JU. The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mrs Fiona Reynolds against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. The application Ref 3/18/1178/HH, dated 20 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 29 August 2018. The development proposed is first floor side extension and loft conversion including rear dormer.
Procedural Matter
1. Since the appeal was submitted the East Herts District Plan 2011 to 2033 (2018) (DP) has been adopted. I therefore refer to the policies of that plan in my decision below.
Decision
2. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is the impact on (a) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and streetscene and (b) the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining property, No. 40 Parker Avenue.
Reasons
4. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling that has already been extended to the side with a single-storey extension. It occupies a triangular shaped plot on the corner of Revels Road and Parker Avenue with a wide frontage to Revels Road, narrowing to the rear of the site. The dwelling is sited towards the southern (rear) corner of the plot close to the dwelling at No. 40 Parker Avenue, the property which adjoins to the south-west. Both properties have relatively small rear garden areas with the majority of the garden areas to the side of the dwellings fronting Revels Road and Parker Avenue respectively.
Effect on character and appearance
5. The proposed extensions to the dwelling on the appeal site would increase its bulk at upper floor levels, extending to the side with a front gable feature at first floor and extended roof with gable end incorporating a large flat roofed rear dormer across almost the whole width of the extended roof. Due to its
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning330 -inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3215970
corner location and slightly raised position relative to the surrounding roads, I consider that the proposed extensions would add disproportionate bulk to the property and as a result would appear unduly dominant in the street scene. The bulk of the first floor element would be exacerbated by the proposed projecting front gable feature, which, as a result, would not complement nor appear subservient to the existing dwelling. It would also serve to unbalance the symmetry of the existing semi-detached pair, the other half of which retains its original hipped roof form.
6. Therefore, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider street scene. It would therefore fail to comply with DP policies HOU11 and DES4 which seek a high standard of design and layout, that reflects and promotes local distinctiveness and the best possible use of available land by respecting or improving upon the character of the site and the surrounding area; also that development should be of a size, scale, mass, form, siting, design and materials that are appropriate to the character, appearance and setting of the existing dwelling and surrounding area.
Effect on living conditions
7. In terms of the impact on the neighbouring property, I noted whilst on site that the existing relationship between these two properties is already extremely close with a degree of mutual overlooking between them. Notwithstanding this, I consider that the introduction of a further first floor element, coupled with the very large rear dormer at roof level as proposed at the appeal property, would considerably worsen this situation due to the very close proximity of the two dwellings. This would result in an unacceptable amount of overlooking of No. 40 Parker Avenue and significant loss of outlook. As referred to above, I saw that this adjoining dwelling does benefit from a separate side garden area, but this is not private. The small rear garden would be unduly dominated by the proposed extensions resulting in an unacceptable level of enclosure.
8. Therefore, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining property, No. 40 Parker Avenue. It would thus fail to comply with DP policies DES4 and HOU11 which seek a high standard of design and layout and that significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties and land should be avoided.
Conclusions
9. I acknowledge that the proposed extensions would considerably enhance the amount of living accommodation for the appellant and her family. However, this does not in my view outweigh the considerable harm identified above. I saw on my site visit that extensions have been carried out at a number of properties within the vicinity of the appeal site, however, it is necessary to consider the appeal proposal in the context of the particular site circumstances.
10. I therefore conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.
P Jarvis
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 331
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 February 2019
by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSC MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 27th February 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3218658 Barnacres, Ermine Street, Colliers End, SG11 1ER • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs J Appleby against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref 3/18/1305/HH, dated 2 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 29 October 2018. • The development proposed is an outbuilding.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an outbuilding at Barnacres, Ermine Street, Colliers End, SG11 1ER in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/18/1305/HH, dated 2 June 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 190-01, 190-02A, 190-03B, 190-06A, 190-07, 190-08, 190-09, 190-10, 190-11, 190-SK03 (Highways boundary plan showing existing and proposed outbuilding dated 19 September 2018).
Main Issue
2. There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed outbuilding on the character and appearance of the street scene and the surrounding rural area, including the effect on trees and hedgerows.
Reasons
3. Barnacres is a Grade II listed dwelling. It is of timber framed construction and has a steep old red tile roof. The building was listed in 1983. The Council’s Conservation Officer does not consider that the proposed outbuilding would be detrimental to the setting of the listed building and I agree with this view. The existing outbuilding, which is proposed to be altered and enlarged to provide ancillary habitable accommodation, is understood to have been erected in the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Page 332 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3218658
1990s and therefore would not be a curtilage building for the purposes of the listing.
4. The existing outbuilding is a garage set adjacent to the street boundary. It lies to the side and forward of the dwelling. It is a modest building of black painted timber over a brick plinth with a pitched roof of mineralised bituminous felt. It is visible when approaching from the south but predominantly hidden from the street by an overgrown hedgerow.
5. It is proposed to raise the height of the existing eaves and ridge to allow for habitable accommodation at first floor and to extend the length of the building. It would be increased in width to incorporate external insulation. The external finish would be mainly black stained horizontal featheredge boarding which would be characteristic of the area and the clay tiled roof would harmonise with the roof of the host dwelling. Extensive glazing would be introduced on the garden facing elevations but would be hidden from the street and would be acceptable in its domestic setting. Despite its increased size, the building would remain modest in scale and subservient to the host dwelling. Moreover, its position close to the street would be consistent with other comparable outbuildings in Colliers End.
6. The appeal site lies adjacent to currently undeveloped land and at the entrance to the main built up area of Colliers End. However, dwellings extend further north on the opposite side of the road and existing trees and vegetation in the garden at Barnacres would ensure that the proposed outbuilding was not unduly prominent in the street scene at the entrance to the settlement.
7. Insulation would be added to the existing side walls, including the wall adjacent to the street. The Council suggests that this would result in the external side wall being at least 0.5m closer to the street and that this could cause material encroachment into the hedgerow, resulting in loss of or significant damage to the boundary vegetation. However, the appellant states that the distance would be some 0.28m which is consistent with the submitted plans. I have no compelling evidence to suggest that these are not accurate.
8. The submitted plans show clearly that whilst the proposed building would be closer to the boundary vegetation it would not encroach on the main stems. Moreover, the hedgerow stands on a small bank, above the level of the building and whilst it would be necessary to prune the vegetation I am not persuaded by the evidence that significant damage during construction need occur. Furthermore, whilst hedgerow boundaries are characteristic in Colliers End, the affected section of hedgerow is unprotected and of limited amenity value.
9. It is suggested in evidence that a planning permission for three dwellings on land to the north of Barnacres (ref. 3/18/1149/FUL) includes a requirement to provide a footway adjacent to Barnacres which may result in the cutting back of the boundary hedgerow. However, even if this occurred and the proposed outbuilding became more visible in the street scene, its scale and appearance, which would be consistent with other clearly visible outbuildings in Colliers End, would ensure it was not materially harmful to the street scene. Furthermore, the proximity of the proposed building to the main dwelling and its separation from the rural area to the north and west of Barnacres would ensure that there was no harm to the character or rural qualities of the area.
