Public Document Pack

Jeff Hughes Head of Democratic and Legal Support Services

MEETING : DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE VENUE : COUNCIL CHAMBER, WALLFIELDS, HERTFORD DATE : WEDNESDAY 27 MAY 2015 TIME : 7.00 PM

PLEASE NOTE TIME AND VENUE

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: To be confirmed at Annual Council on 20 May 2015.

SUBSTITUTES: To be confirmed at Annual Council on 20 May 2015.

(Note: Substitution arrangements must be notified by the absent Member to Democratic Services 7 hours before the meeting).

CONTACT OFFICER: PETER MANNINGS 01279 502174 [email protected] Would Members note that there is a mandatory training session for Members and Substitutes of the Development Management Committee at 6.30 pm in the Council Chamber, Wallfields, Hertford on Thursday 21 May 2015.

In addition, prior to the first meeting of the Committee on Wednesday 27 May 2015, there will be a Question and Answer ‘drop in clinic’ for Members and Substitutes of the Development Management Committee at 5.30 pm in Room 27, Wallfields, Hertford.

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.)

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. Appointment of Vice–Chairman

2. Apologies

To receive apologies for absence.

3. Chairman's Announcements

4. Declarations of Interest

5. Minutes – 25 March 2015

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 25 March 2015 (Previously circulated as part of the Council Minute book for 20 May 2015).

6. Planning Applications and Unauthorised Development for Consideration by the Committee (Pages 7 – 10).

(A) 3/14/2023/OP – Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of 13 dwellings at land south of Tanners Way, Hunsdon, SG12 8QD for Mr and Mrs P Findlay (Pages 11 – 48).

Recommended for Approval.

(B) 3/15/0415/FUL – Construction of 2 houses with garage parking at rear at 103, New Road, Ware SG12 7BY for V and V Reclamation. (Pages 49 – 60).

Recommended for Approval.

(C) 3/15/0040/FP – Demolition of redundant/disused motor repair workshop and erection of 1no 2 bedroomed dwelling at land at Kenton House, Hare Street, SG9 0EA for Mr D Madden (Pages 61 – 70).

Recommended for Refusal.

(D) 3/14/1812/FP – Erection of generator compound at Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works, Stanstead Abbotts, Ware, Hertfordshire, SG12 8JY for Peakgen Power Ltd (Pages 71 – 80).

Recommended for Approval.

(E) 3/15/0361/FP – Installation of outdoor ménage at Lavender Cottage, Hare Street, SG9 0DY for Mrs A Osborne (Pages 81 – 86).

Recommended for Approval.

(F) a) 3/15/0244/FP – Conversion of first floor to include 6 no. letting rooms; b) 3/15/0349/FUL – Construction of brick chimney stack to house kitchen extract flue (amended scheme); c) 3/15/0628/FUL - Conservatory to rear (amended scheme) at The Cock Public House, Stocking Pelham SG9 0HZ for Winchmore Development. (Pages 87 – 98).

a) 3/15/0244/FP – Recommended for Approval. b) 3/15/0349/FUL – Recommended for Approval. c) 3/15/0628/FUL – Recommended for Approval.

(G) 3/15/0228/SV – Variation of the Section 106 Legal Agreement associated with LPA 3/92/0474/FP (dated 3rd September 2001) by the removal of Clause 1.2 and the removal of Clause 1(i) of the s52 Agreement (dated 28th September 1987) associated with LPA 3/86/1939/OP, to remove the 'elderly persons' age restriction at Land at Stocking Hill Lane, Cottered, SG9 9PY for Joseph Edis. (Pages 99 – 108).

Recommended for Approval.

(H) E/14/0179/A – Unauthorised change of use of Turkey barn to B8 (storage and distribution) use at Eastwick Hall farm, Eastwick, Harlow, CM20 2RA (Pages 109 – 116).

Enforcement.

7. Planning Appeal: Residential Development Proposals, Land Off Green End, Braughing (Up To 60 Houses) Ref 3/14/1448/OP (Pages 117 – 158).

Planning Appeal.

8. Items for Reporting and Noting (Pages 159 – 160).

(A) Appeals against refusal of Planning Permission/ non-determination – ‘To Follow’.

(B) Planning Appeals Lodged – ‘To Follow’.

(D) Planning Statistics – ‘To Follow’.

9. 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 6 EAST HERTS COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – 27 MAY 2015

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

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.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT MANGEMENT COMMITTEE

(A) A recommendation is set out separately for each application and unauthorised development matter.

1.0 Display of Plans

1.1 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 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.

1.2 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.display

1.3 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.

Page 7 2.0 Implications/Consultations

2.1 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 – Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Development Management and Councillor Support.

Contact Officers: Kevin Steptoe – Head of Planning and Building Control, Extn: 1407. [email protected]

Alison Young – Development Manager, Extn: 1553. [email protected]

Report Author: Kevin Steptoe – Head of Planning and Building Control, Extn: 1407. [email protected]

Page 8 ESSENTIAL REFERENCE PAPER ‘A’

IMPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS:

Contribution to People – Fair and accessible services for those that the Council’s use them and opportunities for everyone to Corporate contribute Priorities/ Objectives This priority focuses on delivering strong services and (delete as seeking to enhance the quality of life, health and appropriate): wellbeing, particularly for those who are vulnerable. Place – Safe and Clean This priority focuses on sustainability, the built environment and ensuring our towns and villages are safe and clean. Prosperity – Improving the economic and social opportunities available to our communities This priority focuses on safeguarding and enhancing our unique mix of rural and urban communities, promoting sustainable, economic opportunities and delivering cost effective services. Consultation: As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are appropriate.

Legal: As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are appropriate.

Financial: As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are appropriate.

Human As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are Resource: appropriate.

Risk As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are Management: appropriate.

Health and As set out separately in relation to each matter if any are wellbeing – appropriate. issues and impacts:

Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 10 Agenda Item 6a 3/14/2023/OP – Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of 13 dwellings at land south of Tanners Way, Hunsdon, SG12 8QD for Mr and Mrs P Findlay

Date of Receipt: 17.11.2014 Type: Full - Major

Parish: HUNSDON

Ward: HUNSDON

RECOMMENDATION: a) That, subject to the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to cover the following matters:

• The provision of 25% affordable housing comprising of a mixture of 75% social rent and 25% shared ownership;

• Financial contributions towards primary education (towards the expansion of Hunsdon Primary School), youth (towards enhancing the sport provision at Ware Young People’s Centre) and library services (towards the adult area of Ware library) based upon table 2 of the Hertfordshire County Council Planning Obligation toolkit;

• A financial contribution towards sustainable transport schemes and traffic calming/safety enhancements based upon the size of the dwelling (1 bed = £625, 2 bed = £750, 3 bed = £1125, 4 bed £1500.);

• A financial contribution towards the Hunsdon Village Hall based upon table 11 of the Planning Obligations SPD;

• A financial contribution towards children and young people (improvement to the play equipment at the recreational playing field) and sports and recreation (refurbishment of the village tennis courts) based upon table 8 of the Planning Obligations SPD;

• Fire hydrants; b) The Director of Neighbourhood Services be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called the ‘reserved matters’) of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Page 11 3/14/2023/OP

Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To comply with the provision of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

2. Application for approval in respect of all matters reserved in this permission shall be made to the Local Planning Authority within a period of 2 years commencing on the date of this notice.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and in the interests of ensuring that the development meets the housing needs of the District.

3. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun prior to the expiration of a period of 1 year commencing on the date upon which final approval of reserved matters is given by the Local Planning Authority or, in the case of approval given on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and in the interests of ensuring that the development meets the housing needs of the District.

4. Approved plans (2E103)

5. Prior to the commencement of any development, a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:

• the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; • loading and unloading of plant and materials; • storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; • the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; • wheel washing facilities; Page 12 3/14/2023/OP

• measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; • a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.

Reason: To minimise impact of construction process on the on local environment and local highway network.

6. Construction hours of working (6N07)

7. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed surface water drainage scheme and maintenance strategy for the drainage scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be based upon the outline drainage strategy (RAB dated 27 October 2014). The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To prevent an increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, and improve habitat and amenity and to ensure that the drainage infrastructure put in place in managed and maintained properly in accordance with policy ENV21 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

8. Prior to first occupation of the development details of an acoustic fence as set out in the Cass Allen Noise Report dated 19 February 2015 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 details.

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision of outdoor amenity space in accordance with policy ENV1 and ENV25 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Directives:

1. Ownership (02OW)

2. Highway works (06FC2)

3. Planning obligation (08PO)

4. Street Naming and Numbering (19SN)

Page 13 3/14/2023/OP

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 (Minerals Local Plan, Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD 2012 and the ’saved’ policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007); the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended). The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies together with the positive way in which the proposed development will address five year housing land supply issues is that permission should be granted. (202314OP.MP)

1.0 Background

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. The application was reported to the Development Management Committee on 04 February 2015 and 25 March 2015 – copies of the Officer Committee Reports are attached Essential Reference Papers ‘A’ and ‘B’.

1.2 The main area of debate at those Committee meetings related to whether an appropriate level of amenity for future residents of the development will be provided (in terms of noise and disturbance), having regard to the relationship between the development site and Hunsdon Skips, a waste transfer station located around 120metres to the south of the application site.

1.3 Hunsdon Skips, is controlled by the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, which are regulated by the Environment Agency. The Environmental Permit controls a number of matters including dust, odour and noise. A condition of the permit is the requirement to have an Environmental Management System which includes Operational Procedures, including those focused on managing noise.

1.4 The Environment Agency, as the regulatory body for controlling Environmental Permits, have been working with Hunsdon Skips in the preparation of an updated Operational Procedure which deals with a range of management procedures at the site including operation of machinery and other related health and safety matters. That updated Operational Procedure has now been implemented.

1.5 Members deferred the application on 25 March 2015 to enable further Page 14 3/14/2023/OP

exploration of the relevant noise assessment issues and to allow consideration of the updated arrangements through the Environmental Permit.

1.6 The applicant has sought to provide further information through a further noise survey which has been undertaken to cross reference with the updated Operational Procedures that Hunsdon Skips have now adopted.

1.7 There is no planning history relating to the site and previous consultation responses and policy context is set out in Essential Reference Paper ‘A’ which is appended to this report. Furthermore, all other planning considerations relating to the development proposal are also set out in Essential Reference Paper ‘A’.

2.0 Considerations

2.1 At the Development Management Committee on 25 March 2015, Members raised concern that the submitted noise assessment was not representative of the level of activities at Hunsdon Skips and the noise assessment was indicative of the type of noise but did not accurately reflect the intensity due to the number of machines in operation during the assessment. Members sought additional information regarding the noise impact having regard to the changes in the Operational Procedures which are being put in place by Hunsdon Skips.

2.2 The Operational Procedures document has been submitted with the Noise Assessment and includes details regarding the hours of operation of the machinery. The document sets out that the site will operate 07:00–17:00 Monday – Friday and 07:00–14:00 on Saturdays with no waste processing prior to 8am. All machinery will run during that time except the shredder and trommel (rotating cylinder used to separate materials) which will run from 8:00–17:00. There are two shredders on the site but only one will run at any one time.

2.3 The Noise Survey took place on 01 May 2015 and the Noise Consultant confirmed with Hunsdon Skips that all plant was fully operational during that time – video recording of that machinery in operation confirms this. The assessment took place during a period when the trommel, shredder, loader and grab where being operated concurrently – this therefore represents the ‘worst case scenario’. Noise recordings took place at the south-western edge of the application site – the area of the application site subject to the highest noise levels from Hunsdon Skips.

2.4 The Noise Survey reveals that the levels measured on 01 May 2015 Page 15 3/14/2023/OP

were lower than that measured on 13 February 2015 (which was reported to Members on 25 March Committee – ERP B).

2.5 The Noise Survey sets out that under typical conditions (i.e. with a south westerly prevailing wind) the noise levels associated with Hunsdon Skips are only 1dB above background levels which is well below the threshold for ‘adverse impact expected’, as defined in the relevant British Standard.

2.6 With an easterly wind Hunsdon Skips has a 9dB above background level which is below the level where a significant adverse impact would be expected but above the level were an adverse impact would be expected, as set out in the British Standard. The Noise Assessment nevertheless considers that the application site is acceptable having regard to the British Standard for the following reasons:- the adverse impact is not the typical condition (i.e. not the prevailing south westerly wind but an easterly wind); no noise complaints have been received from Tanners Way prior to submission of the application and that the implementation of the Operational Procedures has resulted in a drop of noise output by 3dB.

2.7 The Noise Survey also sets out a consideration on the basis of internal spaces of the proposed development and outside garden amenity spaces.

2.8 With regards to internal noise within the proposed dwellings, the position has not significantly differed from that set out in para 2.4 of ERP B. The provision of normal building construction methods will ensure that the development is acceptable, in terms of internal living space.

2.9 With regards to external garden space, the recordings taken in May 2015 set out that external amenity spaces are subject to approximately 49dB, that is below the measurements taken in February. An appropriate level of outside amenity space is therefore provided (noise levels of 50 – 55dB should not be exceeded) and there is therefore no need for an acoustic fence, as referred to in para 2.5 of Essential Reference Paper ‘B’.

2.10 In summary, an Operational Procedure has now been put in place and implemented by Hunsdon Skips and a further noise assessment has been carried out by the applicant with that procedure in place. The applicant confirms that, during that survey the shredder, trommel, grab and loading shovel were operational. The findings of the noise survey undertaken in May set out that overall noise emissions from the site Page 16 3/14/2023/OP

were lower than those measured in February.

2.11 The prevailing wind direction has a significant impact on background noise levels and during the period when there is a prevailing south westerly wind there is very little likelihood of adverse impact. Under less common wind conditions adverse impact was expected but was not considered to be harmful. The noise assessment reveals that an appropriate level of amenity for future residents in terms of internal and external spaces is provided in accordance with the relevant British Standard.

2.12 Officers consider that the changes to the Operational Procedure have resulted in reduced noise levels associated with Hunsdon Skips. If the site does not continue to operate in accordance with that procedure the Environment Agency, as the regulatory body, is responsible for taking enforcement action. Such action is similar to planning enforcement, insofar as it passes through different stages. As with planning, the initial stage is, through discussion, to bring the site back into compliance with the Operational Procedure.

2.13 The operator will be subject to audit and inspection visits by the EA which will be used to calculate fees applicable to the Environment Agency. The higher level of non-compliance will result in an increased levels of fees payable to the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency also has the power to revoke the Environmental Permit and cease the operation of the site.

3.0 Conclusion

3.1 Having regard to the Noise Survey and Assessment and the comments from the Environmental Health Team in relation to the previous survey, Officers consider that an appropriate level of amenity will be provided for future residents of the development proposal in accordance with policy ENV25 of the Local Plan.

3.2 Having regard to that and the considerations and conclusions set out in Essential Reference Papers ‘A’ and ‘B’, Officers therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the signing of a Section 106 agreement.

Page 17 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 18 Essential Reference Paper ‘A’

3/14/2023/OP – Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of 13 dwellings at land south of Tanners Way, Hunsdon, SG12 8QD for Mr and Mrs P Findlay

Date of Receipt: 17.11.2014 Type: Full – Major

Parish: HUNSDON

Ward: HUNSDON

RECOMMENDATION:

That, subject to the applicant or successor in title entering into a legal obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to cover the following matters:

• The provision of 25% affordable housing comprising of a mixture of 75% social rent and 25% shared ownership;

• Financial contributions towards secondary education, youth and library services based upon table 2 of the Hertfordshire County Council Planning Obligation toolkit;

• A financial contribution towards the Hunsdon Village Hall based upon table 11 of the Planning Obligations SPD;

• Fire hydrants;

• Monitoring fee of £310 per clause.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called the ‘reserved matters’) of the development shall be Page 19 3/14/2023/OP

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To comply with the provision of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

2. Application for approval in respect of all matters reserved in this permission shall be made to the Local Planning Authority within a period of 2 years commencing on the date of this notice.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and in the interests of ensuring that the development meets the housing needs of the District.

4. Approved plans (2E103)

and construction works.

Reason: To minimise impact of construction process on the on local environment and local highway network.

6. Construction hours of working (6N07)

Directives:

1. Ownership (02OW)

2. Highway works (06FC2)

3. Planning obligation (08PO)

4. Street Naming and Numbering (19SN)

Summary of Reasons for Decision

Page 21 3/14/2023/OP

(202314OP.MP)

1.0 Background

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract and forms an open agricultural field. There are open fields to the south and west of the application site. There is a hedge to the eastern boundary with the main road, B180, which runs through the village. The residential estate of Tanners Way is located to the North.

1.2 The proposed development is in outline form only with all matters reserved and incorporates the provision of 13 residential dwellings including 25% affordable homes. The applicant also indicates that 3 of the dwellings will be bungalows.

1.3 An indicative layout plan has been submitted which shows a vehicular access to the south of the site off the B180 and an additional pedestrian access to the north of the site. The indicative plan shows the provision of five dwellings fronting the road and all other dwellings are inward facing into the site, fronting onto the central access road. A sizeable drainage pond is shown towards the south west of the site.

2.0 Site History

2.1 There is no relevant planning history relating to the site.

3.0 Consultation Responses

3.1 The Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to a Sustainable Transport Contribution and a number of conditions.

The Highways Officer comments that the B180 is a secondary distributor road with a 30mph speed limit and fronting the site is a narrow public footway.

The indicative layout shows an access which, in principle, appears to comply with highway standards. However, within the submission of any reserved matters application, consideration should be given to improving the highway fronting the site.

There is no highway objection to the principle of additional houses in this location.

3.2 Herts County Council Planning Obligations team request financial Page 22 3/14/2023/OP

contributions towards secondary education, youth and library services and fire hydrants as set out in the HCC Planning Obligation Toolkit. 3.3 The Environment Agency refer the Council to their standing advice. The main flood risk issue is the management of surface water run-off and the Council should ensure sustainable surface water management.

3.4 Thames Water advise that, with regard to sewerage infrastructure capacity, they have no objection to the application.

With regards to surface water drainage, they comment that it is the responsibility of the developer to make proper provision for drainage. In respect of surface water it is recommended that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater, and where a developer proposes to discharge into a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water will be required. Water supply in the area is covered by Affinity Water.

3.5 Hertfordshire Constabulary do not object to the application but comment on the two footpaths leading into the development. The two paths have the potential to give unauthorised access to the rear of several properties and one of the footways should be removed or gated to reduce accessibility to non-residents.

3.6 Environmental Health recommend planning permission be granted subject to conditions on construction hours of working, soil decontamination, and piling works.

The Environmental Health Officer refers to complaints received from nearby residents to the Fillets Farm site in terms of noise and disturbance from the commercial operation of Hunsdon skips which is operating from that site. The Environmental Health Officer comments that there is potential for noise and dust nuisance from that site to the proposed development but that given the distance between the application site and that site, that a noise assessment is not necessary.

3.7 The Council Engineers comment that the site is situated within flood zone 1 and away from flood zone 2 and 3. There are no historical flood incidents.

The site is suitable for above ground SuDS which has been identified by the applicant.

3.8 Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust comment that indigenous species should be included in the landscape plan and bat/bird boxes should be Page 23 3/14/2023/OP

included to the properties.

3.9 The Landscape Officer recommends that planning permission be granted.

The Officer comments that the site currently has a predominantly rural (rather than urban) landscape character. The northern site boundary abuts Hunsdon village boundary at Tanners Way - which is characterised by single storey bungalows set back from the road by a wide grass verge containing trees. On the eastern site boundary alongside the B180, there is a well-established and unbroken contiguous hedgerow - a prominent landscape feature which, if retained, will assist in screening any potential development, depending on the ridge heights and set back from the road. The southern and western aspects of the site comprise open farmland beyond.

The site is considered by the Landscape Officer to be of low to moderate sensitivity to, (and moderate to high capacity for) accommodating an appropriate layout and form for housing development.

The Landscape Officer makes some suggestions to alter the layout of the development site, as shown on in the indicative layout plans.