2 Page 333 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3218658
10. It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed outbuilding would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or appearance of the street scene or surrounding rural area or cause material harm to existing trees or hedgerows. In consequence, it would comply with Policies GBR2, DES2, DES3 and DES4 of the East Herts District Plan, 2018. Taken together these policies expect the replacement, extension or alteration of buildings in the rural area beyond the Green Belt to be of a size, form, siting, design and materials appropriate to the character, appearance and setting of the site and the surrounding area, so as to promote local distinctiveness, and to retain and protect landscape features which are of amenity value or form distinctive features of the districts landscape.
11. A third party representation raises concerns regarding drainage and potential encroachment onto highway land. However, I note that neither the Council’s Engineer nor the Highways Authority raise any objection to the proposed development and I am satisfied that no material harm would occur in respect of these matters.
12. The Council does not suggest that any planning conditions are necessary. Nevertheless, in order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, the statutory commencement condition is required. In addition, for the avoidance of doubt and in order to protect the character and appearance of the area and the adjacent listed building the development should be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans. I shall therefore impose these conditions.
13. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
K E Down INSPECTOR
Page 334 3
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 December 2018 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 7th January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3214558 90 High Oak Road, Ware SG12 7NZ The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Jamie Dunlop against the decision of East Herts Council. The application Ref 3/18/1319/HH, dated 7 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 13 August 2018. The development proposed is the construction of a two storey side extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matter
2. Within the Council’s Decision Notice, policies ENV1, ENV5 and ENV6 of the adopted East Herts Local Plan along with policy DES4 of the East Herts emerging District Plan are quoted. Since the application was determined, the East Herts District Plan has been formally adopted and it supersedes the East Herts Local Plan. I have determined the appeal on this basis.
Main Issue
3. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene.
Reasons
4. The appeal relates to an end of terrace property which sits on the corner of High Oak Road and Homefield Road, with the local area home to a range of dwelling types and styles. Like the bungalow style property on the opposite side of the junction, the side elevation of the appeal dwelling is set a comfortable distance from the side boundary and this makes a noticeable and positive contribution to the spacious character of the junction.
5. The proposal seeks to add a two storey extension to the side of the appeal dwelling. It would be flush with the main front elevation and would be as deep and it would have the same eaves and ridge height. Whilst the extension would replicate the fenestration arrangement and would be finished in appropriate external materials, it would be wide and would bring the dwelling very close to the side boundary and the junction.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Page 335 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3214558
6. This arrangement would project well beyond the established building line of the similar group of properties located on this side of Homefield Road, irrespective of the fact that they sit at a higher ground level beyond the rear garden of the appeal dwelling. As a result, the two storey extension would appear overly prominent within the street scene, it would harmfully reduce the open character of the junction and it would conflict with the established pattern of development within the immediate vicinity.
7. For the above reasons, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene within which it sits. In such terms, it conflicts with policy DES4 of the adopted East Herts District Plan 2018, which promotes high quality design and layouts that reflect and promote local distinctiveness.
Other considerations
8. The proposed extension would not harm the living conditions of nearby residents in any way and I note that no formal objections were received from local residents, but these are neutral factors. Whilst it would occupy a section of garden which the appellant suggests is underutilised, this would be at significant cost to the character and appearance of the street scene.
9. It is argued that the scheme amounts to sustainable development. As the appellant has highlighted, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that good design is a ‘key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities’. For the reasons outlined above, I have found that the proposal does not amount to good design. On this basis, it cannot amount to sustainable development in the widest sense of the definition provided by the Framework.
10. Finally, the appellant has referred to other developments on corner plots within the local area. I do not know the precise planning circumstances behind all of the examples highlighted, but in the case of the two storey side extension permitted at No. 1 Horrocks Close Ref following a successful appeal, (Ref. APP/J1915/D/18/3198502), I note the Inspector observed that it was to be ‘stepped back from the front elevation and down from the forward roof plane and thus display some form of visual and design subservience’. It is therefore not directly comparable to the scheme before me. In any event, I have considered the appeal proposal on its individual merits and against the context of the specific street scene within which it would sit.
Overall Conclusion
11. I conclude that proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene within which it sits, contrary to the development plan policy outlined above. The arguments advanced by the appellant do not outweigh this harm and policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon
INSPECTOR
Page 336 2
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 December 2018 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3211204 Hammonia, 2 Gypsy Close, Great Amwell, Ware, Herts SG12 9RW The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs E & Y Groom against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. The application Ref 3/18/1463/HH, dated 26 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 August 2018. The development proposed is described on the application form as “side, front and rear extensions and removal existing roof and erection of re-pitched roof with dormer windows”.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matter
2. The East Herts District Plan was adopted on 23 October 2018 and replaces the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007. I am required to consider the appeal against the development plan in place at the time of my decision and therefore the policies in the Local Plan are no longer relevant to the appeal. I am satisfied that the policies in the District Plan (2018) are not materially different from those referred to in the decision notice and therefore have not deemed it necessary to seek parties’ comments on this matter.
Main Issues
3. Whilst the reason for refusal refers to District Plan Policy DES4 the Council has not demonstrated that there is any conflict with this policy. As such the main issues in this case are:
(i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development for the purposes of section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and development plan policy;
(ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and
(iii) if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 337 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3211204
Reasons
Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development
4. Paragraph 145 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate. A number of exceptions to this are identified including proposals comprising the extension or alteration of a building, provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.
5. The appeal property is a 3 bedroom detached chalet bungalow which occupies a large plot in a residential area. The appeal proposal would comprise a range of front, side and rear additions together with the reconfiguration of the roof to enable the formation of 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms at first floor level.
6. The Council suggests that the proposal would result in a dwelling with a floor area totalling a cumulative increase of approximately 176% over and above the size of the original dwelling. The appellant has not provided any calculations, although I note that the increase in the volume of the property may not be of quite the same magnitude. However the evidence before me clearly indicates that the proposal would result in substantial additions over and above the size of the original building.
7. For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would result in disproportionate additions to the appeal property over and above the size of the original building. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 145 of the Framework. For these reasons it would be inappropriate development that is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. I attribute substantial weight to this.
Openness of the Green Belt
8. Paragraph 133 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
9. The proposal would result in a significant increase in the volume, bulk and amount of development on the site. It would reduce, and therefore cause harm to, the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal therefore also conflicts with the Framework in this respect, a matter to which I also attribute substantial weight.
Other considerations
10. I turn now to consider whether there are any considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm identified above in respect of inappropriateness and openness. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
11. The appellant has referred to District Plan Policy VILL2 and the fact that Great Amwell is defined under this policy as a Group 2 Village. Whilst Policy VILL2 states that limited infill development will be permitted in Group 2 Villages this is subject to various design criteria being satisfied and “all other relevant policies” in the District Plan. As such this Policy does not override Policy GBR1, which states that planning applications within the Green Belt will be considered in line with the provisions of the Framework.
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning338 -inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3211204
12. Despite the generally built-up nature of its surroundings, the appeal site is located in the Green Belt and therefore the proposal needs be assessed against the paragraphs 145 and 133 of the Framework and not against the purposes of the Green Belt set out at paragraph 134.
Green Belt balancing exercise
13. The other considerations do not amount to matters that clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt which I have identified in respect of the proposal’s inappropriateness and effect on openness. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development do not therefore exist. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Framework and District Plan Policy GBR1.
14. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
S Poole
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 339
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 December 2018
by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3213532 Timbertops, 34 Firs Walk, Tewin Wood, Tewin, Welwyn, Herts AL6 0NZ The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr D Lowe against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. The application Ref 3/18/1602/HH, dated 6 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 7 September 2018. The development proposed is described on the application form as the reconfiguration of the front façade of the dwellinghouse comprising replacement of garage door with a casement window, creation of new front entrance hall, installation of two front dormers at first floor level and Juliet balcony to the rear.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matter
2. The East Herts District Plan was adopted on 23 October 2018 and replaces the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007. I am required to consider the appeal against the development plan in place at the time of my decision and therefore the policies in the Local Plan are no longer relevant to the appeal. I am satisfied that the policies in the District Plan (2018) are not materially different from those referred to in the decision notice and therefore have not deemed it necessary to seek parties’ comments on this matter.
Application for costs
3. An application for costs was made by Mr D Lowe against East Hertfordshire District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.
Main Issues
4. The main issues in this case are:
(i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development for the purposes of section 13 of the Framework and development plan policy;
(ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and
(iii) if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning340 -inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3213532
considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Reasons
Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development
5. Paragraph 145 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate. A number of exceptions to this are identified including proposals comprising the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.
6. The appeal property is a 2-storey detached house. It was originally constructed as a bungalow with a detached garage and has since been extended on a number of occasions resulting in an increase in floor area from approximately 82sqm to about 317sqm. The floor area of the appeal property is therefore almost 4 times greater than that in the original dwelling.
7. The appeal proposal would comprise the reconfiguration of the frontage of the property including a reduction in floor area at ground floor level together with some increases at first floor level as the result of formation of a pair of dormers. In addition a gable would be formed to create a double-storey void above the entrance hall. The appellant has advised that overall the proposal would result in a slight reduction in floor area: this is not disputed by the Council.
8. However, primarily due to the void within the gable above the entrance, the proposal would result in an increase in the volume of the property. The appellant has calculated this would represent a 3.9% increase in volume compared to the current situation. Whilst in isolation this increase in volume would be small, taken together with the substantial earlier additions to the property the proposal would result in disproportionate additions to the appeal property over and above the size of the original building. It is therefore contrary to paragraph 145 of the Framework. For these reasons it would be inappropriate development that is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. I attribute substantial weight to this.
Openness of the Green Belt
9. Paragraph 133 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
10. Whilst the proposal would only result in a modest increase in the volume, bulk and amount of development on the site, it would have the effect of reducing, and therefore causing harm to, the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal therefore also conflicts with the Framework in this respect, a matter to which I also attribute substantial weight.
Other considerations
11. I turn now to consider whether there are any considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm identified above in respect of inappropriateness and
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 341 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3213532
openness. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
12. The front elevation of the appeal property has a jumbled and disjointed appearance due to the mix of single and 2-storey elements and the disparate arrangement of roof elements. The proposal would give the property a more coherent frontage that would be more in keeping with the area. Whilst I attribute significant weight to this, I am not convinced that the glazed gable feature, the use of painted render or the overall composition of the front elevation would result in a scheme of sufficient architectural quality to outweigh the concerns set out above.
Green Belt balancing exercise
13. On balance therefore the other considerations do not amount to matters that clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt which I have identified in respect of the proposal’s inappropriateness and effect on openness. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development do not therefore exist. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Framework and District Plan Policy GBR1 which states that planning applications within the Green Belt will be considered in line with the provision of the Framework.
14. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
S Poole
INSPECTOR
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning342 -inspectorate 3
Costs Decision Site visit made on by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI Decision date: 04 January 2019
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3213532 Timbertops 34 Firs Walk, Tewin Wood, Tewin, Welwyn, Herts AL6 0NZ The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). The application is made by Mr D Lowe for a full award of costs against East Hertfordshire District Council. The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for development described on the application form as the reconfiguration of the front façade of the dwellinghouse comprising replacement of garage door with a casement window, creation of new front entrance hall, installation of two front dormers at first floor level and Juliet balcony to the rear.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. The PPG advises that local planning authorities are at risk of an award of costs against them if they prevent or delay development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material considerations.
4. The appellant is of the opinion that the Council did not give the planning application due care and consideration and that the decision making process was irrational and was not undertaken in a proper manner.
5. The Council’s delegated report fully reviews all the planning matters relevant to the proposed development and makes an entirely rational assessment of the proposal against the relevant planning policies and other matter considerations. As such I am entirely satisfied that, based on the information before me, the Council gave the planning application due care and consideration.
6. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated.
S Poole INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 343
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 December 2018
by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 7th January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3213741 The Willow Barn, Thorley Street, Thorley, Bishops Stortford CM23 4AT The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs E Bowler against the decision of East Herts Council. The application Ref 3/18/1603/HH, dated 12 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 3 September 2018. The development proposed is the demolition of existing outbuilding and replacement with single storey building to be used as ancillary residential accommodation in connection with The Willow Barn.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matter
2. Since the application was determined by the Council, the East Herts District Plan has been formally adopted and this supersedes the East Herts Local Plan. My decision and reference to development plan policies reflects this.
Main Issues
3. The main issues in this case are as follows: Whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt; Its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; Whether the siting of the proposed annex accommodation in relation to the main dwelling is acceptable; and If it is does amount to inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Reasons
Whether or not inappropriate development
4. The appeal relates to a dwelling which is located within the Green Belt. The dwelling is substantial and has been created following the conversion of an agricultural building, which is part of a wider residential conversion scheme.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Page 344 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3213741
The proposal seeks to replace an existing open fronted garage/outbuilding with a single storey building which would be used as ancillary residential accommodation.
5. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) directs that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt, save for a number of exceptions. One of these is the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building (exception ‘c’). Another is the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces (exception ‘d’). Policy GBR1 of the adopted East Herts District Plan (DP) advises that planning applications will be determined in line with the provisions of the Framework.
6. The appellants quote policy ENV5 of the East Herts Local Plan (2007) which explains that an extension to a dwelling or the erection of outbuildings will be expected to be of a scale and size that would either by itself, or cumulatively with other extensions, not disproportionately alter the size of the original dwelling nor intrude into the openness or rural qualities of the surrounding area. However, this policy predates the NPPF and the East Herts Local Plan has been superseded by the East Herts District Local Plan. It is therefore neither up to date nor applicable.
7. According to the Council’s figures which have not been disputed, the existing building is set about 25 metres from the host dwelling. On this basis, it cannot reasonably be described as an ‘extension’ (exception ‘c’). Nevertheless, it is clearly a domestic building and as the proposed replacement building would be used as ancillary residential accommodation, it would be within the same use, as required by exception ‘d’.
8. The figures provided by the Council indicate that the replacement building would be some 1.5 metres taller and its floorspace would be 63 square metres compared to 29 square metres of the existing building. As a result, I consider that the proposed replacement building would be ‘materially larger’ than the modest building to be replaced. On this basis, it amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to the Framework and policy GBR1 of the DP.
9. The Framework directs that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It explains that ‘substantial weight’ should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and inappropriate development should not be approved except in ‘very special circumstances’. The Framework also states very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Effect on openness
10. Although the proposed building would sit within the residential curtilage of a large dwelling, it would be materially taller, wider and deeper than the existing garage/outbuilding. It would be a substantial structure and it would be much more visible and prominent from the highway, even accounting for existing landscaping. The increased mass, bulk and overall prominence of the replacement building would have a much greater impact on the openness of the
2 Page 345 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3213741
Green Belt than the current structure and additional landscaping would not overcome this harm.