4.0 Parish Council Representations

4.1 Hunsdon Parish Council object to the planning application for the following reasons:

• The site is outside the boundaries of the village and in the countryside; • The development is not in a sustainable location. Public transport is poor with an infrequent and unreliable bus service. Limited servces on Saturdays with no bus to Harlow and no buses in the evenings on any night of the week and none on a Sunday; • Distances to main settlements in terms of walking and cycling are significant and constrained by the rural location of the site; • The primary school is large and over-subscribed – existing residents have to travel outside of the village to find spaces; • No doctors surgery in the village; • There are two pub/restaurants in the village; • The playing field in the village is significantly reduced by the grant of permission for a new chapel; • The development will increase reliance on cars which will result in Page 24 3/14/2023/OP

a negative impact in terms of emissions; • Road access to the village is along rural country lanes and increased traffic associated with the development will exacerbate existing highway safety issues; • The development will result in an increased flood risk; • The development is in close proximity to Hunsdon Skip Yard and will result in harm to future residents in terms of noise and disturbance; • Insufficient parking has been provided which will lead to parking pressures in the village and adjacent housing areas.

5.0 Other Representations

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 9 letters of representation have been received raising the following concerns:

• Overdevelopment of the site and surroundings; • Additional traffic movements and impact on the village, pedestrians; • Increase noise and air pollution; • Overlooking to neighbouring properties; • Loss of agricultural land; • Impact on future residents from Hunsdon Skips; • Dangerous ingress/egress; • Insufficient infrastructure in the village to cope with the development; • The development in not sustainable in terms of the social and environmental dimension; • Development will set a harmful precedent.

6.0 Policy

6.1 The relevant saved Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

SD1 Making Development More Sustainable SD2 Settlement Hierarchy HSG3 Affordable Housing HSG4 Affordable Housing Criteria HSG6 Lifetime Homes GBC2 The Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt Page 25 3/14/2023/OP

GBC3 Appropriate Development in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt GBC14 Landscape Character TR1 Traffic Reduction in New Developments TR2 Access to New Developments TR3 Transport Assessments TR4 Travel Plans TR7 Car Parking – Standards TR12 Cycle Routes – New Developments TR14 Cycling – Facilities Provision (Residential) TR20 Development Generating Traffic on Rural Roads ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV3 Planning Out Crime – New Development ENV11 Protection of Existing Hedgerows and Trees ENV16 Protected Species ENV20 Groundwater Protection ENV21 Surface Water Drainage ENV25 Noise Sensitive Development BH1 Archaeology and New Development BH2 Archaeological Evaluations and Assessments BH3 Archaeological Conditions and Agreements LRC1 Sport and Recreation Facilities LRC3 Recreational Requirements in New Residential Developments LRC9 Public Rights of Way IMP1 Planning Conditions and Obligations

6.2 In addition to the above the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) are also a consideration in determining this application. Members will be aware that, due to the draft nature of the District Plan, limited weight can currently be applied to its policies.

7.0 Considerations

7.1 The main issues to consider in respect of the proposed residential development having regard to relevant policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the NPPF, will be:-

• The principle of residential development (policy GBC2/GBC3); • Whether the proposal represents a sustainable form of development having regard to the environmental, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability (NPPF); Page 26 3/14/2023/OP

• Whether any harm to the assessment process of the East Hertfordshire District Plan, the character and appearance of the local countryside and landscape, public services within Hunsdon and any other harm attributable to the development, outweighs the presumption in paragraph 14 of the NPPF to favourably consider applications for sustainable development in areas where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

The principle of development

7.2 The site is located within the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt and is not within the boundary of the category one village as set out in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007. The provision of residential development therefore represents a departure from the aforementioned Local Plan.

7.3 One of the determining issues in this proposal is whether there are any overriding material considerations to outweigh this in principle policy objection.

7.4 The NPPF requires that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Whilst the policies in the 2007 Local Plan are considered largely consistent with the NPPF, there is a recognised deficiency in that the Local Plan does not identify adequate land to enable a five year supply of land for housing development. This position is confirmed in the Annual Monitoring Report, December 2014 where, having regard to previous undersupply of housing in the past, it is confirmed that the Council are unable to demonstrate a five year housing supply.

7.5 This is a position which Members will be familiar with having regard to the various appeals, and ongoing appeals in relation to the sites in Buntingford. As Members will be aware, appeals were allowed early last year for around 260 dwellings on land designated as Rural Area in Buntingford. The Council’s housing policies, as set out in the saved Local Plan, are now deemed to be out of date, and this was confirmed by the Inspector at the Buntingford appeal.

unless any adverse impacts of doing so “would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

7.7 The ability to afford weight to the emerging District Plan is also addressed in the NPPF at paragraph 216, which states that:

“From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

• the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); • the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); • the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”

7.8 Draft policy VILL1 of the District Plan sets out that Parish Councils are encouraged to prepare Neighbourhood Plans to allocate land for development or to introduce additional policy requirements aimed at ensuring that development contributes toward local distinctiveness or other community objectives.

7.9 The draft policies map which accompanies the District Plan does not include the proposed site within the village boundary and as such the proposed development is in conflict with the above draft policy as well as being contrary to policies of the existing adopted Local Plan.

7.10 Policy VILL1 of the draft District Plan is predicated on the need for decisions over development within villages being determined at a local level through Neighbourhood Plans and Officers acknowledge that it is disappointing that the development site has not come forward through that process, as was suggested to the applicant at pre-application stage. However, the District Plan is, as set out above, at an early stage of preparation and holds very limited weight in the determination of this planning application.

7.11 Whilst a draft version of the Council’s District Plan has now been published and subject to consultation, is not at an advanced stage of preparation. The feedback to that consultation has not been Page 28 3/14/2023/OP

considered formally, but the level of housing development overall and the allocation of land for development in the plan have been the subject of considerable response. Limited weight can therefore be attached to the District Plan.

7.12 With regards to matters of prematurity, guidance in respect of this matter is set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance. This states that arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account. It goes on to state that, such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both:

a) The development proposed is so substantial or its cumulative effects would be so significant that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process and; b) The emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.

7.13 Officers have considered this advice carefully. The emerging plan against which this advice must be considered is the draft District Plan. The scale of development being brought forward in this application is modest and will not be prejudicial in relation to the scale, extent and location of development overall in the District Plan. In that respect it is considered that the proposals are not so significant that they could be considered premature.

7.14 That said, the provision of 13 dwellings will have positive impact in addressing five year land supply issues in the short term. This weighs in favour of the development provided that the location is sustainable and the housing can be delivered in the short term to address the current shortfall in housing supply. Sustainability is discussed later in this report, but deliverability is also a material consideration. This was a matter which was raised by the Planning Inspector in relation to the Buntingford appeals. The Government has also indicated that Councils should consider the deliverability of development.

7.15 Unlike the Buntingford appeals, this application is not submitted on behalf of a housebuilder but by the landowner. The grant of outline planning permission will likely invoke a period of marketing of the land by the applicant. However, the grant of outline planning permission on this site, where there are limited requirements for on-site infrastructure improvements or remediation, will likely appear as an attractive Page 29 3/14/2023/OP

development opportunity for a number of small/medium sized house building companies. The fact that the application is not submitted on behalf of a house builder should not be taken to indicate that the site cannot make a contribution to housing supply in the next five years. The ‘standard’ time limitation conditions which were adjusted as part of the Buntingford appeals could be similarly adjusted in this application to encourage early development and the potential for contribution to the economic dimension of sustainability.

7.16 In summary then, the development proposal represents a departure from the Rural Area policies of the adopted Local Plan and the draft District Plan is not at such a stage where any significant weight can be attached to the relevant village policies. However, the Council does not have a five year supply of housing and, in these circumstances, the NPPF makes a presumption in favour of granting planning permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the benefits. Furthermore, Officers are of the view that the development proposal would not be prejudicial to the District Plan process and is not therefore premature. Officers therefore consider that the proposed development is acceptable in principle, provided that the Council is satisfied that the scheme would result in a sustainable form of development.

7.17 Sustainability is the golden thread running through planning, as set out in the NPPF, and this should form the main consideration in weighing the benefits and impact of the development, as is discussed below:-

Sustainability

7.18 Officers are of the view that the main planning considerations with regards to an assessment of whether the proposal meets the sustainable development tests are as follows:-

1. Whether there are appropriate facilities in the village to accommodate the development and appropriate access to them; 2. Whether there is appropriate employment provision for an increase in the size of the village and any resultant impact on commuting; 3. Whether there is an appropriate access to serve the quantum of development; 4. Whether an appropriate level of affordable housing would be provided to address local needs; 5. Whether the amount of development is appropriate to the site and setting and will the development integrate well with the village and setting; 6. Surface water drainage issues; Page 30 3/14/2023/OP

7. The impact on the quality of the agricultural land.

Infrastructure and village facilities

7.19 The main considerations relate to whether there is appropriate school provision and how the existing retail provision will serve the development. It is also important to consider whether there is appropriate levels of access to sustainable modes of transport.

7.20 With regards to school provision Officers note the concerns raised by the Parish Council and third parties in respect of the size and capacity of the existing primary school in the village. Hertfordshire County Council as education provider raise no objection in respect of the impact on the primary school nor do they recommend a financial contributions towards primary education. Having regard to that consultation response and, taking into account the scale of the development, Officers therefore consider that the proposed development will not result in significant harm to primary education provision.

7.21 Retail provision within the village is very limited. There is a pub and pub/restaurant, village shop and garage. The level of amenities in the village means that the vast majority of shopping, other than for basic items, are likely to be obtained from the larger settlements beyond the village boundary. The lack of amenities in the village in terms of retail offer weighs against the development proposal.

7.22 The recreational playing fields are within 100metres of the application site and there is therefore reasonable provision within the village for recreational facilities, given the size of the village. There are also opportunities to secure financial contributions in relation to outdoor sports provision and the community centre which are set out below.

7.23 Officers have had regard to the lack of amenities (particularly shopping) within the village and the likely need for future residents to travel to larger settlements for anything other than basic products. In addition, Hunsdon is not in a particularly sustainable location in terms of the levels of facilities for sustainable transport. There is a bus stop within the village which accesses the main settlements of Bishop’s Stortford and Harlow. However, as recognised by the Parish Council, the bus service is not particularly regular and there is no train line in the village and access for shopping would likely be by private car which would weigh marginally against the proposal, having regard to the scale of the development.

Page 31 3/14/2023/OP

Employment

7.24 There are acknowledged to be limited opportunities for employment within the village and, with a population of around 929 (according to the Draft District Plan figures which are based upon 2001 Census data), it is considered that the majority of residents who do work will need to travel outside of the village for employment. However, there are some limited opportunities for employment at the local school, pub, shop and Little Samuels Farm, which is a collection of former agricultural buildings which now have a range of light industrial/storage uses and may provide some limited opportunities for employment.

7.25 The deficiencies in public transport identified above mean that the majority of workers will likely use a private car. The need for future residents of the site to use private car to travel to work therefore weighs marginally against the proposal, having regard to the scale of the development.

7.26 There will of course be employment generation in association with the development processes to construct the houses and, whilst for a limited period, is a matter which weighs in favour of the development and which is encouraged within the NPPF to stimulate growth.

Affordable housing

7.27 The approach to considering affordable housing is set out in policy HSG3 of the Local Plan. That policy sets out that development within category one villages should provide up to 25% affordable housing. However, as acknowledged above, the application site is not within the boundaries of the category one village and there is therefore no policy provision within the Development Plan for the provision of affordable housing as part of a general housing development (although this differs if the proposal is for an entirely affordable housing scheme in accordance with policy HSG5).

7.28 However, the NPPF is a material consideration and it includes a social dimension as part of sustainable development. Section 6 of the NPPF deals with housing and para 50 sets out that LPA’s should ensure a wide choice of homes and plan for a mix of housing which is based on current and future trends and the needs of different groups in the community. In this respect, it is considered to be appropriate to adopt the level of affordable housing as prescribed in policy HSG3 of the Local Plan for a development such as this. The Councils policy in respect of the tenure mix for any affordable housing is 75% social rent and 25% shared ownership. Page 32 3/14/2023/OP

7.29 The provision of 25% affordable housing in the application is considered to be acceptable and would represent a sustainable form of development, in social terms.

Agricultural land

7.30 The NPPF sets out that Local Authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, Local Authorities should seek to use areas of lower quality.

7.31 Given the housing needs across the District it is inevitable that development on agricultural land will be required. This said, the agricultural land appears to be good to moderate and not therefore the higher quality agricultural land in the District. Furthermore, the parcel of land is not significant in size and development of this site will not harmfully impact on the agricultural efficiency or farm viability. Officers therefore raise no objection to the development of this agricultural land.

Character and appearance of the local countryside

7.32 The planning application is in outline form only and there is therefore limited information regarding the layout and design of the proposed dwellings. The indicative layout plan, as submitted with the application shows one potential layout of the site. There are some detailed issues with this layout as recognised by the Landscape Officer but, given that layout is a reserved matter, such concerns should not form the basis of any detailed consideration, as this stage. The main consideration is whether development of this site, will result in harm to the countryside setting.

7.33 The site lies within Landscape Character Area 83 which describes the site as large-scale open arable farmland on flat upland plateau. Hunsdon has a homogeneous character due to the extensive use of white weatherboarded or render and uniform black painted bargeboards for groups of housing of different styles.

7.34 The Landscape Officer identifies the site’s rural and agricultural character and its juxtaposition with the village but recommends approval of the application commenting that the site has a moderate to high capacity for accommodating housing development.

7.35 The proposed development will extend the southern boundary of the Page 33 3/14/2023/OP

village which will result in some harm to the countryside location and surroundings. However, there is a strong boundary to the front of the site which can be retained and help soften the visual impact from the road. Having regard to that consideration and, taking into account the limited size of the site and, having regard to the comments from the Landscape Officer, it is considered that the provision of dwellings will not lead to significant or demonstrable harm to the rural countryside setting.

Drainage and flood risk

7.36 Officers note the concerns raised by the Parish Council in respect of flood risk. However, as identified by the Councils Engineers there is potential for SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) which will help reduce the speed of surface water entering the watercourse and which will have added benefits to biodiversity and the quality of water entering into the system. The site is not in a high flood risk area and it is considered that, subject to the provision of appropriate provision of SuDS that there will be no significant impact in terms of flood risk.

Highways

7.37 Officers have considered the concerns raised by the Parish Council and third parties which raise concern in respect of the impact on the local rural roads and village associated with the increase in traffic generation with the development. Whilst the application is in outline only and highways access is a reserved matter, the Highway Officer has indicated that the proposed access onto the B180 as shown in the indicative layout is, in principle acceptable, subject to detailed consideration relating to the relocation of the existing gateway feature on the B180 and an increase in the width of the footway.

7.38 Having regards to the comments from the Highways Officer the proposed development is considered to provide an appropriate level of visibility onto the B180 and is of a scale such that there will be no significant harm to highways safety or access in the vicinity of the site, the village or the B180.

Financial contributions

7.39 With regards to financial contributions, as the application is for in the provision of 13 residential units, the need for financial contributions is required under the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD and the Herts County Council (HCC) Planning Obligations Toolkit. Policy IMP1 of the Local Plan sets out that developers will be required to make appropriate Page 34 3/14/2023/OP

provision for open space and recreation facilities, education, sustainable transport modes and other infrastructure improvements. 7.40 HCC have confirmed that they will require contributions towards secondary education, youth and library services based upon table 2 of the Hertfordshire County Council Planning Obligation toolkit. A sustainable transport contribution has also been requested by the Highway Authority which is necessary to mitigate the impact of the development on the transport network, in accordance with the Council’s adopted Planning Obligations SPD.

7.41 As the application is in outline form the Council are unable to determine the precise level of contributions but will refer to the relevant part of the Planning Obligations Toolkit. Having regard to the comments from the County Council, the contributions requested are considered necessary and reasonable based on pressures that the development will place on existing infrastructure. The obligations are therefore considered to meet the tests set out in Section 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) 2010.

7.42 The East Herts Council SPD also requires contributions towards open space provision. The Council’s PPG17 audit identifies that there are deficiencies in Parks and Gardens, Children and Young People and Outdoor Sports provision.

7.43 As noted above there are recreational playing fields within proximity to the site and it is therefore appropriate for contributions to be secured to offset the impact on those existing facilities. The playing fields are within the control of the Parish Council who seek contributions to improve the play space for children and improve the tennis courts within the vicinity of the application site.

7.44 Having regard to the information available including the comments from the Parish Council together with the Planning Obligations SPD and Open Space SPD, Officers are of the opinion that the contributions for outdoor sport and the village hall are necessary and reasonable to offset the impact of the development on existing infrastructure in accordance with S122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) 2010.

Ecology

7.45 The site is not located within, or adjacent to, any Wildlife Site and currently comprises of arable land. Ecological Appraisal reports have been submitted which identifies two habitats within the boundary of the site – the hedgerow and ruderal vegetative strip between the field and Page 35 3/14/2023/OP

the highway verge. However, neither of these habitats was found to contain protected species and no objections to the development on ecological grounds from Herts Ecology or Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust have been received.

Neighbour amenity impact

7.46 The main considerations in terms of neighbour amenity impact relate to those dwellings to the north and east of the boundary of the application site.

7.47 The indicative layout plan shows that properties will front onto the B180 and will face those residential properties to the east. However, there is likely to be a distance of at least 25metres to those properties with the B180 located between the proposed development and those existing neighbours. As such, given the orientation and distance between the development site and those neighbours to the east, there will be no significant impact on the amenity of those neighbours such that would warrant the refusal of planning permission.

7.48 Neighbouring properties to the north of the application site form a closer relationship with the application site. 2-12 Tanners Way have a south facing frontage which looks onto the application site. Their outlook is currently onto agricultural fields which will clearly be impacted by the siting of the development. However, the indicative layout plan shows that the proposed dwellings would be located around 30 metres to the south with additional tree and landscape planting to the northern boundary which will ensure that there is no significant or harmful impact on the amenity of those neighbouring properties, such that would warrant the refusal of the application.

7.49 The indicative layout plan shows that a detached dwelling will have an awkward relationship with 1 Tanners Way which has the potential to result in overlooking to that neighbour. However, as noted above, the application is in outline form only with all matters reserved, including layout. Officers are therefore of the opinion that, given the scale and amount of development, that an appropriate relationship with this neighbour can be designed into the scheme.

7.50 Concerns have been raised by third parties and the Parish Council in respect of the impact on future residents in terms of the noise and disturbance impact from Hunsdon Skips, which is a commercial operation located around 120metres to the south of the application site. Concern is raised that the proposed development would be in conflict with policy ENV25 which sets out that noise sensitive development, Page 36 3/14/2023/OP

which includes dwellings, should not be exposed to noise nuisance from existing noise generating sources. 7.51 Despite the comments from neighbouring properties that Hunsdon Skips represents a statutory noise nuisance, Environmental Health Officers advise that this is not the case. In addition, the Environmental Health team do not object to the planning application nor, given the distance between Hunsdon Skips and the application site (around 120metres) do they consider that a noise assessment is necessary.

7.52 Whilst Officers note the concerns raised in respect of the noise impact associated with an existing operation this is not considered to be a significant constraint to development nor is there considered to be conflict with policy ENV25 of the Local Plan.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 The proposal represents an inappropriate form of development which is contrary to the Council’s Rural Area policies.

8.2 However, the NPPF sets out that, where Local Plans are out of date in terms of housing supply, there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and development should be approved unless the impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of development.

8.3 Considering the sustainability of the development proposals, Officers acknowledge the concerns raised by the Parish Council. Public transport in the village is limited and the lack of employment and retail offer for anything other than basic items is poor. There is therefore likely to be reliance on private vehicles and the development in the village is therefore relatively unsustainable in transport terms.

8.4 However, Officers consider that, given the limited scale of the development proposed, these matters do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development. Favourable weight should be attached to the way in which the development will support the economy and provide affordable housing in a village location with good access to existing (albeit limited) village amenities. In addition, Officers are of the view that development of this agricultural land is acceptable and, given the scale of development, will not result in significant or demonstrable harm to the countryside location or landscape setting. The impact of the development is acceptable in highways terms, flood risk and neighbour amenity and financial contributions will assist in offsetting the impact of the development on existing infrastructure. Page 37 3/14/2023/OP

8.5 In accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF a balancing exercise has to be undertaken to determine whether the adverse impacts associated with the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

8.6 Officers have considered the impact of the development in terms of accessibility to sustainable modes of transport but consider that Hunsdon is, as identified in the Draft District Plan, a sustainable location for some development. The scale of the development site and number of proposed homes is not considered significant, having regard to the size of the village, and there will be no significant or demonstrable harm to the village or countryside setting. Officers therefore consider that, on the balance of considerations, the development can be considered as sustainable and the adverse impacts associated with the development would not be significant and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

8.7 In accordance with the above considerations Officers therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the signing of a Section 106 agreement.

Page 38 Essential Reference Paper ‘B’

3/14/2023/OP – Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of 13 dwellings at land south of Tanners Way, Hunsdon, SG12 8QD for Mr and Mrs P Findlay

Date of Receipt: 17.11.2014 Type: Full – Major

Parish: HUNSDON

Ward: HUNSDON

• The provision of 25% affordable housing comprising of a mixture of 75% social rent and 25% shared ownership;

• Financial contributions towards secondary education, youth and library services based upon table 2 of the Hertfordshire County Council Planning Obligation toolkit;

• A financial contribution towards the Hunsdon Village Hall based upon table 11 of the Planning Obligations SPD;

• Fire hydrants;

• Monitoring fee of £310 per clause.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale Page 39 3/14/2023/OP

(hereinafter called the ‘reserved matters’) of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To comply with the provision of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

2. Application for approval in respect of all matters reserved in this permission shall be made to the Local Planning Authority within a period of 2 years commencing on the date of this notice.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and in the interests of ensuring that the development meets the housing needs of the District.

4. Approved plans (2E103)

• a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. Reason: To minimise impact of construction process on the on local environment and local highway network.

6. Construction hours of working (6N07)

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision of outdoor amenity space in accordance with policy ENV1 and ENV25 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Directives:

1. Ownership (02OW)

2. Highway works (06FC2)

3. Planning obligation (08PO)

4. Street Naming and Numbering (19SN)

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 Page 41 3/14/2023/OP

(Minerals Local Plan, Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD 2012 and the ’saved’ policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007); the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended). The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies together with the positive way in which the proposed development will address five year housing land supply issues is that permission should be granted.

b) That, should the legal Agreement referred to in recommendation a) above not be completed and a planning decision issued prior to 6 April 2015, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the Chairman of this committee, to alter and amend the details of the service areas to which funding available as a result of this development is to be assigned, to ensure that any resulting legal Agreement is compatible with the appropriate CIL Regulations applicable from that date.

(202314OP.MP)

1.0 Background

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. Members will recall that the application was reported to the Development Management Committee on 04 February 2015. Members deferred the application to allow further consideration of the potential impact of noise and disturbance from the nearby commercial site (known as Hunsdon skips, which is around 120metres to the south of the application site) on the amenity of the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

1.2 The applicant has sought to provide further information through a noise survey which is discussed below, together with the comments from statutory consultees.

1.3 There is no planning history relating to the site and previous consultation responses and policy context is set out in Essential Reference Paper ‘A’ (ERPA) which is appended to this report. Furthermore, all other planning considerations relating to the development proposal are also set out in ERPA.

2.0 Considerations

2.1 Concerns were raised by third parties and the Parish Council during the original consultation period with regard to the impact on future residents of the proposed development by the noise and disturbance from the Page 42 3/14/2023/OP

commercial operation, Hunsdon Skips. The Hunsdon Skips site has a lawful use as a waste transfer station as determined by Hertfordshire County Council under a Certificate of Lawfulness (Planning Reference number 3/0339-96). A Certificate of Lawfulness has also been issued for the import, storage, cutting, sale and distribution of wood as issued by the LPA under LPA reference 3/08/1701/CL. The site is a licensed waste transfer site which is regulated by the Environment Agency.

2.2 To address the concerns raised by Members a noise survey and assessment has been undertaken and submitted by the applicant. The aim of the Noise Assessment was to assess sound levels at and inside the proposed new dwellings, in accordance with the relevant British Standards. The noise assessment methodology was discussed with the Environmental Health Team and Environment Agency prior to the survey taking place. The methodology incorporated monitoring of noise for half a day to measure typical ambient, residual and background noise levels at the application site. It also determined the specific noise level of Hunsdon Skips at the application site, during a representative time period and the likelihood of adverse impacts on the residents of the proposed development as a result of this. The survey was undertaken by two noise consultants, with one ‘observer’ at Hunsdon skips and the other measuring noise levels at the application site itself. All machinery was ‘run’ during the monitoring and all machinery was switched off for a period of time to allow background noise levels (i.e. noise levels without the machinery associated with Hunsdon Skips operating) to be recorded.

2.3 The noise survey revealed that background noise levels are dictated by distant road traffic noise. The residual background noise levels at the site (i.e. with Hunsdon Skips not operating machinery) were around 47dB. Areas at the south western edge of the site are subject to the highest nose levels from Hunsdon skips, relative to the ambient road noise, with an average ambient noise level (LAeq) of around 52dB. The noise survey sets out that this is an ‘over-estimation’ in that it assumes that Hunsdon Skips operates throughout a 16 hour period (which is not the case, particularly as the site is controlled by a permit regulated by the Environment Agency). Furthermore, at the time of the survey there was a southerly breeze blowing from Hunsdon Skips and the noise assessment therefore represents a robust and ‘worst-case’ scenario.

2.4 With regard to internal noise within the proposed dwellings, the British Standard requires that internal noise levels should not exceed 35dBA (as an average) for living spaces or bedrooms. As the application is in outline form only there is limited information regarding the construction of the proposed dwellings. However, the noise survey assumes that the Page 43 3/14/2023/OP

buildings will be constructed using standard masonry or light weight timber construction and internal noise levels would therefore be dictated by external noise ingress through glazing and venting. The noise assessment determines that acceptable noise levels are ‘readily achievable’ inside the proposed dwellings by simply providing standard thermal glazing and trickle vents and that the proposed development is acceptable with regards to the noise levels that will exist inside the dwelling having regard to the above mentioned British Standard.

2.5 With regard to external areas (i.e. garden amenity space) the British Standard advises that levels do not exceed 50dB (as an average) with an upper guideline value of 55dB. The background noise levels (i.e. that without Hunsdon Skips operating machinery) was assessed at around 47dBA. The Noise Survey attaches a rating of 9dB for a specific noise event from Hunsdon Skips over the background level which gives an overall rating of 56dB. This is over the upper guideline value of 55dBA in the British Standard. However, that noise level will likely decrease further with the provision of a close boarded boundary fence which will typically provide around 7-10dBA of acoustic screening to the gardens on the southern boundary of the application site. Such a fence could be secured by a planning condition.

2.6 The Environment Agency and Environmental Health Team have been consulted on this additional noise information.

2.7 The Environment Agency have commented that noise is not within their remit in terms of consultation on planning applications and the Environmental Health Team will lead on noise issues as it is a human health matter. The Environment Agency confirm that they will work with the operator to ensure that they are reducing noise levels as required by the permit.

2.8 Environmental Health comment that the Noise Survey correctly follows the relevant British Standard methodology. The Environmental Health Officer notes that the survey was carried out during typical ‘noisy activities’ associated with Hunsdon Skips, including operation of the shredder, skips delivery and grabber use. The survey has taken into account the annoyance of impulse noises such as ‘bang noises’ and indicates that an adverse impact may be expected but would not represent a significant adverse impact, particularly as a condition could be attached to any permission requiring an acoustic fence which would have the effect of reducing the background and site specific noise.

3.0 Conclusion

Page 44 3/14/2023/OP

3.1 Having regard to the Noise Survey and Assessment and the comments from the Environmental Health Team, Officers consider that an appropriate level of amenity will be provided for future residents of the development proposal in accordance with policy ENV25 of the Local Plan.

3.2 Having regard to that and the considerations and conclusions set out in ERPA , Officers therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the signing of a Section 106 agreement.

Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 46

69a

2 0

3 7

6 1 Towards 8

1 Widford 6

TTT TTT TTT 6 EEE EEE

EEE

EEE EEE 2 EEE RRR RRR RRR TTT TTT TTT SSS S S S S S S

HHH 5 HHH HHH 5 GGG IGIGIG

Hall IGIGIG

S I I I

53 HHH 1 arteHHrHs 4 u 1 C HHH r 5 Cottage

5 g 47 9

2 e 4 1 r 0 y 3 4 Hope

Cottage

5 a 6 41

4 7 8 23 2 H

PO P

6 9 2 11 4

1 1 5 7

3 3

0 2 AAA Ta 3 AAACCC nners House PH CCC OOO

OOO 15

RRR

o RRR t

1 NNN NNN S S S 1 SSSTTT

TTT

Vicary RRR

2 RRR

a Cottages EEE EEE 1 Yewtree EEE EEETTT 1 House TTT

7 2

T 000 000 1

5 888 888 2 111 1 1 1 BB B a BBB

2 6

3 n 6 2

n 3 e

7 8 r 6 1

D D D s D D D D D D

A A A A A A A A A

O O O O O O O O O R R R R R R

R R R

W S S S S S S ' ' ' S S S ' ' ' ' ' '

E E E N N N Th E E E N N N E E E

e H 5 WWIICICCKKK o N N N LLLAAA TTT m NNND e S S S WWIICICCKKKLLLAAA TTT s NNND t S S S WWIICICCKKK e A A A TTT 1 ad LLLAAANNND s A A A S S S AAA AAA 8 T T T A A A T T T AAA T T T O O O T T T T T T O O O

NNN O O O T T T

NNN E E E 3 E E E L L L NNN S S S E E E L L L S S S

L L L

1 a NNN NNN E E E S S S E E E NNN N N N C C C E E E N N N C C C

EEE C C C N N N EEE R R R EEE R R R U U U R R R RRR U U U R R R T T T RRR U U U R R R RRR T T T R R R T T T y D D D SSS D D D S S S SSS O O O D D D S S S SSS O O O

S S S O O O

T T T WWW D D D T T T 8 WWW D D D H H H T T T

WWW D D D H H H S S S H H H AAA S S S U U U S S S U U U AAA G G G U U U

AAA G G G 1 I I I G G G T T T

I I I T T T YYY 1

I I I 0

YYY T T T YYY 0 H H H H H H H H H

1 1

The Rectory 12 2 St Francis RRREEE Chapel RRREEECCCTTTOOORRRYYY C CCLLLOOOSSSEEE

5 1 8 0

1 1

Rectory Close S TTTAAALLLLLL

HEHEHEMMMPPPSSSTTTAAALLLLLLS

The Old Rectory 1

6 1

SITE e

Towards r

Stanstead c

Abbotts A

Hunsdon Skips

3 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: Land South of Tanners Way, Hunsdon, Ware, SG12 8QD Wallfields Reference: 3/14/2023/OP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL4113 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 14 May 2015 Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 48 Agenda Item 6b 3/15/0415/FUL – Construction of 2 houses with garage parking at rear at 103, New Road, Ware SG12 7BY for V and V Reclamation

Date of Receipt: 19.03.2015 Type: Full

Parish: WARE

Ward: WARE – CHRISTCHURCH

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be GRANTED , subject to the following conditions:

1. Three year time limit (1T12)

2. Approved plans (2E10)

3. Boundary walls and fences (2E07)

4. Obscured glazing (2E18) (First and second floor flank elevations)

5. No above ground external brickwork shall be laid until a sample of the external brick and details of bonding have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The brickwork shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved detail.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development having regard to Policies ENV1 and BH6 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007.

6. No roof tiles shall be laid until a sample of the tile has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved detail.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development having regard to Policies ENV1 and BH6 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007.

7. Prior to their installation detailed drawings of new windows and doors at a scale of not less than 1:20 including materials and finishes 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 details.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development having regard to Policies ENV1 and BH6 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Page 49 3/15/0415/FUL Review 2007.

8. Prior to installation detailed drawings of all rainwater goods 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 detail.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development having regard to Policies ENV1 and BH6 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007.

9. Withdrawal of P.D. (Part 1 Class A) (2E20).

10. Tree/hedge retention and protection (4P05).

11. A 0.65m x 0.65m visibility splay shall be provided and permanently maintained each side of the access way to the edge of carriageway/back of footway, within which there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 600mm and 2.0m above carriageway/footway level. Details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility for drivers entering and leaving the site.

12. Prior to first occupation of the dwellings the car parking areas shall have been laid out, surfaced and drained in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of the parking areas.

13. Construction parking and storage (3V22).

14. The first floor accommodation within the garage/car port buildings hereby approved shall only be used for purposes ancillary to the occupation of the dwellings and shall not at any time be used as habitable accommodation.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties.

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 Page 50 3/15/0415/FUL (Minerals

Local Plan, Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD 2012 and the ’saved’ policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007); the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended). The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.

Directives:

1. Other legislation (01OL)

2. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the requirements of the conditions of this planning permission. Details of the development are required to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the specified works. The development should not continue until the requirements of the conditions are met.

(041515FUL.DJS)

1.0 Background

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached Ordnance Survey extract. It lies within the built up area of Ware and within Ware Conservation Area.

1.2 The site was formerly occupied by office premises.

1.3 The application is reported to Committee at the request of a former Ward Member.

1.4 A two dwelling scheme was approved at the site in 2011. Building work commenced earlier this year and the basement level of the buildings has been constructed. However, building work ceased pending a decision on the amended scheme the subject of this application. This application proposes the following amendments to the approved scheme: • Entrance doors moved from centre to the side wing of the houses

• An increase in the depth of the two-storey side and basement Elements, bringing them further toward the frontage of the site

Page 51 3/15/0415/FUL • An increase in the height of the main building of 0.18m and an increase in the height of the side wings of 0.11m (as a result of a rise in the ground floor level of the building by 0.34m).

• Alterations to the front and side elevations including alterations to fenestration and the front projecting bays

• Alterations to the position and number of chimney stacks, placing them centrally within the pair of properties

• Reduced parking provision at the frontage of the site

• Re-arrangement of the internal layout of the proposed houses

• An increase in site area, enlarged gardens and the introduction of garage and car port structures to the rear, accessed from Millbrook Court. On the north side, is a two vehicle garage and workshop space with games room/ storage accom over. The south property has a two vehicle car port and workshop with storage over. The north side building is 6m x 9.7m footprint and 5.2m height to the ridge roof. The south side building is to be 4.4m x 9.3m in footprint and the same ridge height. Centrally facing rooflight windows are proposed. No other window openings.

2.0 Site History

The planning history relevant to the application is as follows:

• 3/07/2687/FP – Demolition of office and construction of 6 houses. Refused 14/02/08.

• 3/10/2139/FP – Erection of two houses with ancillary parking. Approved 14/02/11.

• 3/11/0389/FP –Erection of two houses with ancillary parking (rear part of site). Refused 14/05/11.

3.0 Consultation Responses

3.1 Conservation Officer: observes that the proposal is not considered to pose any harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

3.2 Herts. CC (Highways) : consider that the development is acceptable in highways context, subject to conditions. They observe that the Page 52 3/15/0415/FUL residential use is likely to generate far fewer trips than the former office use.

3.3 Thames Water : have no objection.

4.0 Parish/Town Council Representations

4.1 Ware Town Council : No objection.

5.0 Other Representations

5.1 The applications have been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 Five responses have been received from adjoining and nearby residents objecting on the following grounds:

• Have commenced building in disregard of planning process

• Excessive hard surfacing

• Inappropriate design which fails to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area and is unsympathetic in this part of the street and pattern of development

• Over-development of the site

• The proposed garaging at the end of the rear garden will be only slightly smaller than the proposal for two houses at the end of the plot refused under application 3/11/0389/FP and is contrary to Policies EN1 and BH6

• An increase in the size of the side wings to the houses of 25% is not a minor change

• The development would be excessive in scale. The proposed houses fill the full width of the plot and would be out of character in the locality

• The positioning of the development would result in loss of sunlight and over-shadowing of the patio of No.105A for most of the day and loss of light to the flank kitchen window

• Garages at rear are excessive and detrimental to outlook of neighbours. Given the size of the houses there is no need for first Page 53 3/15/0415/FUL floor accommodation

• Lack of parking and detrimental impact on traffic flow on this busy road

6.0 Policy

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

SD1 Making Development more Sustainable ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV9 Withdrawal of Domestic Permitted Development Rights ENV11 Protection of Hedgerows and Trees BH6 New Development in Conservation Areas TR7 Car Parking Standards

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance are also of relevance to the determination of the application.

7.0 Considerations

7.1 The principle of the development was considered under the previous application wherein planning permission was granted for the construction of two four storey houses (basement and three above ground floors). This application proposes the amendments to that scheme as set out above.

7.2 The main issues to be considered in the revised application are:

• Scale, layout ,design and landscaping resulting and impact on the Conservation Area having regard to Policies ENV1, ENV2 and BH6

• Impact on neighbouring properties

• Parking and access having regard to Policies TR2 and TR7

Scale, Design and Layout

7.3 The proposed dwellings maintain the building line along the frontage of the plot as per the previous permission. A similar form of development is proposed, with a pair of four storey (basement and three above ground) semi-detached dwellings introduced onto the site. The previous scheme reserved an area of land to the rear for potential future Page 54 3/15/0415/FUL residential development. This area is now included within the site and as a consequence the overall layout is improved with an increase in the depth of the rear gardens.

7.4 The inclusion of garage accommodation at the rear of the site has reduced the need for parking on the frontage. Previously parking was to take place on the front and side of the new properties, with double gates to enclose parking areas to the frontage. These are not now required and, as a result, the frontage is likely to appear less cramped in appearance.

7.5 The 0.17m increase in the height of the main part of the building, the1.8m increase in the depth and 0.11m increase in the height of the two storey wings adds to the bulk of the building. However, it remains the view that the building will sit well within the slope of the road, with buildings increasing in height from no 99, to the site, and then on to no 105a. The increase in depth of the wings brings these elements closer to the frontage of the site. The main impact of this will be that views will be had of the south side wing over and adjacent to the property at no 99. The impact is not considered harmful given the separation between the properties and the rise in the land, as referred to above.

7.6 The proposed alterations to the fenestration of the building follow the design principles of the previous scheme. In terms of the visual impact of them, no harm is considered to result (amenity impact is considered below).

7.7 The proposed houses represent a design approach which is considered to be acceptable with regard to its impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and the conservation area in the locality. The carport buildings are proposed to the rear (west) part of the site. In the wider views of the site and area the will not be unduly conspicuous. They will be viewed from the parking area associated with Hartfield Court to the rear, and from the neighbouring properties at 99 and 105a New Road and from Collett Road. However, the impact of these buildings on the character of the area is acceptable.

Impact on neighbours

7.8 Although the overall depth of the two-storey flank wings has increased from 8.8m to 10.9m and includes an extension to the basement areas of each dwelling, the projection of the wings beyond the rear of the main block of the proposed houses and distance to the flank boundaries remains the same as previously approved. The extended element therefore has been to drawn these side elements further toward the front of the site. There has been an increase in the overall Page 55 3/15/0415/FUL height of the main part of the building and to the height of the wings. It is considered that the relationship with the adjacent dwellings remains acceptable, their main outlook being to the front and rear of their plots.

7.9 There is an existing kitchen window on the south elevation of No.105a. The scheme, as approved, has an impact on the light received through this window. It is not considered that relationship is further detrimentally impacted when compared to the approved scheme as the separation distances remain unchanged. Light is received in the rear facing windows and glazing of no 105a. The proposals will have an impact on this, and a rear patio area. However, again, the impact is not considered to be greater than the approved scheme, and not unacceptably harmful.

7.10 The development would be positioned on higher land than No.99 and therefore as in the previous scheme there will be some impact on the outlook from that property. The side wing of the proposed building projects 8m beyond the first floor of that property but, as in the previous scheme, a gap of 5m would be retained between the buildings.