11. I therefore find that the proposal would harm the openness of the Green Belt.
Siting of the proposed annex accommodation
12. The Council raises concern that the proposed annex accommodation would not have a ‘close and clear functional linkage’ to the main dwelling. The replacement building would be closer to the main road than the host dwelling. However, it would be sited within the residential curtilage and would be clearly related to it. Further, any concerns about the building being used as a separate residential unit could be addressed by the imposition of a suitably worded planning condition.
13. On this basis, I am satisfied that although the proposed ancillary accommodation would be physically separate, it would have a clear functional linkage with the main dwelling and its use in this respect could be appropriately controlled. On this basis, I find no conflict with the overall aims of policy HOU13 of the DP.
Other considerations
14. I note the accommodation is required so that support could be provided for elderly relatives. Nevertheless, in the absence of any persuasive evidence, I am not convinced that a more appropriate solution in planning terms is out of the question. I also acknowledge that the development would generate some local economic benefit whilst under construction, but this would be modest and short lived therefore I give only limited weight to this factor.
Overall Conclusions
15. I conclude that although the replacement building and annex accommodation would have sufficient functional linkage to the main dwelling, it amounts to inappropriate development which would harm the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to the Framework and development plan policy outlined above. The arguments advanced by the appellants in favour of the scheme do not clearly outweigh this harm therefore the very special circumstances necessary to justify it do not exist.
16. Accordingly, the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon
INSPECTOR
Page 346 3
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 February 2019 by K E Down MA (Oxon) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 27th February 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3217064 1 Britannia, Puckeridge, SG11 1TG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Ms S & Mr D Walker against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref 3/18/1669/HH, dated 20 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 15 October 2018. • The development proposed is erection of a two storey front and single storey rear extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey front and single storey rear extension at 1 Britannia, Puckeridge, SG11 1TG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/18/1669/HH, dated 20 July 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 17060/1 and 17060/2B. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
Procedural matter
2. The Council has referred in its decision to Policies ENV1, ENV5 and ENV6. These have been superceded by Policies DES4 and HOU11 of the East Herts District Plan, October 2018, (LP) which was adopted by the Council on 23 October 2018. I have therefore had regard to these new policies in place of the earlier policies.
Main Issue
3. There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed two storey front extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, its semi- detached pair and the street scene.
Page 347 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3217064
Reasons
4. The appeal proposal includes a single storey rear extension. This would be similar in scale and design to an existing extension at No 2, the semi-detached pair. The Council raises no objection to this part of the proposal and I agree it would be acceptable. I shall therefore restrict my further consideration to the proposed first floor front extension.
5. Britannia is a small modern cul-de-sac of similar semi-detached and terraced houses. The dwellings were built with side gables and forward projecting single storey garages. A number of houses have been extended at both ground and first floor including two storey side extensions, single storey front extensions and the addition of pitched roofs over the original garage projections. Although these alter the appearance of the dwellings and reduce the symmetry between semi-detached pairs they assimilate well into the street scene, adding variety to the somewhat bland architecture.
6. One dwelling, No 18, has an extension with a front gable similar to that proposed at No 1. This is clearly visible in the street scene and, whilst altering the host dwelling, does not detract from its character or appearance. Neither does the lack of symmetry between the extended dwelling and its un-extended semi-detached pair detract from the street scene.
7. The appeal dwelling is currently unextended but its semi-detached pair has been altered to provide a pitched roof over an extended porch and the forward projecting garage, which has been converted to living accommodation. The symmetry between the pair has therefore been disrupted.
8. The proposed extension would comprise a modest first floor addition over the existing flat roofed projecting garage. It would be flush with the side elevation of the dwelling but set down from the existing roof with a shallow front gable. It would alter the appearance of the host dwelling but would remain subservient and sympathetic to the original house. Whilst it would further unbalance the semi-detached pair this would not materially detract from their appearance or that of the street scene in Britannia.
9. The appeal dwelling lies at the junction between Britannia and Station Road and its side elevation, including the proposed extension, would be clearly visible from Station Road were it not for the high evergreen hedge that marks the front and much of the side boundary. However, even if this vegetation was lost the dwelling is sufficiently set in from the street and the proposed extension sufficiently modest that it would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or appearance of Station Road.
10. The Council suggests that as the existing front gable extension at No 18 was permitted under different local plan policies and is located further into the cul- de-sac beyond the large garden of 104 Station Road, it is not comparable with the appeal proposal. However, I have judged the proposal against current policy and am not persuaded that it would conflict with this or that its position in the street would render it otherwise unacceptable.
11. It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed two storey front extension would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or appearance of
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 348 2 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3217064
the host dwelling, its semi-detached pair or the street scene of Britannia. In consequence, there would be no conflict with Policies DES4 or HOU11 of the LP which, taken together and amongst other things, expect extensions to dwellings to be of a high standard of design and layout and be of a size, scale, form and design that is appropriate to the character, appearance and setting of the existing dwelling and surrounding area, such that they promote local distinctiveness.
12. In addition to the statutory commencement condition, the Council suggests two other conditions. I agree that the proposed extensions should be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in order to provide certainty. Further, they should be constructed using matching materials in order to protect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
13. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
K E Down INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 349
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 February 2019
by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 27th February 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3218139 14 Great Molewood, Hertford, SG14 2PN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Kevan Elliott against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref 3/18/1787/HH, dated 6 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 October 2018. • The development proposed is alteration to the roof line and addition of a front dormer at roof level to create bedroom space.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2. There are two main issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposed roof alterations and front dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene of Great Molewood; and secondly, the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of 12 Great Molewood with respect to outlook, visual intrusion and daylight.
Procedural matter
3. The Council has referred in its decision to Policies ENV1, ENV5 and ENV6. These have been superceded by Policies DES4 and HOU11 of the East Herts District Plan, October 2018, (LP) which was adopted by the Council on 23 October 2018. I have therefore had regard to these new policies in place of the earlier policies.
Reasons
4. The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. However, the Council does not consider the proposed extension to be inappropriate development and no objection is raised on Green Belt grounds. I agree with this assessment.
5. Great Molewood is a narrow residential street that ends at a substantial railway embankment. It is characterised by dwellings of different ages and designs, including bungalows and houses. Modest front dormers are common in the
Page 350 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3218139
street scene. The land on the south side of the street rises up from the highway to the rear of the dwellings. Some dwellings including No 12 are built above street level while the appeal dwelling, No 14, is split level and set into the rising ground.
6. The proposed roof alterations and dormer would involve replacing an existing front dormer at upper ground floor level with an extended front wall that would tie in at eaves level with the existing roofline on the front gable. The roof would slope up steeply from the new eaves. In addition, the existing ridge that is currently set well back from the front of the dwelling behind a hipped, forward facing roof slope would be extended forward to finish in a high dormer, forward of the existing chimney and some 910mm back from the new front eaves. The alterations would result in the new dormer forming the highest part of the roof and the side elevation facing No 12 being noticeably increased in bulk above the upper floor level when viewed from the street.