7.11 Windows are now proposed to the side facing wings of the new properties – previously only ‘blind’ windows (brick facades with the appearance of windows) were proposed. All these windows are to be fitted with obscure glazing and are to toilet/ bathroom/ hallway areas. No unacceptable impact on privacy is anticipated as a result.

7.12 Garage/car port accommodation is proposed at the end of the rear gardens separated by an open courtyard. The buildings would be a maximum height of 5.2m to the ridge of pitched roofs. Games room/storage space is proposed in the roof space with inward facing roof lights.

7.13 On the north side, the building is placed along the rear garden boundary of the property at 22 Collett Road. There are no privacy implications, there being no north facing windows. It is also considered that the impact of the building is acceptable as it is placed some 20m distant from the rear façade of the dwelling at no 22 and at a lower level.

7.14 On the south side, the new building will be placed partly alongside the side boundary with the property to the south, 99 New Road, toward the rear of the plot, and partly alongside the space laid out as parking to the Hartfield Court housing to the rear. Again, the lack of any rear or side facing windows prevents privacy impact. The building is further distant from the adjoining residential property at no 99 such that any amenity impact is slight. Page 56 3/15/0415/FUL Parking and Access

7.15 The current scheme proposes a reduction in the level of car parking on the frontage of the development compared to the previously approved scheme. Previously there was the potential to park up to three vehicles on each frontage, utilizing also the area to the side of the properties. Given a pedestrian ramp now proposed to the northern most property, it may only be possible to accommodate one vehicle on the frontage of this property. Two could be accommodated on the southern property. In addition, two spaces are to be provided in the garaging area now proposed to the rear.

The houses are shown as 4 or 5 bed. The zone 4 location would require a maximum of 3 spaces per property under the currently applied standards. The emerging standards are unchanged with respect to the space provision required (3 per dwelling) but allow consideration to be given to a reduction of up to 25% in zone 4 locations. Judged against the standards, sufficient provision is made.

On road parking in the area is generally controlled and therefore any parking which cannot be accommodated on the site would be subject to these controls. Whilst on road parking may occur, it is not considered that the resultant impact would be unacceptably harmful.

Other matters

7.16 Three existing mature trees on the frontage of the site are to be retained.

7.17 A land contamination report was submitted with the application and Environmental Health are satisfied that this was not an issue.

7.18 Given the size of the proposed houses and the potential for future extensions to impact on neighbouring properties it is considered to be reasonable to remove Class A permitted development rights by the imposition of a condition. A condition is also recommended restricting the use of the first floor accommodation within the garage/car port buildings to ancillary none habitable accommodation.

Conclusion

7.19 Overall, it is considered that the proposal retains the design quality of the previously approved scheme. It incorporates improvements in terms of parking arrangements and increased private amenity space. As the original approval retained the possibility for further residential development on the rear part of the site the current scheme in effect Page 57 3/15/0415/FUL reduces the density of development at the site. It is considered that there would be no material increase in impact on neighbouring properties relative to the extant approved development for two houses. The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

Page 58

8 5 2

HHH 10 to 1 3 HHOHOO 5 8 HHOHOOMMMEEE MMMEEFEFIFII The Old Manse EEFEFIFEIEILELL IEIEILELDLD D LLDLD DR R OROO

R R OROOAADADD

AADADD 9

DDD 0 2

16 to 21 6

2 1 a 6

1 5 4

6 4

7 6 6

6 2 6

2 4

12 8 1

3 8 6 2 1 5 EEE 5 SESESE SESESE 12 4 OOSOSS OOO

LOLOLO LLL 8

CLCLCL C C C 4 L LC LC C L L L LLLL D D D ALALAL D D D AALLAL ADADAD 1

HAHAHA A A A

THTHTH OAOAOA 8 HHH OOO 2 TTT RORORO UTUTUT R R R UUU R R R 2 OOUOUU K K K SOSOSO K K K SOSOSO AKAKAK A A A SESESE SSS OAOAOA LOLOLEOEE CCOCSOOSS OOO PPP CLCLCSLESESE O O O AAA CLCOLCOLO H H H PPAPARARR H H H PPAPARARKRKK GHGHGH RRKRKEKEE IGIGIG KKEKERERR IGIGIG EERER RC C C HIHIHI RR RC C OCOO 9 H H H C C OCOUOUU 1 H H H OOUOURURR UURURTRTT E E E TTT ME ME ME SSS RRR I I I PH L MEL MEL ME SSS TTT I I I NNN L ML ML M SSS I I I NNN 1 L L L 8 EENENN 4 DDEDEE

1 DDEDEE 2 5 RRR

RRDRDD 4 5 AAA AARARR

4 G GA GAA

1 G G G

3 L L L GGG 9 7 NN N

5 L L L 1

L L L NNN 3 L L L 6 AAA 3 ILILIL NNN

I I I AAA L L L 2

HIHIHI MMAMAA

H H H EEMEMM

H H H 5 MMM Y Y Y 1 DDEDEE Y Y Y DDEDEE EYEYEY NNN E E E NNDNDD LELELE AAA L L L AANANN SLSLSL SSS S S S SSASAA a USUSUS SSS 7 U U U MMU MU U 3 MMM MMM

7 2 3

5 3 The Octagon

2 7

t 4

0 8

I 5

t 15 7 14

20 1

2 18 1

4 4

4 9

1 0

1 2 6 7

9 t

7 1 I

Collett

1 0 4 1 House 1 1

GGG

GGOGOOLLDLDD 1 GGG T 9 OOOLLDLDSDSTSTOTOONNN he 9 DDDSSSOOOEEE O 2 TTOTOONNENEE ld 1 EEE Bo CCC ard

CCLCLOLOOSSS roo

Collett CCLCLOLOOSSESEE m 5 8 SSS 7a 3 EEE

3 Hall 1

4 1 5 5

1 3 5 2

6 2 8

D D D

D D D 5 ADADAD 6 5 A A A OAOAOA

O O O 1 2 RORORO

5 R R R 6 1 R R R 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 T T T Y Y Y Ha IT IT IT 9 ll IT IT IT NI NI NI INININ INININ RIRIRI R R R Greenways TRTRTR T T T High Oak House T T T

Co 6 llett Road 5 CCCOOOLLL 17 1 CCCOOOLLLLELETETTT TR R R

OOOLLLLELETETTT TR R OROOAADADD 1 R R OROOAADADD 6

18 8

El Sub Sta 1

1 4 3 9

2 1

8 8 2

6 1

5 l a 1 t PH E S

9 1 1

b 7 2 8

2 21

o 1 to

1 60

0 7 2

2 2 SITE

4 2 1

7 11 0

6 1

1 6 0

1 5b

2 HHHaaa 5

0 HHHaarartrtfitfeifeiledldld HHHaaafifeifeie C C C 4

rrtrtfitfeifeiledldl dC C Coouoururtrtt 4

dd dC C Coouoururtrtt 10 23 6

rrtrtt 5a b 2

6 Council

3 6

Offices

0 2

4 3

6 0

5 6 6 1 1

8 6

PPRPRR 1 6 1 t PPRPRRINININCCECEE 3 5 o 4

RRRINININCCECEESS SS S TSTT 5

EEESS SS S TSTRTRREEEETETT 15 TTTEEE 7 2

RRREEEETETT 1 1

EETETT 9 21 9

E 6 E E 2 1 11 29 0 5

E 1 E

2 E

S S

3 S E E

2 3 E S S 5 1 S 4

3 9 1 S S S

O O 3 O

O O

27 9 O

L L L

O O

35 O

L L

37 L

C L C L C L

C C

3 C

C C 9 C

a 4

4 4

1 2

4 1 9

2 E E E

2 3 4 E E E

S S S

4 E E E

7 2 S S S 0 3 t US US US 9 r U U U OU OU OU u O O O 4 H O H O H O

H H H

o 0 H H H N N N 2 o N N N t C L L L N N N IL IL IL I I I 1 L L L e D D D KI KI KI D D D K K K Pumping n t ADADAD K K K i A A A r OAOA A O O O V u ROROROO Station R R R o R R R

W W W W W W C EWEWEW 9 E E E 1 NENENE Old 4 k N N N FFF N N N W FFRFRARAANNNCCC o hit FFFAANANNISISIS 4 e RRARANANCNCICSISI SR R ROOO o CCICSISI SR R OROOAAADDD 1

RROROODDD b

H AAA 2 or DDD l 4

se l

0 i 0

d 1

9 a

1 MMM

7 MMM 6 4 UUU

MMUMUSUSS

UUSUSLSLL o t 6 SSS

o 3 LLELEE 1 EEE 6 YYY

EEYEY Y 0

3 YY LY L L

4 LLALAA 9 3 LLALANANN

8 AANANENEE

11 NNENEE

3 EEE R 1

6 w 7 3 1 Day C 1 1 entre 2 e

W W W

W W W N

W W W O O O

O O O

2 O O O 5

R R R

1 R R R 4

Church

R R R 4

S S S t

S S S o to

K S K S K S

K K K 5

o t 8

NK NK NK 4 4

N N N 5

N N N O O O

O O O o t

O O O 6 M M M

M M M

M M M 6 1

3 Presbytery

8 2 DDDEEEERERR 8

DDDEEEERERRFFIFEIEILELL

EERERRFFIFEIEILELDLDD C C CLLOLOO o CCC t LLL SSS

DDD C C CLLOLOOSSESEE

SSESEE 1 GGG 8 GGRGRR 1 3 GGRGRARANANN AANANTNTHTHH TTHTHAHAMAMM

HHAHAMAMM G G G 3 MMM G G AGARARR KKIKII GGAGARARDRDD KKIKININGNGNG E E E RRDRDEDENENN

KKIKININGNGG E E DE D WD WW 1 DDEDENENSNSS 1 E E DE D WD WWAARARRD 9 NNSNSS DDWDWWAARARDRDD'S'S'S SSS RRDRD'SD'S'S 9 19 1 7 RRROOO a RRROOOAADADD

2 AADADD 2 6 8 Ki 1

CAMERON ng

COURT 1 E 1

0 2

a 7 8 dw

3 1

7 b 8

1 a

6 0

1 to 8 2

6 r

2 ds 5

2 OMEGAOMEGAOMEGA COURT COURT COURT 4 OMEGAOMEGAOMEGA COURT COURT COURT d R 7 9

4 6 o 3 0 9

3 a DDD 7 2 DDIDCICIC d ICICIKCKEKEE KKEKENENSNSS NNSNSOSOO 4 SSOSONON N NN NW W W 9 W W WAAYAYY

AAYAYY 5

5 6

4 a

1 2 4

55 6 Ashwood The Hayloft

9 HHH EEE 5 AANANN SSESEE HHAHANANBNBUBURURYRYY OOSOSESEE NNBNBUBURURYRYY CCLCLOLOSOSS

YYY CCLCLL

4 4

5 El 8

ia Sub Sta

n 5

2 1 4 2 1

to 1 2 8

Ha 5 0 5 ll

Vicarage 3 2 3 9 2 4 CCC 7 CCHCHH HHUHUU UURURR RRCRCC CCHCHH HHH

SSS SSTSTT SSTSTRTRR TTRTREREE RREREEEEE

EEEEETETT 3 EEE 4

TTT 4 Hall 6 3

6 Sucklings Yard 3

9 1

5 3

Christ 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: 103 New Road, Ware, Herts, SG12 7BY Wallfields Reference: 3/15/0415/FUL Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3614 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 16 April 2015 Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 60 Agenda Item 6c 3/15/0040/FP – Demolition of redundant/disused motor repair workshop and erection of 1no 2 bedroomed dwelling at land at Kenton House, Hare Street, SG9 0EA for Mr D Madden

Date of Receipt: 15.01.2015 Type: Full – Minor

Parish: HORMEAD

Ward: BUNTINGFORD

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The application site lies within the Rural Area as defined in the East Hertfordshire Local Plan wherein there is a presumption against development other than required for agriculture, forestry, small scale local community facilities or other uses appropriate to a rural area. The potential retention and reuse of the premises and/or site for employment uses has not been fully explored. The proposed development therefore constitutes an inappropriate and unsustainable form of development. The proposed development will have a harmful impact on the amenity of the occupiers of the property to the south (Oak Cottage) by virtue of overlooking from the site. The proposals therefore are contrary to policies GBC3, ENV1 and EDE2 of the East Herts Local Plan Review April 2007 and section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012, East Herts Council has considered, in a positive and proactive manner, whether the planning objections to this proposal could be satisfactorily resolved within the statutory period for determining the application. However, for the reasons set out in this decision notice, the proposal is not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development in accordance with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(150040FP.MP)

1.0 Background

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract and is located within the category 3 village of Hare Street. The application site comprises a detached building which was has been used as a motor vehicle servicing and repairs workshop. That use has ceased but Page 61 3/15/0040/FP

remains the lawful use of the building.

1.2 The building is set back from the main road which runs through the village by around 20 metres and features a gable constructed of red/brown brick. The front (west) elevation of the gable contains a garage door and window. Attached to that brick building is a timber barn type structure, which has a roof of modern corrugated metal. This part of the building is partially clad in weatherboarding and has two projections from it – a 5 metre projection to the rear serving a store and a 2 metre projection to the side serving a reception space for the garage use. Those projections to the barn structure are clad in modern corrugated metal sheets.

1.3 A planning application for ‘Alteration of existing motor repair workshop including removal of rear projection and change of use to a 2 bed dwelling’ was granted planning permission by the Development Management Committee on 12 November 2014.

1.4 The current application seeks the complete demolition of the existing buildings and the provision of a replacement 2 bedroomed dwelling.

1.5 The application is reported to the Committee at the request of Councillor Mrs R Cheswright.

2.0 Site History

2.1 Planning permission was originally granted for the provision of a detached dwelling (now known as Kenton House) under LPA reference E/541/48.

2.2 Planning permission was granted for petrol pumps and alterations to the garage forecourt under LPA references E/854/58, E/510-66, E/3948-72, and 3/1204-77.

2.3 Planning permission was granted in LPA reference 3/95/0412/FP for a change of use of garden shed and storage ancillary to the garage.

2.4 Planning permission was granted under LPA reference 3/14/1283/FP for ‘Alteration of existing motor repair workshop including removal of rear projection and change of use to a 2 bed dwelling’ by the Development Management Committee on 12 November 2014.

3.0 Consultation Responses

3.1 The Environmental Health Officer advises that any planning permission Page 62 3/15/0040/FP

granted should include conditions relating to soil decontamination, construction hours of working and piling.

3.2 Hertfordshire County Highways comment that they do not wish to restrict the grant of planning permission. Traffic generation is likely to reduce from the current commercial use and an appropriate level of parking and turning is provided.

3.3 Hertfordshire Ecology comment that they do not have any record of protected species for the site and the nearest record is around 800metres away. A directive is recommended advising of the need to consider ecology and cease work and seek ecological advice in the event that protected species are found during construction.

4.0 Parish Council Representations

4.1 No response has been received from Hormead Parish Council.

5.0 Other Representations

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 One letter of representation has been received during the processing of the application which raises concerns with regard to the impact on the setting of an adjacent grade II* listed building; the impact on neighbour amenity in terms of overlooking and overdevelopment of the site.

6.0 Policy

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

GBC2 The Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt GBC3 Appropriate Development in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt GBC9 Adaptation and Re-use of Rural Buildings GBC10 Change of Use of an Agricultural Building EDE2 Loss of Employment Sites ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV16 Protected Species BH1 Archaeology and New Development

Page 63 3/15/0040/FP

6.2 The NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework), NPPG and the emerging District Plan are also material to the determination of the application.

7.0 Considerations

7.1 The main planning consideration relates to whether the proposed development represents an appropriate and sustainable form of development in accordance with policy GBC3 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.

7.2 Policy GBC3 sets out that permission will not be given for new buildings within the Rural Area, or the settlements within it, other than in main settlements and category 1 villages. Hare Street is a category 3 settlement. The proposal represents an inappropriate form of development therefore in relation to the policy.

7.3 The objective of the policy is a sustainability one, in that introducing new buildings into the Rural Area, where there are few services to support uses or residents, is generally unsustainable.

7.4 Policy EDE2 of the Local Plan addresses the same issue, seeking to retain sites that have been used for employment purposes so that there is the potential for rural employment to be provided. This is tested by exploring whether the premises or site are attractive to an employment occupier through marketing. Policy EDE2 is therefore consistent with section 3 of the NPPF which also seeks to support a prosperous rural economy. Full weight should therefore be attached to it.

7.5 Insufficient evidence had been provided to demonstrate whether the existing buildings are capable of being used for continued business purposes as is required in policy EDE2. As indicated, the normal expectation would be that a marketing exercise be undertaken. In its absence, it is not possible to make a fully informed decision that a locally based employment use could not be forthcoming.

7.6 In sustainability terms then, introducing a new residential use into a rural area is harmful. The loss of a potential employment premises or site without exploration of the demand for its retention is also harmful. Balanced against that, an employment use itself may have some sustainability impact – in that customers may be drawn to it from a wide area. In addition, in this case, a residential use has already been permitted through conversion of the buildings, albeit, it appears that a new build is now preferred. On balance, it is considered that the impact of these proposals in sustainability terms does remain harmful. Page 64 3/15/0040/FP

7.7 The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of land for housing and the Council’s housing policies are therefore out of date. The provision of a single dwelling will in a small way help to address this issue in accordance with the social dimension of sustainable development. This is given positive weight.

Amenity and setting

7.8 The proposed building has more significant proportions in terms of size, scale and height from that which exists (and which has consent to be converted). However, it is more modest in scale than the existing Kenton House. In addition, it will appear subservient to Oak Cottage, the listed building to the south, because it is set back from the road frontage by some 20m, whilst Oak Cottage is located directly on the frontage. By the same token, the setting of Oak Cottage as a listed building is not harmfully impacted upon. Indeed, removal of the current rudimentary workshop buildings could be considered, in a small way, to enhance the listed building setting.

7.9 The street scene is characterised by a mixture of building styles. The historic listed building to the south, more modern building of Kenton House to the north and traditional terraced properties opposite. Given the subservient nature of the proposals and the rural design approach being followed, it is considered that there is no harmful impact on the street scene.

7.10 With regard to amenity, the workshop use has clearly grown up associated with Kenton House. The workshop building wraps around and to the rear of Kenton House, the reception office being behind Kenton House. Clearly, the operation of the use must have had an amenity impact on the occupiers of the residential property – and they were probably one and the same. If a replacement – but more independent employment use were to be introduced, this would have the potential to have an amenity impact on the occupiers of Kenton House. This impact could be reduced by careful design, adaptation and use of the building.

7.11 With regard to visual amenity of the occupiers of Kenton House, the main element of the single storey existing workshop building extends 10m to the rear of Kenton House. The proposed building, now higher, also extends 10m to the rear. It maintains a side separation of 2m however, whereas the current buildings wrap around to the rear of Kenton House. It is considered that any impact the proposed building may have in an overbearing way or in relation to restriction of daylight/ sunlight will be neutral. Page 65 3/15/0040/FP

7.12 Two windows are proposed at first floor facing Kenton House. These are to bathrooms and therefore can be controlled to be obscure glazed. There is an adjacent first floor side window in Kenton House and the proposed windows will be viewable from there and the garden area most closely associated with the rear of Kenton House. It is considered that harmful impact can be minimised by the requirement for obscure glazing. Some perception of overlooking may remain.

7.13 To the south, the building will be located some 9m to the rear of Oak Cottage. The closest separation distance will be some 12m. Given that the current outlook to the rear of Oak Cottage will be the side and roof of the rudimentary workshop building, it is considered that the proposals will represent an improvement in outlook terms, albeit that the building will be higher.

7.14 The flank of the proposed building is to contain only one window, to the stairwell. This can be obscure glazed. Frontage windows however are to a bedroom and are likely to allow views to the rear of Oak Cottage. Despite intervening planting, these are likely to have an impact on privacy and amenity of the occupiers of that property. Some harm results.

7.15 The impact on sunlight and daylight is considered acceptable. This is received from the east and south of Oak Cottage to the rear. The proposed building is located to the north.