7. The proposed alterations would upset the proportions of the dwelling when seen from Great Molewood, significantly increasing the bulk and prominence of the western part of the roof. Currently, although higher than the dominant eastern front gable, the set back of the western ridgeline behind a long shallow roof slope limits its impact on the dwelling and street scene. By extending significantly forward and finishing with a dormer window and in front of the existing chimney, the proposed roof would appear as a prominent and unsympathetic addition. Moreover, it would draw attention to the height of the western ridge and detract from the existing sense of balance when viewed from Great Molewood between the dominant eastern and subservient western parts of the dwelling. The proposed alterations would therefore amount to incongruous additions that would materially detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the street scene.
8. The appellant points out that there would be no increase in footprint, a modest increase in the size of the dwelling and no increase in the height of the ridge. Moreover, the alterations would be carried out to modern standards of insulation, in matching materials and the proposed dormer is similar to the existing front dormer. Nevertheless, the design of the proposed development and in particular its height and forward projection over the existing roof would unacceptably harm the appearance of the dwelling. Although No 14 cannot be seen from much of the street that would not justify allowing a materially detrimental development.
9. The appellant draws my attention to the front dormer window at No 12 which extends to the ridge and is prominent in the street scene. However, whilst adding some bulk at roof level this and the other dormers at No 12 remain subservient to the original roof which appears to be otherwise unaltered.
10. It is concluded on the first main issue that the proposed roof alterations and front dormer would materially harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene of Great Molewood. In consequence they would conflict with LP Policies DES4 and HOU11 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which, taken together, expect extensions to achieve good design such that they respect the character of the site in terms of, amongst
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 351 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3218139
other things, height, massing and appearance. In particular, roof dormers should not dominate the existing roof form.
11. Turning to the effect on living conditions, No 12 is a traditional bungalow with roof dormers and has side windows facing the appeal dwelling. One window is in a side facing dormer and according to the evidence is obscure glazed and serves a bathroom. Two other windows are in the side elevation at ground floor level. Due to the elevated position of the dwelling these are positioned at a level between the lower ground and ground floor windows in the appeal dwelling. One window appears to be a secondary window and would, in any case, continue to enjoy outlook across the frontage of No 14 and is sufficiently well separated from it that no material loss of light would occur.
12. The second window is set further back and, owing to the angle between the two dwellings, is closer to the side elevation of No 14. Although outlook is currently affected by the existing side elevation of the appeal dwelling, the proposed increase in height of this elevation both behind and in front of the chimney would materially increase the sense of enclosure and loss of outlook. Some loss of daylight is also likely, exacerbating the harm. This room appears from the evidence to serve a bedroom/study. The loss of outlook and light would therefore materially detract from the living conditions of occupiers.
13. It is concluded on the second main issue that the proposed development would have a materially detrimental effect on the living conditions of occupiers of 12 Great Molewood with respect to outlook, visual intrusion and light. This would conflict with LP Policy DES4 and the NPPF which taken together expect new development, including extensions, to secure a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers, including by avoiding significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties.
14. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
K E Down INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 352 3
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 January 2019 by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3216246 28 Page Hill, Ware SG12 0RZ. The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Robert Nimmo against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. The application Ref 3/18/1808/HH, dated 7 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 31 October 2018. The development proposed is first floor rear extension including insertion of 2 roof lights.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor rear extension including insertion of 2 roof lights, at 28 Page Hill, Ware, Hertford SG13 0RZ, in accordance with the terms of application ref. 3/18/1808/HH dated 7 August 2018, subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this permission.
2) This permission shall relate to the following plans: RN-001 Rev. 01 (Existing layout including location plan); RN-007 Rev. 01 (Proposed rear extension).
3) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the host dwelling.
Main Issues
2. The main issues are the impact on (a) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and (b) the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties, Nos. 26 and 30 Page Hill.
Reasons
3. The appeal site is located within a small modern estate of detached and terraced dwellings. The dwelling on the appeal site is an end terraced property and has an existing single storey rear extension across the whole width of the dwelling. The proposed first floor extension would be above this addition, extending out to the same depth for most of its width, but would ‘step in’ where it would be closest to the boundary with the adjoining attached property, No. 30 Page Hill, where it would be of reduced depth.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 353 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3216246
Effect on character and appearance
4. The extension would have a pitched roof with gable end with a slightly lower ridge than that of the host dwelling. Whilst the extension would be fairly large, and add some bulk to the rear of the dwelling, I consider that it would nevertheless be of a proportionate size in relation to the original dwelling and appear suitably subservient to it. The design of the extension would result in a ‘stepped’ roof, with the main element being of asymmetric form. Whilst this would look somewhat different from the simple pitched roof form of the host dwelling, it would have a similar roof pitch and would be finished in matching materials. In my view it would not appear ‘awkward’ as suggested by the Council.
5. I note that various single storey extensions have been added to other properties within the wider terrace but there are no existing first floor additions. Whilst the proposed extension at the appeal site would, therefore, be the first one in the row, I do not consider that it would look out of place or overbearing given its design and proportionate scale.
6. I find that it would be of sympathetic design and appearance and would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. It would therefore comply with policies HOU11 and DES4 of the East Herts District Plan 2011 to 2033 (2018) (DP) which seek a high standard of design and layout that reflects and promotes local distinctiveness and the best possible use of available land by respecting or improving upon the character of the site and the surrounding area; also that development should be of a size, scale, mass, form, siting, design and materials that is appropriate to the character, appearance and setting of the existing dwelling and surrounding area and extensions that generally appear as a subservient addition.
Effect on living conditions
7. With regard to the impact on the attached dwelling, No. 30 Page Hill, the extension would be sited up to the common boundary, but reduced in depth where it adjoins it, with the main, deeper part of the extension set further away from the boundary. The flank elevation of the deeper element of the extension facing this property would appear as a high wall with only a short depth of roof as a result of its asymmetric form. However, I consider that it would be sufficiently set back such as to not result in an unduly detrimental or overbearing impact. In addition, whilst noting that the dwelling on the appeal site is located to the south west of this adjoining dwelling and would therefore introduce some overshadowing, given the relatively modest depth of extension proposed I do not consider that this impact would be unacceptable.
8. The other adjoining property, No. 26, is a detached dwelling set further forward in its plot relative to the dwelling on the appeal site. At present, the two storey element of the dwelling on the appeal site projects further south relative to the main rear elevation of No. 26, though is roughly level with the rear elevation of the conservatory which is sited to the rear of this property, adjacent to the boundary of the appeal site. The proposed first floor addition would result in the two storey element extending to a greater depth than that of the conservatory.
9. However, there is a path between the dwellings which provides some separation and, taking into account the depth of the proposed first floor
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning354 -inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3216246
addition and its roof form which would slope away from the boundary, I consider that no unacceptably overbearing impact would be introduced. Whilst it is likely that there would be some impact on daylight, I do not consider that it would be significant. In addition, due to the relative orientation of the properties, there would also be some impact on the amount of sunlight received by this neighbouring property; however, this would be limited to early morning only.
10. I find that the proposal would not detract from the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties. It would thus comply with DP policies DES4 and HOU11 which seek a high standard of design and layout, and that significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties and land should be avoided.
Conclusions
11. Overall I find that the proposal would not be an unacceptably harmful form of development. With regard to conditions, in addition to referring to the approved plans in the interests of proper planning, a condition to require matching materials is required in the interests of good design and visual amenity.
12. For the reasons set out above, conclude that this appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted.
P Jarvis
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 355
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 January 2019
by Graham Chamberlain BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25th January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/18/3213451 Land at Chapel Lane, Little Hadham, Hertfordshire SG11 2AB The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant permission in principle. The appeal is made by Oakhall Group against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. The application Ref 3/18/1819/PIP, dated 2 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 6 September 2018. The development proposed is described as ‘erection of four bungalows (2 x affordable)’.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The appellant is seeking ‘permission in principle’ (PiP) for the erection of four homes. The matters for consideration are limited to the location, land use and amount of development. Points of detail, such as the layout of the dwellings and their scale and appearance are to be considered at the technical details consent stage if PiP is approved. As such, these matters are not currently before me and therefore the layout plan submitted with the application is not for formal consideration.
3. The application for PiP must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Since the Council issued its decision it has adopted The East Hertfordshire District Plan 2018. This has superseded the East Herts Local Plan Review 2007 and Policies GBC2, GBC3 and BH6 therein, which were referred to in the reasons for refusal. It is incumbent upon me to base my decision upon the most up to date planning policies and this is what I have done. The appellant has had an opportunity to address the change in policy through the final comments stage of the appeal.
Main Issues
4. The main issues in this appeal are whether the appeal site would be suitable for the location, land use and amount of development proposed, with particular reference to: 1) Policies concerned with housing in rural areas; and 2) Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Hadham Ford Conservation Area1.
1 Both the Council and the appellant have considered this point and therefore I consider it to be a matter that is relevant to whether the location, land use and amount of development proposed is suitable ‘in principle’.
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning356 -inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3213451
Reasons
Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development
5. The appeal site encompasses a small paddock the eastern boundary of which is delineated by a hedge. There are two residential properties on the eastern side of the hedge, the gardens of which abut the appeal site. The hedge marks the logical edge of the village and therefore it delineates the settlement boundary as articulated on the Council’s Policies Map. The appeal site is therefore located within the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt for the purposes of applying the policies in The East Hertfordshire District Plan 2018 (EHDP).
6. Policy GBR2 states that in order to maintain the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt as a valued countryside resource, certain types of development, listed (a) to (h), will be permitted subject to their effects. The corollary of this is that proposals advocating a type of development not listed would not be supported ‘in principle’ by the policy. The appeal scheme would not be any of the types of development listed (a) to (h) in the policy, such as a rural exception site or the redevelopment of previously developed land. A definition of the term limited infilling for the purposes of Policy GBR2 has not been provided but the appeal site is too large, with too wide a frontage, to be considered as such.
7. In addition to maintaining the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt as a valued countryside resource, the EHDP also sets out a spatial strategy for the location and distribution of new housing. This is based on a form of settlement hierarchy where the largest villages with the most facilities – Group 1 Villages – will accommodate at least 500 homes. Group 2 villages, which are generally smaller and have fewer facilities than Group 1 villages, are to have more limited levels of development restricted to infilling within the village development boundary. There is no set growth target for Group 2 villages. The settlement boundaries have specifically been drawn tightly around the main built up area of the village but flexibility is provided because local communities can allocate new development outside of settlement boundaries through a Neighbourhood Plan.
8. Hadham Ford is identified as a Group 2 village and therefore infill development within its village boundary is supported by Policy VILL2. The appeal scheme would not amount to limited infill development within the defined boundary of the village and it has not currently been identified to accommodate housing in an adopted Neighbourhood Plan. The policy states that development will be limited to the built up area boundaries of the village prior to the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan. Accordingly, the appeal scheme does not glean support from Policy VILL2.
9. Thus, the proposal, in terms of its location, would be at odds with Policies GBR2 and VILL2. It would therefore harmfully undermine the adopted and evidenced based spatial strategy for rural housing in the development plan and the consistency and relative certainty that should flow from a plan led approach to the location of new development. The Policies referred to above have been recently adopted and postdate the introduction of the revised National Planning Policy Framework. Moreover, the Council has advised that it can demonstrate a 6.2 year housing land supply, a point that has not been challenged by the appellant. As a consequence, Policies GBR2 and VILL2 carry full weight.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 357 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3213451
Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Hadham Ford Conservation Area (CA)
10. Hadham Ford is broadly linear in form being arranged along a through road that runs alongside the River Ash. Its setting within a shallow river valley and the presence of small paddocks and open fields around the edge of the village affords the settlement a rural character and this, along with the period architecture at its core, conveys a special character and significance.
11. The appeal site is an undeveloped paddock which adjoins open rolling countryside to the north. Its undeveloped state provides a visual break between the core of the settlement and a historic farmstead to the west, which is also within the CA and encompasses the original farm house and two traditional buildings converted to dwelling. The rural appearance of the appeal site and its function as a pleasant visual gap adds positively to the attractive agricultural landscape setting of the village and thus the significance of the CA. This is the case even though the CA Plan does not identify it as an important open space to be protected. In this respect my findings are consistent with those of a previous Inspector2.
12. Thus, the erection of four homes in this location would inherently erode both the rural setting of the village and the visual gap between the historic farmstead and the village core. This would harm the significance and character of the CA even when having regard to other developments that have taken place along Chapel Lane, such as the erection of Foxearth and Sammy Croft, both of which now have a settled appearance and are outside the CA.
13. The details submitted with the application suggest the four dwellings would be small bungalows and this would allow the hedge along the site frontage to provide a notable level of screening, particularly if the homes were set back and finished in sensitive materials that would harmonise with the historic farmstead. However, the hedge would not entirely screen the structures and its longevity could not be guaranteed. In any event, I am unable to attach conditions that would secure housing of a diminutive scale to an approval of PiP. Applicants can be informed of what is expected for the technical details consent but that is not the same as imposing conditions that would make an unacceptable development acceptable. Accordingly, mitigation through design is not a point that can be afforded significant weight in establishing the principle of development. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policies HA1 and HA4 of the EHDP, which seek to secure development that preserves and where possible enhances the historic environment, including the special interest of conservation areas.
14. The harm to the CA would be localised and therefore it would be less than substantial within the meaning of the National Planning Policy Framework. As public benefits of the proposal, it could deliver affordable housing and small bungalows intended to service a local need, such as downsizers. The appellant’s have also indicated that the homes could be offered to locals in the first instance. However, as explained in the preceding paragraph, I am unable to attach planning conditions to any PiP approval and nor is a planning obligation permitted to be taken into account either3. Thus, regardless of
2 APP/J1915/A/12/2178912 3 Se Paragraphs 020 and 022 of the Planning Practice Guide
Page https://www.gov.uk/planning358 -inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/18/3213451
whether they outweigh the harm I have identified, these public benefits cannot be secured at this stage as matters supporting the principle of development.
15. As recorded in the East Herts Village Hierarchy Study 2016, the village benefits from a number of facilities including a public house, village hall and bus stop. Residents of the appeal scheme would be well placed to support the retention of these facilities without relying on private motorised transport. The benefits flowing from this weigh in favour of the proposal. However, I have seen little to suggest the facilities are suffering for lack of patronage and therefore these benefits are not determinative as matters outweighing the inevitable impact upon the CA that would occur from siting homes in this location.