Other matters

7.16 With regards to matters of highway safety and parking, having regard to the comments from the Highways Officer and, taking into account the space within the site for parking (which enables two parking spaces for both Kenton House and the proposed property), Officers consider that the development proposal is acceptable in relation to these matters.

7.17 The application site does form a previous garage use and there is therefore potential for contamination. However, having regard to the comments from the Environmental Health Officer, it is considered that any risk associated with contamination could be dealt with through a planning condition.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 The proposed development represents an inappropriate form of development in the Rural Area, as defined in the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to Page 66 3/15/0040/FP

demonstrate whether the building can be retained in use for business and employment purposes contrary to policy EDE2 of the Local Plan and section 3 of the NPPF. The proposals are harmful in sustainability terms then and it is not considered this is outweighed by the potential sustainability impact a new employment use may have, or because a residential use has been permitted through a conversion.

8.2 With regard to design, setting and the impact on the listed building, it is considered that some positive weight can be assigned to the proposals. The current rudimentary structures would be replaced by a new building. With regard to amenity, weight must be both negative and positive. Negative because of the potential impact on the privacy of the occupiers to the south, and positive because the relationship between the building and Kenton House, and the amenity of the occupiers of Kenton House, has the potential to be improved.

8.3 All other matters are neutral. On balance, it is considered that the harm in sustainability terms is not outweighed by the modest addition to housing supply or by the improvement to the street scene.

8.4 Officers therefore recommend that planning permission is refused.

Page 67 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 68 Ashdown Hare Street House House

Small Chapel Barn

The Granary The Close Hare Street Lych Cottage Gate The Beehive (PH) BBB 1 11000333888 BBB 1 11 Heatherdown B1038 Tel Ex B B B

B B B

1 1 1

1 1 1 Pavilion

3 3 3

6 6 6

6 6 6 The 8 8 8 8 8 8 Willows 8 8 8 Barnside

Layston oad 1 House et R 4 tre 2 re S Bellhouse

Ha Yard 3

1 1

Highfields Kennels 2

s B B B e B B B ottag B B B C

n 1 1 1 o st 1 1 1 ay 1 1 1 L 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Japonica 8 8 8 8 8 8 Cottage 8 8 8

Filling Station 8

Wayside Cottage The Warren Wayside Garage

Epping Bungalow

Kemps Close

Bakery

High Thatched Cottage View Quinta

1 Mead Villas 2

Amberley Shangles

imbers

East Bank T

C The Jolly Butchers

g e

Kenton House 3

a Garage

e s Oak Cottage

Elm Cottage

6 SITE Well House Yard 8

Well House

Rosemary 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: Kenton House, Hare Street, Buntingford, SG9 0EA Wallfields Reference: 3/15/0040/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3929 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 22 April 2015 Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 70 Agenda Item 6d 3/14/1812/FP – Erection of generator compound at Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works, Stanstead Abbotts, Ware, Hertfordshire, SG12 8JY for Peakgen Power Ltd

Date of Receipt: 08.10.2014 Type: Minor

Parish: STANSTEAD ABBOTTS

Ward: STANSTEAD ABBOTTS

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Three year time limit (1T121)

2. Approved plans (2E103)

3. Landscape Design proposals (4P12) (a, e, f, i, k and l)

4. Landscape Works Implementation (4P13)

5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of all boundary acoustic fences or other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter shall be erected and retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of good design, in accordance with policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

6. The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of flood risk and in accordance with Policy ENV19 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 (Minerals Local Plan, Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD 2012 and the 'saved' policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007); the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Page 71 3/14/1812/FP

Procedure) (England) Order 2015. The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and lpa 3/14/0768/FP is that permission should be granted. 181214FP.LP)

1.0 Background

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. It comprises a roughly rectangular parcel of land that measures 120 x 30 metres, with a narrower element to allow access measuring 35 x 10 metres . The site is within the Thames Water Rye Meads Treatment Works, located some 1000 metres to the north east of the residential properties on Rye Road, Hoddesdon. Vehicular access can also be taken via the B181 to the north east and along the toll road. The location is within the Green Belt. A large part of the sewage treatment works to the south of this site is identified as a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt. This application site lies outside of that designation.

1.2 The proposal includes 10 generator containers (12.2 x 2.4 metres in footprint to a height of 4.5 metres), 5 transformers (3.4 x 3.4 metres in footprint with a maximum height of 3.7 metres), 5 fuel tanks (5.4 x 1.9 metres in footprint to a height of 2.0 metres) and 2 switchgear structures. 40 solar panels will also be installed on the structures. The proposal is enclosed by acoustic fencing. The installation is proposed to operate as a Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR) and provide stand by or back up electricity generating capacity to deal with periods of stress on the national network.

1.3 Planning permission for an identical generator compound was approved under lpa 3/14/0768/FP. It is understood that, for reasons to do with ownership and permission from landowners, the earlier permission cannot now be implemented. The development is therefore now proposed to this different site area. A Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted which details that if that earlier consent is implemented then the current proposal will not be developed and vice versa. This will ensure that the 2 proposals cannot both be implemented.

1.4 It is the requirement for the Legal Agreement that results in this report being submitted to the Committee.

2.0 Site History

2.1 Planning permission was granted last year for the same generator compound proposal but on a site some 25 metres to the north east. (3/14/0768/FP). Page 72 3/14/1812/FP

3.0 Consultation Responses

3.1 The Environment Agency initially objected to the proposal on grounds of no flood compensation details, but this objection was withdraw following the submission of further information.

3.2 The Councils Environmental Health section have commented that they do not wish to restrict the grant of permission. They recommend the imposition of conditions for noise, air quality, lighting, odour and contaminated land.

3.3 The Councils Engineer has commented that the site lies within flood zone 2 but away from overland surface water flows. They note the initial objection from the Environment Agency and comment that the application has little information regarding drainage provision.

3.4 The Councils Landscape section has commented that the Arboricultural Report is acceptable.

4.0 Parish Council Representations

4.1 Stanstead Abbotts Parish Council has made no comment.

5.0 Other Representations

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of press and site notice. No letters of representation have been received.

6.0 Policy

6.1 The relevant Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

GBC1 Appropriate Development in the Green Belt ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV11 Protection of Existing Hedgerows and Trees ENV18 Water Environment ENV19 Development in Areas Liable to Flood ENV20 Groundwater Protection ENV21 Surface Water Drainage

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the national Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) are also material considerations in this case.

Page 73 3/14/1812/FP

7.0 Considerations

7.1 The site is located within the Green Belt, an area of development restraint. The determining considerations for this application relate to the principle of the development, impact upon the openness of the Green Belt, impact to landscape and matters of flood risk.

Principle of development

7.2 The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt within an area of development restraint. The proposed use does not fall within any of the defined appropriate uses as set out within Local Plan Policy GBC1, nor does it fall within one of the exceptions to inappropriate development as defined within the National Planning Policy Framework. The development is therefore by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.

7.3 If that position is established, it is necessary to consider whether taking all the material issues into account, weight can be assigned to the positive impacts of the development such that the harm in Green Belt terms and any other harm, is clearly outweighed. If that is the case then very special circumstances are demonstrated and planning permission can be granted.

Other harm

7.4 The proposal by virtue of the extent and height of the built form and required means of acoustic enclosure, will inevitable result in some impact upon openness. The NPPF states that the ‘essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence’. The proposal will impact upon openness and therefore result in harm and this weighs against the proposal. However, it is considered that the weight that can be attached to this harm is reduced by the fact that the location is within the area in which the sewerage treatment infrastructure is located. The proposals then will not appear as an isolated element in an area of otherwise undeveloped land.

Benefits of the proposal

7.5 These relate to the need for the generator. In summary, National Grid (NG) is responsible for ensuring that, at all times, there is sufficient generation capacity in electricity and gas to manage uncertainties with output and demand and ensuring there is spare capacity to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The proposed facility is a ‘stand by/back up’ plant to provide generating capacity during period of stress on the national electricity grid. Such a period of stress could be power station Page 74 3/14/1812/FP

failure, fluctuations in generation from renewables and surges in demand. The proposed generators can come ‘on line’ promptly during these periods of stress.

7.6 Changes in energy generation, with more renewable energies will mean that energy generation predictability will decrease and therefore the need for the type of provision proposed here will increase. National Grid predict that there will be a need to double operating reserve capacity.

7.7 This site has been chosen as it is adjacent to a suitable grid connection point that has spare capacity and that serves domestic consumers and businesses in the area and will have the advantage of minimising electricity transmission losses. The plant will play a crucial role in operating reserve and balancing the electricity network and ensuring secure supplies. It will assist in mitigating the risk of power cuts and support the UK in meeting its carbon reduction commitments.

7.8 The fact that the proposal represents infrastructure in the national interest, is a benefit that weighs heavily in support of the application.

Other Issues – it is considered that the following issues should be assigned neutral weight in the consideration of these proposals.

Acceptability of the layout, scale and design

7.9 The structures appear as containers as the equipment is housed within acoustic enclosures. They are standard in their design and fit for purpose. Overall there are no objections to the size, siting or design of the structures themselves. In terms of the solar panels, given the siting of the development which is screened from wider views by existing landscaping and seen in the context of existing structures on the Thames Water Site, no objection is raised. Acoustic fencing is also proposed but only shown on elevation not on plan. There is no objection to fencing subject to its design and being supported with soft planting. A condition with regard to fencing and landscaping is recommended.

Flood risk

7.10 The site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. In terms of flood risk, the Environment Agency have commented that the proposal would have no adverse impact, subject to the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), being carried out.

7.11 As advocated within the NPPF, there is a requirement however for a Page 75 3/14/1812/FP

sequential test to be applied to determine whether there are other sites available at lower risk of flooding. Given the nature of the proposal, the Local Planning Authority have worked with the applicant in this assessment. Other sites were reviewed within the Major Developed Site to the south. However these have been discounted as they were physically unsuitable with silt beds, soft ground or their proximity to sensitive areas/wildlife/nature reserves or similar. Overall, I am content that other alternatives have been considered and there are none available at lower risk of flooding. Equally given the national need for plant it is considered that the Exceptions Test would be met.

Landscape

7.12 The proposal would not create any adverse impact upon established landscaping and no significant trees would be affected. A condition is recommended to secure soft landscaping to soften any impact of the development within the landscape.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 In summary, the proposal is considered contrary to national and local Green Belt policy and therefore amounts to inappropriate development. It is then, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Some further harm has been identified with regard to the impact upon openness. It is therefore necessary to consider whether, taking all the material issues into account, weight can be assigned to the positive impacts of the development such that the harm is clearly outweighed. If that is the case then very special circumstances are demonstrated and planning permission can be granted.

In this case weight is given to the fact that it represents infrastructure, the provision of which, is in the national interest. It was considered that sufficient weight could be assigned to this such that very special circumstances were demonstrated in relation to lpa 3/14/0768/FP.

8.2 Overall, having regard to the balance that needs to be struck, Officers consider that the harm caused by the development would be clearly outweighed by the identified planning benefits and therefore recommends that permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out at the head of this report. A Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted which prevents this application being constructed if the previous consent is commenced, and vice versa.

Page 76 Thele Estate

STANSTEAD ABBOTTS

A Stanstead 414 Abbotts 4 1 4

Ryegate Farm A

SITE

The John Warner School

d a o R e y

Parkside Business Centre R

The Rye House

u h

r b

Works

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: Rye Mead Sewage Treatment Works, Stanstead Abbotts, SG12 8JY Wallfields Reference: 3/14/1812/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:10000 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3910 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 5 May 2015 Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 78 AAA 414 414414 AAA 414 414414 A414

SITE

East Herts Council Address: Rye Mead Sewage Treatment Works, Stanstead Abbotts, SG12 8JY Wallfields Reference: 3/14/1812/FP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3910 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 5 May 2015 Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 80 Agenda Item 6e 3/15/0361/FP – Installation of outdoor ménage at Lavender Cottage, Hare Street, SG9 0DY for Mrs A Osborne

Date of Receipt: 19.02.2015 Type: Full - Minor

Parish: HORMEAD

Ward: BRAUGHING

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Three Year Time Limit (1T12)

2. Approved plans (2E10) – insert: ‘Location Plan, cross section drawing’

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 (Minerals Local Plan, Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD 2012 and the ’saved’ policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007); the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended). The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies is that permission should be granted.

(036115FP.MP)

1.0 Background

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. The existing property is set in a rural location to the north of the village of Hare Street. The property is set back from the road frontage and appears as an extended cottage with a mixture of gables and dormer windows. The property is set on a good sized plot with large open paddocks and stables to the east. There is a hedged boundary treatment to the front which obscures views of the property from the highway and a hedged boundary either side of the paddock.

1.2 The proposal incorporates the provision of a ménage within the existing paddock for the exercising of horses. The ménage will be enclosed with a post and rail fence and will feature a surface appropriate for the exercising of horses.

Page 81 3/15/0361/FP

1.3 The application is being reported to the Committee as the applicant is an employee of the Council.

2.0 Site History

2.1 Planning permission was granted in LPA reference 3/297-77 for alterations and extensions to the dwelling. From the plans attached with that application Officers understand that the original dwelling was a bungalow and the planning permission granted additional first floor accommodation.

2.2 Planning permission was later granted under LPA reference 3/982-78 and 3/1554-84FR for conservatories. Those conservatories are to the rear of the dwelling.

2.3 Most recently, planning permission was granted by the Development Management Committee for extensions to the dwelling under LPA reference 3/14/1130/FP at the August Committee 2014.

3.0 Consultation Responses

3.1 Hertfordshire Ecology comment that protected habitats or species will not be a constraint to the proposed development and no ecological surveys are required to be undertaken.

4.0 Parish Council Representations

4.1 Hormead Parish Council has no objections to make on the planning application.

5.0 Other Representations

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 No representations have been received.

6.0 Policy

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

GBC3 Appropriate Development in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt GBC11 Riding Stables and Associated Development Page 82 3/15/0361/FP

ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the national Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) are also material considerations in this case.

7.0 Considerations

7.1 The main planning considerations in this application relate to the principle of development and the impact of the ménage on the rural setting and neighbour amenity impact.

Principle of development

7.2 As the site lies within the Rural Area as defined in the Local Plan, the principle of development is assessed under policy GBC3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007. Criteria b) of this policy allows for essential small scale facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation. The provision of a ménage for horse riding and horse exercise is considered to be consistent with this policy and therefore the principle of the proposed development is acceptable.

Impact on surrounding area/amenity

7.3 Policy GBC11 of the Local Plan sets out a range of criteria for development relating to horse riding. This policy sets out that development should be sited to minimise visual intrusion and that the scale, design, siting and materials of any development should be appropriate to the character of the site and the ability of the local environment to absorb the development.

7.4 The field where the ménage is proposed to be sited is currently open, bounded by trees and has an attractive rural character which merges into the countryside beyond. The proposed ménage is significant in its size and will result in a material alteration to the appearance of the site by virtue of its design, boundary treatment and surface treatment. That said the degree of impact on the openness and rural setting will, in Officers opinion, be limited. The development is designed for outdoor sport and is not an uncommon feature seen in a rural setting. The design of the boundary treatment is rural in character and there will be no views of the development from any public rights of way or the highway.

7.5 Policy GBC11 also sets out that the site should be well related to existing or proposed bridleway network or other off-road routes; regard Page 83 3/15/0361/FP

should be paid to the Natural England and British Horse Society recommended standards for grazing; on site security should be provided and; there should be no adverse impact on the management, ecology, or public use of open spaces and rights of way.

7.6 The site is within reasonably close proximity to existing bridleways within the village of Hare Street. In any event, the site is currently used for stabling and there can therefore be no objection in principle to the provision of additional facilities to serve the existing use.

7.7 From the information available, Officers consider that the proposed ménage will use a small proportion of the applicants current paddock and there will be appropriate space for grazing commensurate to the number of horses stabled.

7.8 The proposed ménage can only be accessed via the vehicular entrance to the dwelling and is in close proximity to the existing dwelling, Lavender Cottage. As such, appropriate security is provided on site.

7.9 As confirmed by Herts Ecology there will be no harm to protected species and the proposed development will not result in any harm to public open spaces or rights of way.

7.10 For the reasons set out above, Officers consider that the proposed siting of the development will not result in significant harm to the openness or rural countryside setting and the requirements of policy GBC11 of the Local Plan are considered to be met.

Neighbour amenity

7.11 The ménage is proposed to be sited on an existing paddock where horses currently graze. The proposed ménage will be located around 35metres to the east of the nearest neighbouring property, Bluebell Cottage. Having regard to those considerations the proposed development will not, in Officers opinion result in a significant impact on neighbour amenity.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 The provision of a ménage to serve an existing stable and equine use is considered to represent an appropriate form of development in the Rural Area. The proposed development will not result in significant harm to the rural countryside setting nor will there be any significant harm to neighbour amenity. Officers therefore recommend that planning permission is granted subject to conditions. Page 84 Millview Bungalow

The Leys SITE

Bluebell Cottage Bradbury

Lavender Cottage

White House

Clock House

White House Lodge Ley Court

888 668688 666 333 113133 1 1 1 Gardeners Cottage

BBB BBB

3 North End Farm 1

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BBB BBB BBB

Ashdown Hare Street House House

Small Chapel Barn

The Granary The Close Hare Street Lych Cottage Gate The Beehive (PH) BBB 1 11000333888 BBB Heatherdown B1038 Tel Ex B B B

B B B

1 1 1

1 1 1 Pavilion

3 3 3

6 6 6

6 6 6 The 8 8 8 8 8 8 Willows 8 8 8 Barnside

oad Layston eet R 1 House e Str 4 r 2 Ha Bellhouse

Yard 3

East Herts Council Address: Lavender Cottage, Hare Street, Buntingford, SG9 0DY Wallfields Reference: 3/15/0361/FUL Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3930 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 22 April 2015 Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 86 Agenda Item 6f a) 3/15/0244/FP - Conversion of first floor to include 6 no. letting rooms; b) 3/15/0349/FUL – Construction of brick chimney stack to house kitchen extract flue (amended scheme); c) 3/15/0628/FUL – Conservatory to rear (amended scheme) at; The Cock Public House, Stocking Pelham SG9 0HZ for Winchmore Development

Date of Receipt: a) 06.02.2015 Type: a) Minor b) 20.02.2015 b) Minor c) 27.03.2015 c) Minor

Parish: STOCKING PELHAM

Ward: LITTLE HADHAM

RECOMMENDATION: a) That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement to vary the legal agreement associated with the earlier permission 3/10/1583/OP and subject to the following planning conditions:

1. Three year time limit (1T121)

2. Approved plans (2E102)

3. All hardsurfacing and materials of construction shall be carried out in accordance with details approved under LPA reference X/13/1851/02 and email dated 08 August 2014, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development, and in accordance with policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

4. All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with drawing reference 11356-W-023 as approved in email dated 28 October 2014, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscape design, in accordance with policies ENV1, ENV2 and ENV11 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

5. All hard and soft landscape works required by Conditions 4, shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. New Page 87 a) 3/15/0244/FUL, b) 3/15/0349/FUL, c) 3/15/0628/FUL

planting shall take place by the end of the first available planting season following the first occupation of the public house. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscaping in accordance with the approved designs, in accordance with policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and national guidance in section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. Provision and retention of parking spaces (3V23) – with the addition: In particular, in relation to the letting accommodation to be provided, the parking spaces shall not be available to occupiers of the rooms other than during their stay at the accommodation, including the day of booking in and departure.

b) That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement to vary the legal agreement associated with the earlier permission 3/10/1583/OP and subject to the following planning conditions:

1. Three year time limit (1T121)

2. Approved plans (2E102)

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development, and in accordance with policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by Page 88 a) 3/15/0244/FUL, b) 3/15/0349/FUL, c) 3/15/0628/FUL

appropriate landscape design, in accordance with policies ENV1, ENV2 and ENV11 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

5. All hard and soft landscape works required by Conditions 4, shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. New planting shall take place by the end of the first available planting season following the first occupation of the public house. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

6. Provision and retention of parking space (3V23) – with the addition: In particular, in relation to the letting accommodation to be provided, the parking spaces shall not be available to occupiers of the rooms other than during their stay at the accommodation, including the day of booking in and departure. c) That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement to vary the legal agreement associated with the earlier permission 3/10/1583/OP and subject to the following planning conditions:

1. Three year time limit (1T121)

2. Approved plans (2E102)

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development, and in accordance with policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Page 89 a) 3/15/0244/FUL, b) 3/15/0349/FUL, c) 3/15/0628/FUL

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscape design, in accordance with policies ENV1, ENV2 and ENV11 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

(150244FUL.MP)

1.0 Background

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract. The application site is the former Cock Public House site in Stocking Pelham. The public house was destroyed by a fire on the 19 February 2008. Outline planning permission was granted for this development under LPA reference 3/10/1583/OP by the Development Management Committee. That permission also incorporated the provision of two dwellings to assist in the viability of building a new public house. A legal agreement was attached to the permission requiring that only one of the Page 90 a) 3/15/0244/FUL, b) 3/15/0349/FUL, c) 3/15/0628/FUL

dwellings may be occupied before the public house is constructed and made ready for occupation as a public house and be capable of securing a license under the licensing regulations.