16. Thus, when giving considerable importance and weight to the special regard I must have to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a CA4, I find that the harm that would arise from the appeal scheme would not be outweighed by its cumulative public benefits. Accordingly, there would be a conflict with Paragraph 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework as harm to a designated heritage asset would not have a clear and convincing justification.
Other Matters and Conclusion
17. The appellant has suggested that there are limited opportunities infill development in the village due to site constraints including flood zones, heritage and the tight form of the settlement boundary. However, I cannot rule out all possibility of infilling within the village as there appears to be some gaps. Notwithstanding this, there is no growth target for the village and the local community are in the process of preparing a neighbourhood plan and this will provide the option to allocate sites outside the settlement boundary if infilling is found to be inadequate. This would allow the net to be cast wider in an attempt to find sites, which may include others elsewhere in the parish identified in the Council’s Strategic Land Availability Assessment.
18. Planning permission has been granted for housing at Ashcroft Farm, a site outside of a settlement boundary. However, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the circumstances of this decision are so similar to the appeal scheme as to be a determinative point in favour of it. Instead, when considered on its own merits the appeal scheme has failed for the reasons already given. The other two cases referred to by the appellant are in other local authority areas and would have been subject to different policies and site circumstances, including Green Belt. As such, they are not particularly relevant to my deliberations and therefore I have afforded them limited weight. The appellants concerns with the Council’s processing of the application, including a perceived lack of engagement, has little bearing on my decision, which turns on the merits of the proposal, relevant planning policies and material considerations.
19. To conclude, the proposed development would not accord with the development plan and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.
Graham Chamberlain INSPECTOR
4 See Sections 66(1) and 72(1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Page 359 This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING APPEALS LODGED JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 Head of Planning and Building Control
Application Proposal Address Decision Appeal Appeal Number Start Date Procedure 3/17/1491/FUL Alterations, extensions and conversion of existing Public House to 10 Benington Refused 18/01/2019 Written create 2no x 2-bed units and 1no micro-pub with associated cellar, RoadAstonStevenage SG2 Committee Representation upper floor accommodation, facilities and pub garden with 7DX associated access, parking and refuse. Conversion of detached rear barn to create 1no 2-bed unit with associated access, parking, refuse and private amenity space. Erection of 5.no dwellings on the existing PH car park and garden with associated access, parking, refuse and private amenity space.
3/17/1492/LBC Conversion of the existing, listed Public House to create 2no x 2- 10 Benington Refused 18/01/2019 Written bed units and 1no micro-pub with associated cellar, upper floor RoadAstonStevenage SG2 Committee Representation accommodation, facilities and pub garden .incorporating 7DX alterations and partial demolition of areas of the existing flat roof rear extension area.Conversion of the Listed Barn to the rear of the Public House to create a 2-bed unit with alterations to the listed building and partial demolition of areas of the existing cat slide side aisle. 3/17/2413/FUL Retrospective removal of former horticultural building and 26 Wormley West EndWest End Refused 06/02/2019 Written replacement with office building and staff eating and rest room RoadBroxbourne EN10 7QN Delegated Representation
3/17/2655/FUL Demolition of existing property and erection of a 3 storey building The Bridge HouseNorth Refused 14/01/2019 Written comprising 14 no. residential units (14 x 2 bed) (Use Class C3) RoadHertford SG14 1NA Committee Representation above retail use at ground floor (Use Class A1) measuring 396 sq.m (GIA), along with associated landscaping and provision towards 31 no. car and 18 cycle spaces.
3/18/0106/ADV 1 no. externally illuminated hanging sign (retrospective) The White LionLondon Refused 18/01/2019 Written RoadSawbridgeworth CM21 Delegated Representation 9EN 3/18/0107/LBC 1 no. externally illuminated hanging sign (retrospective) The White LionLondon Refused 18/01/2019 Written RoadSawbridgeworth CM21 Delegated Representation 9EN 3/18/0365/FUL Conversion of garage/store to create ancillary residential annexe 1 Home Farm Cottages Hunsdon Refused 02/02/2019 Written Road Stanstead Abbotts Delegated Representation SG12 8LJ 3/18/0512/HH Raising of roof ridge to create first floor and alterations to 68 GildersSawbridgeworth Refused 09/01/2019 Fast Track fenestration. Creation of vehicular cross over. CM21 0EH Delegated 3/18/0972/FUL Construction of a new house, garage and driveway, with new Land Opposite44 - 58 Chapel Refused 14/01/2019 Written landscape planting. LaneLetty GreenHertford Delegated Representation SG14 2PA 3/18/1030/FUL Construction of stable building with associated hay store, feed / Hillside FarmHillside LaneGreat Refused 07/01/2019 Written tack room. AmwellWare SG12 9SH Delegated Representation
3/18/1041/FUL Erection of five dwellings, 2no. 3-bed units and 3no. 4-bed units 10 Benington Refused 18/01/2019 Written on the existing car park and garden with associated access, RoadAstonStevenage SG2 Delegated Representation parking, refuse and private amenity space. Conversion of the 7DX existing, disused listed Public House to create 3no. 2-bed units with associated access, parking, refuse and private amenity space. Alterations to the listed building and partial demolition of areas of the existing flat roof rear extension area to form new entrances. Conversion of the Listed Barn to the rear of the Public House to create 1no. 2-bed unit with associated access, parking, refuse and private amenity space. Retained willow tree and landscaped open space to the centre of the scheme.
3/18/1042/LBC Conversion of the existing, disused, listed Public House to create 10 Benington Refused 18/01/2019 Written 3no. 2-bed units with associated access, parking, refuse and RoadAstonStevenage SG2 Delegated Representation private amenity space. Alterations to the listed building and partial 7DX demolition of areas of the existing flat roof rear extension area to form new entrances. Conversion of the Listed Barn to the rear of the Public House to create 1no. 2-bed unit with associated access, parking, refuse and private amenity space. Alterations to the listed building accordingly.