1.2 Planning application a) (LPA reference 3/15/0244/FP) seeks planning permission to change the use of the first floor element of the approved public house. The approved scheme incorporated the provision of the normal space associated with pub at ground floor (pub/drinking area, kitchens and toilets, etc) and at first floor a three bedroom pub managers accommodation, office and storage space was to be provided. This application seeks consent to amend the first floor to create a smaller residential area for the pub manager (1 bedroom and lounge area) to delete the office and storage space but to incorporate the provision of 6 letting rooms. Each letting room is a double room with en-suite.

1.3 Planning applications b) and c) (LPA references 3/15/0349/FUL and 3/15/0628/FUL) incorporate amendments to the approved scheme involving the provision of a chimney to the ground floor kitchen (to provide an extract flue) and the erection of a rear conservatory to serve as additional dining room/lounge space for the pub.

1.4 The applications are reported to the Development Management Committee owing to the need to vary the legal agreement to accommodate these material changes in the layout and design of the building.

2.0 Site History

2.1 Outline planning permission was granted for the public house under LPA reference 3/10/1583/OP.

2.2 A resultant reserved matters application was granted at the site for detailed matters relating to the design, layout, appearance, landscape and access associated with the development under LPA reference 3/13/1851/RP.

3.0 Consultation Responses

3.1 Hertfordshire County Highways comment on application a), LPA reference 3/15/0244/FUL. that they do not wish to restrict the grant of permission. The Highways Officer comments that the principle of development is acceptable on the provision that there is no parking on Ginns Road. The Local Planning Authority should ensure that there is appropriate provision for off-street parking. Page 91 a) 3/15/0244/FUL, b) 3/15/0349/FUL, c) 3/15/0628/FUL

4.0 Parish Council Representations

4.1 Stocking Pelham Parish Council comment that they support LPA reference 3/15/0244/FUL but have concerns regarding drainage and that the parking should not be used for airport parking. No comments have been received from the Parish Council in relation to applications b) and c) (3/15/0349/FUL and 3/15/0628/FUL).

5.0 Other Representations

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of site notice and neighbour notification.

5.2 Two letters of representation have been received in relation to application a)(LPA reference 3/15/0244/FUL) raising concern that insufficient parking is provided.

6.0 Policy

6.1 The relevant ‘saved’ Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

GBC2 The Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt GBC3 Appropriate Development in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt STC8 Local Centres and Rural Provision LRC11 Retention of Community Facilities OSV8 Village Shops, Community and Leisure Facilities ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV11 Protection of Existing Hedgerows and Trees ENV16 Protected Species LRC1 Sport and Recreation Facilities

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy Guidance are material considerations in the determination of the application

7.0 Considerations

7.1 The principle of the development of the site to build a replacement pub with two ‘enabling’ dwellings has previously been established by the Council through the grant of outline planning permission under LPA reference 3/10/1583/OP. The main planning consideration therefore Page 92 a) 3/15/0244/FUL, b) 3/15/0349/FUL, c) 3/15/0628/FUL

relates to whether the proposed amendments to the layout of the public house building to create letting rooms and the other alterations to the building including a conservatory and chimney are acceptable in terms of the impact on the character of the building and surroundings.

7.2 The proposed letting rooms will help to enhance the viability of the public house. The letting rooms will provide added versatility to the offer of the public house and assist in the long term sustainability of the business. The enlarged pub building in the form of a conservatory will provide additional dining and lounge space for the approved use which will also assist in the viability of the building as a public house. The proposed development will therefore further support the economics of development, which is encouraged in the NPPF.

7.3 The proposed external alterations are relatively modest and will not result in a significantly greater level of impact on the site and surroundings from that previously granted consent. The chimney element is to the rear of the building and will enclose the flue extract equipment which will improve the visual appearance of the building and approach to the building from the car park. The proposed conservatory is of an overall design and form which complements the character and appearance of the approved pub building and will not therefore detract from the visual appearance of the public house.

7.4 The proposed conservatory will result in a loss of outside amenity space for the pub – however, an appropriate level of amenity to the rear, side and front of the pub is considered to remain.

7.5 In neighbour amenity terms there is the potential for increased levels of activity associated with the letting rooms compared to the previously approved restaurant/pub use. However, such an increase is not, in Officers opinion likely to be at all significant or cause a harm to which any degree of weight can be attached.

7.6 Having regard to the consultation responses received Officers consider that the main planning consideration relates to whether an appropriate provision for parking is provided.

7.7 The proposed development comprises of 6no letting rooms and the retention of a one bed managers room. Having regard to policy TR7 and the parking standards set out in the current Local Plan, one parking space would be required per letting room and 1.25 spaces for the 1 bed Managers accommodation – 7.25 spaces therefore. The current bar area is 117 sqm approx. and the standards require 1 space per 3sqm for public house bar uses - therefore a further 39 spaces would be Page 93 a) 3/15/0244/FUL, b) 3/15/0349/FUL, c) 3/15/0628/FUL

required. However, if as anticipated, the use is provided primarily for dining, 1 space per 5sqm or 23 spaces would be required. The standards also require 3 spaces per 4 employees regardless of the nature of the use.

7.8 However, full permission has been granted within LPA reference 3/15/1851/FP for the public house building with the provision of 20 parking spaces, below the maximum requirements. The main consideration now is whether that level of parking is acceptable having regard to the increase in the floor area of the pub associated with the conservatory (around 27 square metres) together with the additional letting rooms associated with the application. The total requirement now would be 48 spaces, if the use is considered to be primarily pub, and the 7.25 for the letting and managers accommodation, total 55.25 spaces. If the use is considered primarily dining, the requirement is 29 spaces plus the 7.25, 36.25 in total. Staff requirements are additional in each case. Total provision made is not proposed to increase over the 20 spaces.

7.9 The emerging parking standards are the same for both dining, public house and letting room uses. A one bed residential use requires 1.5 spaces. Noting its location in transport sustainability terms, the emerging standards nevertheless allow for a reduction of up to 25% to be applied in zone 4 locations such as this. No reduction is proposed for the purpose of a judgement against this matter as the location is indeed one of the more remote parts of the District with very limited alternative transport provision.

7.10 There is the potential for some on-street parking within the village but the site is located on a road junction. Officers consider that the level of parking to be provided does have the potential to lead to on-street parking in close proximity to this junction. Whilst the Highway Authority have commented that there should be no parking on Ginns Road, the reason for this is not articulated. It is likely to be that parking on the road could constitute a safety issue in proximity to the junction.

7.11 All concerned are keen that the use operates successfully. To do so it is most likely that, at times of peak use, the parking provision on site is likely to be inadequate. This will likely lead to a degree of parking on the local roads in the village, to the potential detriment of local residents and, if visitors do not exercise care in parking, possibly with some impact on the operation of the highway. Some negative weight must be assigned to this, albeit tempered, as the Council has already been willing to support the pub use (without the conservatory and letting rooms) at the site with the same level of parking provision. Page 94 a) 3/15/0244/FUL, b) 3/15/0349/FUL, c) 3/15/0628/FUL

7.12 The concern of the Parish Council regarding airport parking is noted. A condition can be added to the permission seeking to address this matter.

7.13 Various planning conditions were attached with the previous consents for the public house which have been discharged by the Council. It is therefore necessary and reasonable that the details which have previously been agreed, be agreed now through the planning conditions set out at the commencement of this report.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 The redevelopment of the site to create a pub and two dwellings has been established. These proposals will see amendments to the layout and design of the public house which, in Officers opinion will enhance the viability of the public house as a business operation. The proposed development therefore represents a more secure form of economic development in the rural area to that currently proposed. Significant weight is assigned to the proposed use and these enhancements to the viability of it.

8.2 There will be no harm to the character or appearance of the building or surroundings associated with the amendments in these applications nor will there be any significant additional harm to neighbour amenity compared to that previously granted consent. There is identified to be a deficiency in parking provision associated with the previously approved scheme and that now proposed. This is likely to have some impact on the operation of the roads in the vicinity of the site. However, the harm is not considered to outweigh the benefit of the enhanced proposals.

8.3 Officers therefore recommend that planning permission be granted for all three applications, subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement variation to ensure that the controls implemented in the initial legal agreement are maintained and, subject to planning conditions.

Page 95 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 96 Bennills

Old Rectory Cottage The Old Rectory SITE Grove Cottages

Longcroft

Waterlilies Berways

R o L e H e

a D n r h Brockhurst v o e w o y s n t s C B C o r t i t a o a r t s t g a e g Comroston e

1 White Hart Farm

Maple Side 2

1 2

Cockswood Silver Birches

Farm 3

4 Pelham C Grove ra d Hall a b o b R 's L s a n 7 n 8 n i 6 e

G MMM MMMEEE EEE VVV AAA 5 VVVIII AAADDD Higglers Cottage IIEEIE DDD EEEWWW

WWW 1 3

Pippins Meadow

The Croft

East Herts Council Address: The Cock, Ginns Road, Stocking Pelham, SG9 0HZ Wallfields Reference: 3/15/0244/FUL, 3/15/0349/FUL & 3/15/0628/FUL Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL4529 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 30 April 2015 Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 98 Agenda Item 6g 3/15/0228/SV – Variation of the Section 106 Legal Agreement associated with LPA 3/92/0474/FP (dated 3 rd September 2001) by the removal of Clause 1.2 and the removal of Clause 1(i) of the s52 Agreement (dated 28 th September 1987) associated with LPA 3/86/1939/OP, to remove the ‘elderly persons’ age restriction at Land at Stocking Hill Lane, Cottered, SG9 9PY for Joseph Edis

Date of Receipt: 28.01.2015 Type: Variation of Section 106 – Major Parish: COTTERED

Ward: THE MUNDENS AND COTTERED

RECOMMENDATION:

That the removal of removal of Clause 1.2 of the Section 106 Legal Agreement associated with LPA 3/92/0474/FP (dated 3rd September 2001) be APPROVED.

022815SV.LP)

1.0 Background

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract and comprises a residential development of 9 no. single storey dwellings with associated parking and landscaping.

1.2 The site is located in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt, at the northern end of Stocking Hill Lane backing onto open countryside. There is an existing residential development located to the north (No 10-17 Stocking Hill Lane) which falls outside the current application site but was also developed in accordance with the original planning permission in 1987.

1.3 This application proposes to remove Clause 1.2 of the Section 106 Legal Agreement associated with LPA 3/92/0474/FP (dated 3rd September 2001). That Clause is worded as follows:

‘at all material times the dwellings shall each be occupied by at least one person over the age of 50 years’.

1.4 The application also seeks to remove Clause 1(i) of the s52 Legal Agreement associated with application 3/86/1939/OP. That clause is worded as follows:

“use the dwellings for the purposes of providing accommodation for elderly persons and not for any other purpose.” Page 99 3/15/0228/SV

1.5 This clause however, (clause 1(i)) has already been removed under lpa 3/13/1266/SV and so there is no need to further address it here.

1.6 Of note is that a similar age restriction through a legal agreement accompanying a later application (ref: 3/06/0314/FP) for the 8 units to the north of this current application site (which also restricted occupancy to age 50+) was removed on an appeal in 2013.

1.7 This history is set out in the following section.

2.0 Site History

2.1 The site has a lengthy planning history for residential developments, as follows:

• Outline permission was granted in 1987 for 15 no. elderly persons dwellings on the wider site (reference 3/86/1939/OP) and a community building. A legal agreement restricted occupation to ‘elderly persons’ (with no age specified), and required that 5 of the units be rented to meet local housing needs. The age restriction on this legal agreement has been removed under lpa 3/13/1266/SV.

• Those permissions were implemented, but an application was later approved in 1992 for a revised layout (reference 3/92/0474/FP), omitting the community building. Nine of the 15 dwellings were completed on the southern part of the site - now occupied as Nos. 1-9 Stocking Hill which forms the dwellings subject to this application. The remaining 6 units were not constructed.

• A variation of the original legal agreement to remove the requirement to make 5 units available for local housing needs, and to define the term ‘elderly persons’ as being aged 50 years or over was later approved at Committee in November 1999. This variation of the legal agreement inserted Clause 1.2 which restricted each of the dwellings to be occupied by at least one person over the age of 50 years. It is this clause that the application seeks to be removed.

• An amended scheme for 8 no. units to the north of the current application site (reference 3/02/0696/FP) was granted subject to a legal agreement restricting occupancy to those aged 50 years or over. A further revised application was then submitted (reference 3/06/0314/FP) again for 8 no. units, which was approved in 2007 and constructed (now known as 10-17 Stocking Hill Lane). This Page 100 3/15/0228/SV

permission was also subject to a similar legal agreement, restricting occupancy to those aged 50 years or over.

• An planning application was submitted in September 2012, under reference 3/12/1485/SV to modify the Section 106 agreement attached to planning permission 3/06/0314/FP to remove the elderly persons age restriction on the northern part of the site. Officers recommended the application for approval. However, Members were concerned about the impact of the proposal on the residential amenity of the existing and adjacent properties and refused the application for the following reason:

‘The Council is of the view that removing the restriction could lead to a harmful impact on the residential amenity of existing and adjacent properties contrary to policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007’.

An appeal against that decision was allowed, with the Inspector noting that the removal of the restriction would not result in unacceptable impact to occupiers of the dwellings nor would there be any significant harm in terms of the supply of housing for older people, either in the local area or in the District as a whole. An application for full costs was awarded against the Council.

3.0 Consultation Responses

3.1 There are no consultation responses in this case.

4.0 Parish Council Representations

4.1 Cottered Parish Council has made no comment.

5.0 Other Representations

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification. No letters of representation have been received.

5.2 Former Councillor Ranger has commented in support of the application.

6.0 Policy

6.1 There are no saved Local Plan policies relevant to this application. Historically, the 1981 East Hertfordshire District Plan included a policy, H4, which encouraged development proposals that make special Page 101 3/15/0228/SV

provision for the elderly as a ‘special needs group’. Subsequent Local Plans (adopted in 1993 and 1999) included policies which favoured proposals that make a particular provision for ‘special needs groups’, but only within the towns and selected rural settlements, and Cottered was not one of these selected settlements. No equivalent policy applies in the saved 2007 Local Plan.

6.2 The emerging District Plan seeks to reintroduce a policy that supports the provision of specialist housing for older people (policy HOU1). Any provision should be in accordance with the information in the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and be located on suitable sites in appropriate and sustainable locations. The District Plan is at an early stage in its preparation and this policy is subject to currently unresolved objections. Very little weight can be assigned to it at this stage.

7.0 Considerations

Evidence and Need for Elderly Accommodation 7.1 The main issue in this case relates to the planning justification and evidence of planning reasons for the age restriction to remain in place on this development. Paragraph 204 of the NPPF states that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet the following tests:

• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

• directly related to the development; and

• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

7.2 Paragraph 205 of the NPPF states that ‘where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled.’ Furthermore, in order for an obligation to be deemed necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, there must clearly be a policy justification.

7.3 In this case there is no saved policy in the adopted Local Plan that requires any specific accommodation to be provided for elderly residents in this district, or to require the restriction of the occupation of any dwellings to those over a certain age. Although there was a policy in the 1981 Local Plan that favoured proposals making special provision for the elderly, this policy was not repeated in subsequent plans. It Page 102 3/15/0228/SV

appears that the age restriction in the case of the application site was only put in place originally.

7.4 As at this date the Council has no evidence in the form of housing needs surveys to identify a particular need for age restricted residential units in the Cottered area. A SHMA was carried out by the Council in 2008 to identify any particular housing needs to inform future policy making. This report recognised the importance of ensuring that a part of the new housing delivery across all tenures is particularly suited for the elderly, and identified that specialised ‘extra care housing’ for the elderly should form part of the future housing requirement. An update to that SHMA is being undertaken as well as an updated Housing Needs Survey.

7.5 This updated evidence will be taken into account in forming future housing policy for the district, as part of the new District Plan. It appears most likely, at this stage, the any future need that may be identified in Council policy would be likely to relate to ‘extra care housing’, which includes a high level of on-site support, not present at Stocking Hill, and would most likely cater for those far over the age of 50.

7.6 As outlined above within the ‘Site History’ an application to remove the age occupancy restriction of 50 years for the 8 dwellings to the immediate north of the site (reference 3/12/1485/SV) was refused by the Council and allowed on appeal. The Council was viewed as having taken an unreasonable position on this proposal and a costs award was made against it. The Inspector considered that the retention of the age restriction was not needed to protect the living conditions of neighbours and that nothing in the Local Plan or the NPPF suggest separating different age groups in any event. The removal of the control would not conflict with policy nor result in any significant harm in terms of the supply of housing for older people either in the local area or in the District. It is considered that the issues at this site are the same and that, as a result, significant weight should be given to this appeal decision. The Inspector made it very clear that policy justification for an age restriction has to be available and relevant in each case.

7.7 Members are advised to note that the site is located in a remote rural location without convenient access to facilities, and with no shops in the village. There is a bus stop on the main road, involving a walk of some 280m. Officers therefore do not consider the site particularly suited for older generations, particularly those with mobility problems.

Design and Layout Page 103 3/15/0228/SV

7.8 Officers consider that there is nothing significant in the layout or design of the development that would make the units unsuitable for any other age occupant. The dwellings are laid out in an open plan form with shared communal gardens – however each dwelling is provided with a small private garden area. The layout would not therefore result in unacceptable living conditions if the dwellings were occupied on an unrestricted basis.

Residential Amenity 7.9 In terms of residential impact, the removal of the age restriction is not considered to result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers, or neighbouring amenity.

Parking Provision and Access

7.10 In terms of parking provision, there are currently 12 no. allocated spaces for the 9 x 2 bed dwellings (within the garage and in open parking at the site entrance). The maximum parking provision for the development, under the Councils current vehicle parking standards would amount to 13.5 no. spaces. A reduced level of provision is permitted for sheltered accommodation. However, even with the age occupancy control in place, these units did not fall into that category. Therefore, the parking standards remain unchanged in relation to the restricted and unrestricted occupancy of the site. The emerging standards would require 18 spaces, with a potential discount of up to 25%, taking the required provision back to 13.5 spaces.

7.11 Officers note that there is the potential for the increased frequency of vehicular movements for unrestricted living, compared to age restricted living. However, any increase in vehicular movements would be unlikely to be significant. It is also important to remember that the existing age restriction could still accommodate full-time workers, commuting on a daily basis and having families to visit. Further, the units are 2 beds and would therefore not be capable of accommodating large families. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in this regard.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 Overall, Members are advised that there is no policy justification in Local or National terms to require this residential development to be occupied solely by ‘elderly persons.’ The removal of this control is not considered to result in unacceptable amenity impacts to occupiers, nor would it raise highway concerns.

Page 104 3/15/0228/SV

8.2 The age restriction on the legal agreement for the outline consent has already been removed (3/13/1266/SV).

8.3 Furthermore, the similar application to lift an age restriction on the adjacent site was allowed on appeal.

8.4 Overall, Officers consider that the planning obligation fails to meet the tests set out in paragraph 204 of the NPPF and the application to remove it is therefore recommended to be agreed.

Page 105 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 106 17

1 1

2 1

7 Stocking Hill Farm SITE 6

El Stocking Hill Sub Sta

R C o o s t t e a m g G Lower Farm W A The Elms a e r G r e e y a s e 5 b n t T c l e o h W V Tel Ex 0 W a t i C t G e t h i c w o 7 r l i l t a o h t C e T t n w C a C h H t h o g c R e e o h o t e Nook t y t The e u a e O t e a s a s g n l g t c d e e e n e h e l r C vi Ye Olde An e h ottag Off Licence a C Bowling Green p Childs e Cottage Farm l Peartree Cottage

The Bell A507 373737 000373737 1 11000 BBB 1 11 Coopers Bowling Green Coppice Farm Lordship The Town House P

a 1 Old Bowling r Lodge Nottinghams k Forge 2 H

Paddocks o

1 u The 3 Wells s Lilac Cottages Kennels e Bowling Mead The Old Cottage 7 Dairy St John the Baptist's 3 The Church 0 Tudor 1 Barn n B ar B d Ol e Th The Lordship

Cheynes Coach House Lordship Farm The Garden House Tanks

The Farmhouse Cheynes Cottage

WThe Rectory Cheynes Barn a r re n 7 3 L 0 Cheynes a 1 Farm n B e WWW WWW AAA AAARRR RRR RRR RRREEE EEE NNN NNN L L L LLLAAA AAA 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: 1 - 9 Stocking Hill, Cottered, SG9 9PY Wallfields Reference: 3/15/0228/SV Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3129 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 5 May 2015 Page 107 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 108 Agenda Item 6h E/14/0179/A – Unauthorised change of use of Turkey barn to B8 (storage and distribution) use at Eastwick Hall farm, Eastwick, Harlow, CM20 2RA

Parish: EASTWICK

Ward: HUNSDON

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Director of Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Director of Internal Services, be authorised to take enforcement action under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any such further steps as may be required to secure the cessation of the unauthorised use.

Period for compliance: 3 Months

Reasons why it is expedient to issue an enforcement notice:

1. The use of the unit results in a harmful level of traffic movements from heavy goods vehicles along a narrow rural lane which is poor in terms of width, alignment and structural condition. The use results in harm to the character of the road and residential amenity of properties along the road. A number of public rights of way connect with the access road and there is potential conflict between users of the public rights of way and vehicular traffic associated with the use of the unit. The development is not considered to represent a sustainable form of development and conflicts with Policy TR20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Section 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework. (017914A.PD)

1.0 Background

1.1 The site is shown on the Ordnance Survey extract. The site is located 1.5km to the north of the small village of Eastwick. The surrounding area is mainly open arable land with large fields divided by hedgerows. The farm itself comprises of centrally located barns for agricultural use and a northern set of barns. Extensive areas of hardstanding or a ‘farmyard’ are located around the agricultural barns and in between them. The dwelling, Eastwick Farmhouse is located to the immediate west of the agricultural units. Three dwellings (71-73 Eastwick Hall Lane) are located around 150 metres to the east of the site and use the same access road as the farm.

1.2 Concerns were expressed in May 2014 that a possible change of use of one of the barns had taken place without the benefit of planning Page 109 E/14/0179/A

permission.

1.3 Officers contacted the owner and carried out a site visit where it was found that one of the agricultural barns to the front of the site was currently being used by a scaffolding company for the storage of scaffolding and their vehicles overnight. The owner was advised that an application was required for the change of use of the barn to B8 (storage)

1.4 An application was submitted in July 2014 for the retrospective change of use of the barn as well as future change of use of another barn. After due consideration, the application was refused planning permission in October 2014 for the following reason;

The use of the units will result in a harmful level of traffic movements from heavy goods vehicles along a narrow rural lane which is poor in terms of width, alignment and structural condition. The proposed use will therefore result in harm to the character of the road and residential amenity of properties along the road. A number of public rights of way connect with the access road and there is potential conflict between users of the public right of way and vehicular traffic associated with the use of the units. The proposed development is not therefore considered to represent a sustainable form of development and conflicts with policy TR20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and section 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

1.5 Following the refusal the owner appealed to the Planning Inspectorate stating that planning permission should have been granted. On the 3 rd March 2015 the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal and again refused to grant planning permission.

2.0 Planning History

2.1 The most relevant planning history for the site can be summarised as follows:

3/14/1355/FP Change of use of Turkey barn Refused – (barn 2) in to commercial storage Dismissed on (B8) Retrospective appeal

3.0 Policy

3.1 The relevant policy of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 is: Page 110 E/14/0179/A

TR20 – Development Generating Traffic on Rural Roads. GBC9 – Adaption and Re-Use of Rural Buildings. GBC10 – Change of use of an Agricultural Building

3.2 Section 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are also relevant material consideration in this matter.

4.0 Considerations

4.1 The use of the barn, as currently taking place, involves the use of the unit by a scaffolding business. This business uses 4 vehicles and the unit is located around 150metres from the nearest neighbours to the east of the site and is adjacent to Eastwick Farmhouse. Having regard to the distance between the barn and those dwellings to the east of the site, the use will not result in material harm in terms of general noise and disturbance. However, the vehicle movements associated with a B8 use will have the potential to result in harm to neighbour amenity, particularly to the occupiers of those dwellings

4.2 The other units within the site are in agricultural use and any change of use of one of the barns has the potential to encourage other non- agricultural uses to come forward at the location. In that respect, it should be noted that the recently refused application and dismissed appeal sought wider non-agricultural, B8 (storage and distribution) use at the site.

4.3 The existing agricultural activities on the site do generate vehicle movements which include large agricultural vehicles and which may operate during anti-social hours. However, the reuse of this barn and other barns would result in further harm to neighbour amenity in terms of noise and general disturbance from vehicular traffic to the farm which operates independently from the farm.

4.4 In relation to the impact on the highway itself, Policy TR20 of the Local Plan seeks to resist development which will impact on rural roads where the road is poor in terms of width, alignment and construction and the increased traffic would have an effect on the local environment either to the character of the road or residential properties along it. The NPPF seeks to encourage sustainable solutions to transport. Developments that generate significant traffic movements should be located where the need to travel will be minimised and sustainable transport maximized. Development should be located to enable priority to be given to pedestrian movement.

4.5 The existing road is around 1.5km from the village and is narrow and Page 111 E/14/0179/A

winding with few passing places. It is a typical rural road flanked by hedgerow, trees and verge. Five footpaths connect with the road along its northern axis from Eastwick and a public footpath runs along the access road to the front of 71-73 Eastwick Hall Lane to the southern boundary of the farm buildings.

4.6 The size of the unit is not insignificant (around 820sq m) and the provision of a B8 use will result in additional traffic movements above that of an agricultural use. The scaffolding business has four lorries and assuming all four vehicles move in and out of the site each day, this results in eight additional HGV movements. There is also the potential that there could be additional daily journeys generating further traffic.

5.0 Recommendations

5.1 For the above reasons it is recommended that authorisation be given to issue and serve a Planning Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the unauthorised use.

Page 112 Well House

Depot Rosella

The Old Laundry

Spellers Cottages HUNSDON SITE

The Granary

The Round House

D a w i r y s

Orchard House

Eastwick Hall Farm

Farm Cottages

Copt rs The Old e Hall ld i rd u a Laundry B Y

Shell Cottage The Old Argosons Laundry Cottage

Old Laundry House Hunsdon Stud Holmewood

Hunsdon House Lodge

Tower

The Cottage Hunsdon House Stables

St Dunstan's Church

E as tw i ck H a ll L a n e C

Brickhouse Farm

Roseley Cottages

The Lion (PH) Culverts

Crusader Cottage

Green k n o a Man l o l r a b r g Court e o r

N T

Manor

Park Cottages Cottages Old

School House

St Botolph's

Church

Brickhouse Farm Eastwick Manor A41 4 Cottages

A414

Mead Lodge The Pound House

Hunsdon Mill Bridge End

House

East Herts Council Address: Eastwick Hall Farm, Eastwick, CM20 2 RA Wallfields Reference: E/14/0179/A Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:10000 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL4213 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 14 May 2015 Page 113 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 114 C C O O O

SITE

Eastwick Hall Farm

The Old Laundry

71 73

BARN

East Herts Council Address: Eastwick Hall Farm, Eastwick, CM20 2 RA Wallfields Reference: E/14/0179/A Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:2500 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL4213 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 14 May 2015 Page 115 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 116 Agenda Item 7 EAST HERTS COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – 27 MAY 2015

REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL

PLANNING APPEAL: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, LAND OFF GREEN END, BRAUGHING (UP TO 60 HOUSES) REF 3/14/1448/OP

WARD(S) AFFECTED: BRAUGHING

Purpose/Summary of Report:

• To update Members in relation to the current circumstances regarding the above application and to enable the position of the Council to be considered in the light of further relevant information.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECISION That:

(A) in relation to reason for refusal 1, the Council prepare its case in relation to the forthcoming public inquiry with authority delegated to Officers to deal with matters arising as detailed in recommendation (C);

(B) in relation to reason for refusal 2, the Council does not pursue a case in relation to Conservation issues or the loss of roadside hedgerows at the forthcoming public inquiry, and informs the appellant of its position; and

(C) The Head of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and the local ward Member, be authorised to engage with the appellants in relation to all matters relevant to the appeal and to formulate, alter, amend and update the Council’s statement and evidence to be submitted in relation to the forthcoming public inquiry.

1.0 Background

1.1 Development proposals at this site were considered at the 12 November 2014 meeting of this Committee. A copy of the report submitted to that meeting is attached as ERP B to this report.

Page 117 The recommendation submitted at the time was that planning permission be refused, and Members resolved to refuse planning permission for the same reasons, as set out below:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its scale and location in relation to the existing village, its poor public transport connections and lack of local employment opportunities, would represent an unsustainable form of development contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposal thereby represents inappropriate development in the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt contrary to policies GBC2 and GBC3 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

2. The proposed development would represent a major extension of the village and an intrusion into the open countryside, resulting in a significant reduction in the open space between the settlements of Braughing and Hay Street, and significant adverse impacts on the local landscape and the amenity of sensitive receptors. The proposed development would thereby have a detrimental impact on the wider landscape, and the significance of the Braughing Conservation Area, and the loss of roadside hedgerows would exacerbate this harm, contrary to policy GBC14 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Sections 11 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

1.2 An appeal was lodged on 12 February 2015 and has been agreed by the Planning Inspectorate to be heard at a public inquiry on 11- 14 and 18-21 August 2015. In preparing its case, Officers have been further scrutinising and testing the relevant issues and have taken further advice on the matters relating to the refusal.

1.3 In addition, an amended plan has been submitted by the appellant in relation to access arrangements, to minimise the impact on roadside hedgerows.

2.0 Update

2.1 When considering the original planning application, conservation advice was provided in relation to heritage issues. This was based on an assessment of the impact of the development on the historic and architectural character and appearance of Braughing. This related predominantly to the sense of place associated with

Page 118 the hamlet of Hay Street and the wider setting of the site, including the Braughing Conservation Area. This concern was incorporated into the second refusal reason.

2.2 In relation to roadside hedgerows, the appellant has submitted an amended plan showing the detailed access arrangements and visibility splays, and providing a footpath within the site. This now identifies that there would in fact be a 0.7 metre net gain in roadside hedgerow, rather than a loss. This amended plan is not considered to represent a material change to the previous plans and has therefore not been the subject of full re-consultation. However consultation has been carried out with the Local Member, Chair of Committee for the last civic year, Parish Council, and relevant statutory consultees.

3.0 Review of the Council’s Position

3.1 In reviewing its case in advance of the public inquiry, and preparing witnesses to defend the Council’s position, Officers have sought further conservation advice and input. This has had regard to the application documents, the previous Conservation advice, and through a thorough site visit.

3.2 The original objection, on the basis of conservation matters, identified harm to the settlement of Hay Street – a settlement that does not have a designated Conservation Area – rather than Braughing. The development site sits detached from the existing village (of Braughing) and outside the designated Conservation Area with limited views between the Conservation Area and the development site. It is considered that the appellant’s submitted Heritage Statement, which addresses these matters, is sound.

3.3 Whilst this is the case, the landscape impact elements of the refusal reason, relating to the intrusion of the development into the open space between Braughing and Hay Street and impact on the local and wider landscape, remain. It is considered that addressing the appeal on the basis of these matters, rather than a conservation impact, provides for the most cogent case to be formulated.

3.4 In respect of roadside hedgerows, consultation has been carried out with relevant bodies, and Officers are satisfied that the amended plan identifies no significant loss of roadside hedgerows, and in fact a net gain of 0.7 metres – subject to a condition to require hedgerow planting within existing gaps.

Page 119

3.5 In respect of both matters then, the respective parts of the reason for refusal have therefore been addressed and Officers recommend that these not be pursued as part of the Council’s case at public inquiry.

3.6 It is therefore recommended that Officers prepare their case based on the amended wording of reason for refusal 2, as set out below:

2. The proposed development would represent a major extension of the village and an intrusion into the open countryside, resulting in a significant reduction in the open space between the settlements of Braughing and Hay Street, and significant adverse impacts on the local landscape and the amenity of sensitive receptors. The proposed development would thereby have a detrimental impact on the wider landscape, contrary to policy GBC14 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.0 Delegation

4.1 Officers also request that authority be delegated, subject to consultation with the Chair of the Committee and the Local Member, to further formulate, alter, amend and update the Council’s statement and evidence to be submitted in relation to the forthcoming inquiry. This will allow the Council the flexibility to react promptly to any new information and required changes to the Council’s position as a result. Significant matters can be raised at short notice, which require a rapid response from the Council.

5.0 Implications/Consultations

5.1 Information on any corporate issues and consultation associated with this report can be found within Essential Reference Paper ‘A’ .

Background Papers Planning application – 3/14/1448/OP.

Contact Member: Councillor Suzanne Rutland-Barsby – Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Development Management and Councillor Support.

Page 120 Contact Officers: Kevin Steptoe – Head of Planning and Building Control, Extn: 1407. [email protected] Report Author: Kevin Steptoe – Head of Planning and Building Control, Extn: 1407. [email protected]

Page 121 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 122 ESSENTIAL REFERENCE PAPER ‘A’

IMPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS:

Contribution to Place – Safe and Clean the Council’s This priority focuses on sustainability, the built Corporate environment and ensuring our towns and villages are Priorities/ safe and clean. Objectives Prosperity – Improving the economic and social opportunities available to our communities This priority focuses on safeguarding and enhancing our unique mix of rural and urban communities, promoting sustainable, economic opportunities and delivering cost effective services. Consultation: As indicated in the report in relation to the relevant matters.

Legal: None.

Financial: The main objective is to ensure that the Council presents the most cogent and robust case to the inquiry. This also ensures that expenditure is not required in relation to matters on which a case cannot be based and the risk of cost claims against the Council is minimised Human None. Resource: Risk In order to ensure that a cogent case is presented to the Management: inquiry.

Health and None. wellbeing – issues and impacts:

Page 123 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 124 3/14/1448/OP – Outline application for approximately 60 houses. All matters reserved except for access at Land off Green End, Braughing for Gladman Developments

Date of Receipt: 23.04.2011 Type: Outline – Major

Parish: BRAUGHING

Ward: BRAUGHING

RECOMMENDATION:

That outline planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons:

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended), East Herts Council has considered, in a positive and proactive manner, whether the planning objections to this proposal could be satisfactorily resolved within the statutory period for determining the application. However, for the reasons set out in this decision notice, the proposal is not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development in accordance with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(144814OP.HI) Page 125 3/14/1448/OP

1.0 Background

1.1 The application site is shown on the attached OS extract and comprises approximately 5.25 hectares of open fields. The site lies to the north of Green End, Braughing and outside the boundary of the Category 1 Village. The west of the site is bordered partly by the B1368 with hedgerow and tree screening, and partly by existing dwellings Nos. 58- 76 (evens) Green End which front onto the road in linear form with their rear gardens backing onto the development site. The north of the site borders further agricultural land and is divided by a field hedgerow, and to the east of the site lies the River Quin. To the south lies a separate parcel of open land that is used for equestrian purposes, along with the residential gardens of Heatherbank and dwellings at nos. 52, 54 and 56 Green End.

1.2 There is a public footpath (002) that crosses the site from the southwest corner to the northeast corner, and another footpath that closely follows the eastern boundary of the site (025). A further public footpath (002A) heads southeast from the southwest corner of the site, across the garden of Heatherbank. The land levels fall generally from approximately 87.5 AOD on the western boundary to 72.8m AOD to the east of the site. There is an existing field gate access onto the B1368 in the southwest corner of the site that is to be retained for the neighbouring landowner.

1.3 The application is in outline form with all matters reserved except for a new access, which is proposed to the B1368 (Green End). The application proposes approximately 60 dwellings comprising a mix of sizes and tenures with 40% affordable housing provision and associated open space.

2.0 Site History

2.1 Planning permission was previously refused in 1987 and 1988 for the construction of 12 no. starter homes and 28 no. 4/5 bed houses under references 3/87/1190/OP and 3/88/1313/OP. The reasons for refusal related to inappropriate development in the Rural Area, no justified need for further housing, intensifying undesirable ribbon development into attractive open countryside, harm to a Landscape Conservation Area, and harm to highway safety on the B1368.

2.2 An appeal was lodged against the second application and dismissed on the grounds that the development would result in “serious harm to the rural beauty of the valley. It would involve a major extension of the village, drastically reducing the broad open area between Braughing Page 126 3/14/1448/OP

and the village of Hay Street to the north.” The Inspector also commented that “I find it inconceivable that reasonable requirements for housing in Braughing could not be met with far less ill effects upon the character and setting of the village, than would result from this proposed gross extension into the northern countryside. I conclude that the proposed development would seriously harm the character and setting of Braughing, and undermine the approved policy objectives of preserving and enhancing the countryside and the character and layout of settlements.”

2.3 A more recent application for the erection of 1 dwelling and a new access onto the B1368 was refused at 50 Green End under reference 3/09/0442/FP. This was refused on the grounds that the new access would be harmful to the open, green and rural character and appearance of the site and surroundings and would constitute inappropriate development in the Rural Area, and would also result in the loss of roadside hedgerow which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. No appeal was lodged against this refusal.

3.0 Consultation Responses

3.1 The Council’s Conservation Officer recommends refusal on the grounds that the development would have a detrimental impact on the historic and architectural character and appearance of Braughing. They comment that the settlement of Braughing is of considerable historic significance as an ‘Anglo-Saxon tribal centre, important for ecclesiastical and administrative affairs’, made up of a collection of historic hamlets flanking the River Quinn, with the village core being Braughing Village. Green End is a linear settlement along the line of Puckeridge leading to the hamlets of Hay Street and Dassels. Whilst Braughing has four main hamlets, the focus of this appraisal is on the hamlet of Hay Street, due to the location of the site. The built character of Hay Street is limited to 30 houses, some of which date back to the 17 th century, and the sporadic nature of development allows open views over the Quin valley, views which include the roofscape of Braughing Village and the spire of St Mary’s Church. In context the hamlet of Hay Street is separated from the built form of Braughing Village by open green space, and open views across the rural landscape. The proposal would inevitably erode the unique sense of place associated with the hamlet of Hay Street and its wider setting, including Braughing Conservation Area.

3.2 The Council’s Landscape Officer recommends refusal on the grounds that the scale of development does not relate well to the local area and is an intrusion of built form into open countryside. The retention of Page 127 3/14/1448/OP

roadside hedgerows is questionable due to the provision of a 2m wide footway, change in levels, and the need for visibility splays. The adverse impact on the surrounding landscape will be permanent and irreversible, and the proposals will give rise to major visual effects on residential properties and users of public rights of way. The development fails to integrate into its surroundings either along the boundaries of the site or within the wider landscape setting.