3/18/1063/FUL Erection of 5 dwellings comprising the replacement of two existing 63/65/67 Lower RoadGreat Refused 02/01/2019 Written bungalows with a pair of semi-detached dwellings and the erection AmwellWare SG12 9SZ Delegated Representation of 3 detached dwellings. 3/18/1180/FUL Erection of 1 no. two bedroomed dwelling 99 Dimsdale CrescentBishops Refused 31/01/2019 Written Stortford CM23 5LW Delegated Representation Page 361 3/18/1186/FUL Erection of 1no 4bedroom two storey detached house. Land Adjacent To Wharenui Refused 02/01/2019 Written Danebridge Lane Much Hadham Delegated Representation SG10 6HX 3/18/1305/HH Change of use of garage to ancillary accommodation. BarnacresErmine StreetColliers Refused 23/01/2019 Fast Track Enlargement of footprint, raising of roof and alterations to EndWare SG11 1ER Delegated fenestration. 3/18/1325/FUL Demolition of two storey garden outbuilding and erection of single 1 Woodcock Lodge Farm Cottages Refused 07/01/2019 Written storey building to house cats. Tylers Causeway Newgate Delegated Representation Street SG13 8QN 3/18/1384/FUL Retention of dwelling not in accordance with condition 6 of Edgewood FarmCock Refused 31/01/2019 Written planning permission reference: 3/11/1170/FP as an ancillary LaneBroxbourne EN10 7QS Delegated Representation building to new dwelling. 3/18/1516/PNHH Single storey rear extension. Depth 8 metres, Maximum height 3 11 East DriveSawbridgeworth Refused 10/01/2019 Written metres, Eaves height 3 metres. CM21 9EU Delegated Representation 3/18/1554/FUL Demolition and removal of existing structures, construction of a Coopers YardFriars Refused 03/01/2019 Written new single storey, two-bedroom dwelling and associated access RoadBraughingWare SG11 Delegated Representation and parking area. 2NR 3/18/1606/HH Demolition of garage and single storey rear extension. Erection of 25 Church RoadLittle Refused 25/02/2019 Fast Track a two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and BerkhamstedHertford SG13 Delegated erection of porch. 8LY 3/18/1669/HH Proposed first floor front elevation extension, single storey rear 1 BritanniaPuckeridgeWare Refused 23/01/2019 Fast Track extension, conversion of garage and first floor side window SG11 1TG Delegated opening. 3/18/1786/HH Two storey rear extension and first floor rear extension. New Jenningsbury FarmLondon Refused 14/01/2019 Fast Track ground floor rear and side window openings. RoadHertford SG13 7NS Delegated 3/18/1787/HH Raising of roof ridge and insertion of dormer window. Alterations 14 Great MolewoodHertford Refused 23/01/2019 Fast Track to fenestration. SG14 2PN Delegated 3/18/1788/HH Construction of driveway, vehicle crossover and removal of part of 140 South StreetBishops Refused 09/01/2019 Fast Track the existing low wall Stortford CM23 3BQ Delegated 3/18/1789/FUL Erection of 1 no. 5 bedroomed dwelling with carport and Land Adj To Elms Slough Road Refused 14/02/2019 Written associated access and landscaping. Allens Green Sawbridgeworth Delegated Representation CM21 0LR 3/18/1880/HH Remove hedge and replace with 2 metre high acoustic fencing . 95 Dunmow RoadBishops Refused 14/01/2019 Fast Track Stortford CM23 5HF Delegated 3/18/1885/FUL Demolition of existing outbuildings including two residential units. Silkmead Farm HouseHare Refused 25/01/2019 Written Erection of 1no. 5 bed dwelling. StreetBuntingford SG9 0DX Delegated Representation 3/18/1993/FUL Proposed demolition of existing detached garage and erection of 38 Bengeo Street Bengeo Refused 30/01/2019 Written detached single storey one bedroom dwelling with basement, Hertford SG14 3ES Delegated Representation lightwell and 2 parking spaces 3/18/2056/HH Replacement of ground and first floor timber windows (front 7 Manor RoadBishops Stortford Refused 05/02/2019 Fast Track elevation) with white double glazed UPVC windows . CM23 5HU Delegated 3/18/2105/HH Erection of front boundary railings above existing dwarf wall, High Wych House High Wych Refused 14/01/2019 Fast Track erection of gates and associated landscaping - retrospective Road High Wych Delegated Sawbridgeworth CM21 0HX 3/18/2108/HH Demolition of existing garage and erection of a two storey side 141 Parsonage LaneBishops Refused 14/01/2019 Fast Track extension and single storey rear extension Stortford CM23 5BB Delegated 3/18/2109/HH Erection of two storey rear extension and provision for off street 12 Chantry RoadBishops Refused 12/02/2019 Fast Track parking. Stortford CM23 2SF Delegated 3/18/2127/FUL Erection of a timber canopy Harwood Park Crematorium Refused 30/01/2019 Written Watton Road Past Harwood Park Delegated Representation Crematorium Stevenage SG2 8XT 3/18/2138/FUL Residential development comprising 4 no. detached houses within Orion (Garden Of)London Refused 30/01/2019 Written part of the garden of the existing house (Orion). RoadSpellbrookBishops Delegated Representation Stortford CM23 4AX 3/18/2141/HH Raising of roof to create first floor side extension. An erection of 21 Rochford RoadBishops Refused 12/02/2019 Fast Track single storey outbuilding to rear garden. Stortford CM23 5ET Delegated 3/18/2154/HH First floor side extension and ground floor rear extension. 23 New Park Lane Aston Refused 25/02/2019 Written Stevenage SG2 7ED Delegated Representation 3/18/2233/HH Demolition of garage. Part single and part two storey side and rear 68 Stansted RoadBishops Refused 12/02/2019 Fast Track extensions. Alterations to roof incorperating 2 no. dormer windows Stortford CM23 2DZ Delegated to rear and side and 4 no. rooflights. Removal of one chimney. Erection of porch. Erection of summer house/garage. Alterations to drive and cross over. 3/18/2272/HH Ground floor rear extension and first floor part side and rear 4 Rise CottagesWidford Refused 25/02/2019 Fast Track extension. RoadHunsdonWare SG12 Delegated 8SB 3/18/2276/HH Single storey side extension and fenestration alterations to the Amwell LodgeCautherly Refused 05/02/2019 Fast Track front elevation. LaneGreat AmwellWare Delegated SG12 9SN 3/18/2442/HH Erection of first floor extension and associated alterations to BrienzAlbury RoadLittle Refused 04/02/2019 Fast Track ground floor. HadhamWare SG11 2DN Delegated 3/18/2471/HH Demoltion of garage. Single storey side extension and two storey 20 Desborough DriveTewin Refused 05/02/2019 Fast Track rear extension. Alterations to front and rear fenestration. WoodTewin AL6 0HJ Delegated Page 362 Background Papers None
Contact Officers Sara Saunders, Head of Planning and Building Control - Ext 1407
Page 363 This page is intentionally left blank Public Inquiry and Hearing Dates All Hertford Council Chamber unless specified
Procedure Application Case Officer Address Proposal Appeal Status Type Date 3/17/1867/FUL Lisa Page Hertford Golf Course London Change of use from agricultural land to golf course; erection of golf club INPROG Public Inquiry 19th March 2019 Road Hertford Hertfordshire house with bar, restaurant, changing and pro shop facilities; incorporation Council Chamber SG13 7NS of a water harvesting scheme for sustainable irrigation and an improved Wallfields drainage system through the importation of recovered soils; upgraded practice facility including covered practice bays; and enhanced landscaping. Page 365 Page This page is intentionally left blank DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
Major, Minor and Other Planning Applications
Cumulative Performance Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Total Applications No. ITEM 6D AGENDA Received 242 486 719 943 1135 1313 1550 1766 1928 2107 2351
Targets for National Local Targets (set Percentage achieved Performance by against Local and (set by East Government)
National Targets Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Herts)
Major % 66% 63% 66% 82% 83% 85% 87% 88% 89% 90% 91% Major % 60% 60%
Minor % 83% 88% 91% 90% 87% 83% 82% 82% 82% 81% 79% Minor % 80% 65%
Other % 95% 95% 96% 95% 94% 92% 91% 90% 90% 89% 88% Other % 90% 80% Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Appeals Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Total number of appeal decisions (Monthy) 11 5 17 14 8 1 3 24 9 16 5 Number Allowed against our refusal (Monthly) 2 2 9 43101023 4
Total number of
Page 367 Page appeal decisions (Cumulative) 11 16 33 47 55 56 59 86 95 111 116 Number Allowed against our refusal (Cumulative) 2 4 13 17 20 21 21 29 31 34 35 This page is intentionally left blank