3.3 The Council’s Housing Manager comments that the site lies outside the village boundary where Rural Exceptions would apply for 100% affordable housing. However if the Council were minded to grant planning permission as a result of other material considerations, they would expect the development to provide 40% affordable housing in line with amended policy HSG3. The scheme proposes 40% affordable but indicates that they would like the option of 30% on site plus a commuted sum to be considered. This is not considered to be acceptable as the Council seeks on site provision. The tenure split of 75% affordable rent and 25% shared ownership is considered to be acceptable. The applicant seeks to secure affordable housing through condition rather than a Section 106 legal agreement; however given the complexities of affordable housing provision and the likely need, in any event, for a legal agreement, the Council would expect it to be included in any legal agreement.

3.4 The Highway Authority recommend consent subject to a financial contribution towards sustainable transport, and a number of conditions. They comment that the Transport Assessment (TA) provides a robust assessment of the number of vehicle trips generated by the development, and that 90% of vehicles will travel south of the site, with 10% travelling north. The TA takes into account previously committed developments and the impact of these developments on the local highway network is considered to be acceptable. The overall impact on local junctions is also considered to be minimal. In terms of accidents there have been 4 accidents in the area between December 2009 and January 2013 but these were not in the vicinity of the site and were due to driver error. The traffic generated by the site is unlikely to have a significant impact on highway safety. The design of the new access is also considered to be acceptable. The design of the new bus stops will need to comply with accessibility and disability guidelines and footway links must be provided.

3.5 Natural England advise that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. They have not assessed the application for impacts on protected species.

Page 128 3/14/1448/OP

3.6 Hertfordshire Ecology comment that an appropriate survey methodology, evaluation and analysis have been carried out, they agree with the consultant’s conclusion that the site is of low ecological value, and that adequate information has been provided to consider that protected species will not be a constraint for the development. A precautionary approach is recommended to avoid harm to birds and their young through the removal of vegetation.

3.7 Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust raise no objection. They comment that the current habitat is of limited ecological diversity and the habitats and features provide limited potential to support protected species. However the applicant should aim to enhance the biodiversity of the site through appropriate layout, design and landscaping proposals. An adequate semi-natural buffer should also be provided along the River Quin to protect the river from any adverse impacts during construction and the life of the development.

3.8 Herts Country Council Planning Obligations Unit seek financial contributions towards first, middle and upper education, youth and library services in accordance with Planning Obligations Guidance – Toolkit for Hertfordshire 2008. Fire hydrant provision is also sought to ensure adequate water supplies for fire fighting. Following further discussions on the capacity of Jenyns Primary School they comment that the school is not full so there is some existing capacity. To enable the school to expand from its current planned admission number (PAN) of 21 to a 1 form of entry first school (with a PAN of 30), two additional classrooms would need to be provided. From their site visit they comment that this should be possible; however no detailed feasibility work has been undertaken to support this view.

3.9 Herts County Council Minerals and Waste Team advise that policies 1, 1a, 2 and 12 of the Hertfordshire County Council Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2012 relate to the proposed development and recommend a condition relating to the reduction and re-use of construction waste.

3.10 The County Archaeologist comments that the proposed development is likely to have an impact on heritage assets of archaeological interest and a condition is therefore recommended. The submitted Archaeological Desk Based Assessment concludes that the site has moderate potential to contain undesignated heritage assets of Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval date, and a low to moderate potential to contain assets of prehistoric date. The archaeological potential of the site should be considered in the context of its location adjacent to the ancient (medieval or earlier) route running from Ermine Street (A10) Page 129 3/14/1448/OP

ultimately to Cambridge, its topography, and the density of evidence for multi-period settlement in the areas.

3.11 Hertfordshire Constabulary have no major concerns with the proposal; however they would encourage the applicant to engage with the Police Crime Prevention Design Service at the earliest stage to assist in satisfying local and national planning policy.

3.12 The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) object on the grounds that there have been previous refusals for development of the site, and the proposal represents inappropriate development in the Rural Area contrary to policies GBC2 and GBC3 and would result in urban sprawl into the countryside. They note that, based on recent Committee reports, the Council’s position is that there has not been persistent under delivery of housing and when further housing provision is factored in, the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply. 67 new homes have been approved by the Council in Braughing since 2007 and there is no clear demonstration of the need for further housing. Economic benefits of 65 jobs during construction should not be afforded much weight, and it cannot be guaranteed that the workers will be drawn from the local workforce. They also comment that the substantial increase in traffic movement through the village as a result of the development must be taken into consideration, and there is no clear demonstration of impact on primary or secondary education or health service provision, all of which are under considerable local pressure. The site is Grade 3 agricultural land and should be protected from development.

3.13 NHS England comment that the proposed development would result in approximately 144 new registrations for primary care and, given the location of the site, it is likely that the majority of new registrations would be the responsibility of the Puckeridge and Standon surgery. This surgery is already constrained and Section 106 contributions are therefore requested to support this practice and mitigate the impact of the development. A total of £37,252.80 is requested (approximately £621 per dwelling).

3.14 NHS East and North Hertfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) comment that the growth could be around 240 people and they would be concerned over the impact on already overstretched community services. The CCG is in the process of developing its overarching 5 year strategic plan, including the establishment of a primary care strategy. This will guide the transformational change which is needed to deliver higher quality and more accessible care for local people. Part of the change will be greater integration of services, for Page 130 3/14/1448/OP

example community and primary care services, and the availability of fit-for-purpose and easily accessible premises will of course be required for new service models. The CCG would like to engage further with the Council and NHS England to assist with mapping the additional health infrastructure required as a consequence of these plans, and the requirements for a Section 106 contribution.

3.15 The Environment Agency raise no objection subject to conditions on a detailed surface water drainage scheme, and contamination.

3.16 Council Engineers comment that the application site is partly in floodzone 1, and partly in floodzones 2 and 3. The site is also shown as partially within overland surface water flows – an area of surface water inundation runs through part of the east of the site and along to the rear of Nos. 68 and 70 Green End. Initial review of the submitted reports indicate that the development is suitable for above ground type sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and this ‘green infrastructure’ has been identified by the developer as being integral to the outline design for the site. Such above ground ‘green infrastructure’ would be valuable assets for the new residential area and will assist flood risk reduction in Braughing as well as providing additional biodiversity and shared amenity spaces. It is possible that additional SuDS features could be considered within the development such as green roofs, swales, bio-retention areas, rainwater harvesting water butts, and permeable paving.

3.17 Affinity Water advise that the site is located within the groundwater Source Protection Zone of Standon Pumping Station. The construction works should be carried out in accordance with the relevant British Standards and Best Management Practices.

3.18 Thames Water do not have any objection in relation to sewerage infrastructure capacity. With regard to surface water drainage it is the developer’s responsibility to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant ensures that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater and where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water will be required. Approval should also be sought from Thames Water for development within 3 meters of any public sewer.

3.19 Environmental Health raise no objection subject to conditions on noise control measures, construction hours of working, contamination and Page 131 3/14/1448/OP

piling.

3.20 The Ramblers Association comment that footpaths 2, 2A and 25 either cross or lie adjacent to the development site. The proposed development should not encroach on these public rights of way and they expect access to be available at all times during and after construction.

4.0 Town/Parish Council Representations

4.1 Braughing Parish Council object for the following reasons:

• The Parish is committed to producing a Neighbourhood Plan that will identify opportunities for limited residential development outside the village envelope, but at this stage it would be premature to suppose where those sites might be; • The emerging District Plan proposes a 10% increase in housing stock in Braughing between 2016 and 2031 – this equates to 33 new homes; • The applicant’s submissions are incorrect as they quote the number of households living in Braughing to be 750, whereas the 2011 Census data identifies 357 households – the development would therefore result in 17% growth, rather than 8% as stated by the developer; • The applicant states that there have been 26 completions over the last 12 years – this is incorrect as permission has been granted for 67 new homes since 2007, 46 of which are completed. Since 2011 there has been a constant presence of building contractors in the village; • Detrimental impact on health care services which are already under pressure; • Jenyns First School only has capacity for 120 children and the development will have a significant impact on access to local education, bearing in mind the lack of public transport available; • The applicant is incorrect with regards to the planning history of the site – there have been three previous refusals; • The development lies outside the village boundary and represents inappropriate development in the Rural Area, contrary to the Local Plan; • The development will alter the street scene significantly and is unlikely to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area; • The area was previously designated as a Landscape Conservation Area – the landscape is currently an open green field and the Page 132 3/14/1448/OP

development will result in the permanent loss of this landscape feature; • The proposal will adversely impact on three existing rights of way; • There are limited employment opportunities and the majority of residents have to commute to work due to limited public transport services; • Concern that the number of cars arising from the new development has been underestimated. In 2007 the Parish undertook a householder survey which revealed the number of vehicles in the Parish to be equivalent to the number of adults, a minimum of 120 vehicles; • A traffic survey carried out by Hertfordshire Constabulary in 2006 identified that a total of 20,578 vehicles travelled along this stretch of road in 7 days with an average speed of 47mph, and this did not even include the top 15% of speeds – this raises concern over pedestrian safety with a narrow pavement; • The site is liable to flood – it is therefore essential that appropriate greenfield run-off rates can be achieved post-development and any increase in non-permeable areas mitigated through SuDS; • The applicant has not explored whether there are more suitable sites in the village for residential development; • A nationwide concern for the NPPF favouring developers with too much emphasis on a lack of 5 year housing supply has been expressed and potential changes to the NPPF are proposed for February 2015.

4.2 An additional response has been received from the Parish Council to highlight that more than 130 residents attended a recent public meeting regarding this application.

4.3 Standon Parish Council object on the grounds that the development will not represent sustainable development as it will significantly impact on the service provision of the Standon and Puckeridge Health Centre, as well as local schools of Roger de Clare and Ralph Sadlier in Puckeridge, and Edwinstree and Freman College in Buntingford, and the development will be reliant on private cars. They also comment that the site lies in the Rural Area and would result in the loss of agricultural land. This application is but one of many that are considered to be premature, contrary to the NPPF, and contrary to the Local Plan and emerging District Plan.

5.0 Other Representations

5.1 The application has been advertised by way of press notice, site notice Page 133 3/14/1448/OP

and neighbour notification.

5.2 485 no. letters of representation have been received (with the majority from Braughing addresses), along with a petition of 122 signatures, which can be summarised as follows:

• The site lies outside the village boundary and within the Rural Area wherein new housing developments will not be permitted – the proposal is contrary to policy GBC3; • The application is premature as the District Plan is in an emerging state and the Neighbourhood Plan is under construction; • Irrevocable loss of landscape and agricultural land; • Harm to unique historic character and social cohesion of the village; • Harm to the enjoyment of public rights of way and loss of amenity for the village and visitors – the land is regularly used for walking; • Lack of employment in the area; • Health and education services are already stretched; • Limited local services, including one small shop; • Small community cannot accommodate a 12% increase in housing; • Limited public transport and the County Council is consulting on reduced rural bus service provision; • Increased traffic flows on the B1368 which is already busy with large lorries in connection with Anstey quarry – lead to increased danger to children and noise nuisance to residents; • There has already been significant house building in the village; • Joining up of settlements - Braughing and Hay Street; • The land is subject to flooding and new development will increase the risk of flooding further down the River Quin; • Harm to wildlife and flora – the site was cleared several years ago, no doubt in preparation for the Ecology Survey to be carried out; • Inconceivable that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required by the Council; • Braughing won the last Village of the Year for East Herts – major development will not preserve that identity; • Recent developments seem to be enclosed communities with little interaction with the village – the proposed development is on the outskirts and will not integrate with the village; • Recent Police traffic surveys showed 60% travelling in excess of the 40mph speed limit; • The applicant makes a number of incorrect statements and assertions in the submitted documents; • Local sewage treatment plant at Dassels is already overloaded; Page 134 3/14/1448/OP

• The development will impact on local historic sites; • The site should be treated with care as to its archaeological interest; • Parking along the B1368 in relation to recent developments has caused safety problems; • The application is aggressive and speculative, and the developer plans to sell it on – so no weight can be given to their promises; • Concern about light pollution in the area and impact on wildlife; • Planning permission has been refused for residential development on this site in the past; • There is plenty of housing on the market in the village and no need for any more; • Impact on the setting of the Braughing Conservation Area and listed buildings; • Village broadband service is inadequate and mobile phone reception is poor; • Pollution run-off will harm the River Quin which is a rare chalk river; • Concern that neighbouring settlements will eventually become joined; • The Council has no obligation to approve – a lack of housing supply should not override the harm; • Loss of existing views of the river valley; • Additional traffic movements would be hazardous to horse riders; • Development is out of scale with the village.

5.3 A letter of objection has also been received from the Braughing Society making the following points:

• The proposal represents inappropriate development in the Rural Area; • Loss of Grade 3 agricultural land; • Unsustainable development due to lack of infrastructure and services, poor transport connections, and few local employment opportunities; • Planning permission has been refused previously; • The site is an important asset as open space and forms part of the important Parish Paths footpath network; • The development would cause serious harm to the wider landscape; • Flooding is caused on site by water percolating up through the ground, not from river flooding. Local roads and lanes are regularly affected; • The River Quin is a chalk river and a special habitat for wildlife – Page 135 3/14/1448/OP

there are only 200 chalk rivers in the world and a charter has been drawn up by conservationists in 2012 calling for them to be designated as ‘Special Areas of Conservation’. An EU Directive recognises their importance and it is extraordinary that the Council did not request that an Environmental Impact Assessment be carried out; • The proposal is premature and does not represent sustainable development.

5.4 Sir Oliver Heald MP has also written in support of the Parish Council’s objections.

6.0 Policy

6.1 The relevant saved Local Plan policies in this application include the following:

SD1 Making Development More Sustainable SD2 Settlement Hierarchy HSG1 Assessment of Sites not Allocated in this Plan HSG3 Affordable Housing HSG4 Affordable Housing Criteria HSG6 Lifetime Homes GBC3 Appropriate Development in the Rural Area Beyond the GreenBelt GBC14 Landscape Character TR1 Traffic Reduction in New Developments TR2 Access to New Developments TR3 Transport Assessments TR4 Travel Plans TR7 Car Parking – Standards TR14 Cycling – Facilities Provision (Residential) TR20 Development Generating Traffic on Rural Roads ENV1 Design and Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV3 Planning Out Crime – New Development ENV11 Protection of Existing Hedgerows and Trees ENV14 Wildlife Sites ENV16 Protected Species ENV18 Water Environment ENV19 Development in Areas Liable to Flood ENV20 Groundwater Protection ENV21 Surface Water Drainage BH1 Archaeology and New Development BH2 Archaeological Evaluations and Assessments Page 136 3/14/1448/OP

BH3 Archaeological Conditions and Agreements LRC1 Sport and Recreation Facilities LRC3 Recreational Requirements in New Residential Developments LRC9 Public Rights of Way IMP1 Planning Conditions and Obligations

7.0 Considerations

Principle of Development

7.1 The site lies outside the settlement boundary of Braughing and within the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt wherein policy GBC3 states that permission will not normally be granted for residential developments. Therefore in respect of the 2007 Local Plan, the proposal represents inappropriate development in principle. However, Members will now be familiar with the issues surrounding developments in the Rural Area in the context of current planning policies. The Council’s housing policies as set out in the saved Local Plan are now deemed to be out of date, and this was confirmed by the Inspector at the appeal related to land north and south of Hare Street Road, Buntingford.

7.2 The most recent Annual Monitoring Report (AMR, released in Feb 2014) predicts land supply for the 2014/15 to 2018/19 five year period, and with an annual requirement of 660 new homes (the figure remaining in use prior to the introduction of updated District Plan figures), 3.4 years of supply are identified. This takes into account the requirement for a 5% buffer, brought forward from later in the forthcoming plan period.

7.3 The NPPF sets out the requirement for the Council to identify the supply of land for five years’ worth of housing against its identified needs. As indicated, the AMR is based on the requirement figures that remain in place from the previous East of England Regional Plan. That Plan is now revoked and the Council has consulted on a draft District Plan with an annual requirement of 750 dwellings. Little weight should be assigned to this higher figure at this stage given the current status of the District Plan.

Page 137 3/14/1448/OP

7.4 Members may recall that more detailed figures in relation to housing supply scenarios were set out in a previous report related to Areas 2 and 3 South of Hare Street Road, Buntingford (references 3/14/0528/OP and 3/14/0531/OP). These will not be repeated here but the position remains that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply position, and this carries significant weight in the determination of this application.

7.5 Nonetheless, in relation to the Buntingford appeal, the Inspector indicated that the thrust of Local Plan policies GBC2 and GBC3 is to protect the countryside from unnecessary development, which is also an aspiration of the Framework, and this aspect of the policies is still capable of attracting significant weight (para 21).

7.6 The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development ‘which should be seen as a golden thread running through plan-making and decision-taking’. The issue of sustainability is discussed in more detail below, but for decision-taking this means that “where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out of date”, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so “would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

7.7 The ability to afford weight to the emerging District Plan is also addressed in the NPPF at paragraph 216, which states that:

“From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

7.8 Whilst a draft version of the Council’s District Plan has now been published and subject to consultation, is not at an advanced stage of preparation. The feedback to that consultation has not been Page 138 3/14/1448/OP

considered formally, but the level of housing development overall and the allocation of land for development in the plan have been the subject of considerable response. At this stage then, little weight can be given to policies that relate to these matters in the emerging District Plan.

7.9 Further guidance in respect of prematurity is provided in paragraph 014 of the Planning Practice Guidance. This states that:

“in the context of the NPPF and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development, arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits... Such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both:

a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan or Neighbourhood Planning; and

b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.

Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan has yet to be submitted for examination. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.”

7.10 Officers have considered this advice carefully. The DPD (Development Plan Document) against which this advice must be considered is the District Plan – which relates to the whole of East Herts of course. This Plan is not yet sufficiently advanced to justify a refusal on the grounds of prematurity, and the development is not considered prejudicial in relation to the scale, extent and location of development overall in the District Plan.

Sustainability

7.11 The site lies just to the north of the built-up area of Braughing village and within walking distance of village facilities. Those facilities include a primary school (Jenyns First School and Nursery), 3 public houses (the Page 139 3/14/1448/OP

Axe and Compasses, Golden Fleece and Brown Bear), a shop and post office, butchers, churches and halls. The village is therefore deemed to be one of the more sustainable villages in the district, hence its current designation as a Category 1 Village. An increase in the number of houses would continue to support these services and local businesses.

7.12 However, a number of concerns have been raised over the extent of recent developments in Braughing, and the cumulative effect of these developments on the capacity of the village, and the disruption caused through construction. Officers can confirm from the latest housing figures that there have been 48 residential completions in the village since 2007, with a further 5 nearing completion. This includes 28 at Pentlows Farm and 17 at Gravelly Lane. The Parish Council suggest a figure of 67 but this includes Hamels Mansion and Quinbury Farm which, although falling within Braughing Parish, are detached from the village. This historic scale of development is not considered to be excessive – resulting in an average of 7 new dwellings per year for the last 7 years. However, concerns over the provision of a further 60 dwellings in a single development proposal are understandable.

7.13 A question has also arisen over the number of households in the village as the applicant suggests that the development will result in a growth of 8% (quoting the number of households in the village as 750). The Parish Council suggest that according to 2011 Census data, the number of households is 357 and therefore growth would be 17%. Officers have checked the 2011 Census data and this identifies 497 households in the Parish therefore growth as a result of this application would be in the region of 12% - the Parish of course represents a wider area than the village, but the Council have not been able to identify household numbers for just the village. Actual growth in the village would therefore be greater than 12% and this is significant when considering that the draft District Plan proposes 10% growth (representing 33 dwellings) between 2016 and 2031, which was based on 2001 Census figure of 328 households. The proposal for 60 dwellings is therefore considered to be excessive in relation to the capacity of the village.

7.14 There are few local employment opportunities in the village, and future residents would be largely car dependent in order to commute for work. This weighs against the proposal. The site is also poorly served by public transport. There is no railway station nearby – the closest being Bishop’s Stortford approximately 8 miles away, Royston and Watton-at- Stone at 12 miles, and Stevenage at 14 miles. There is one bus service that serves the village – the 331 which covers Royston to Hertford. This stops in the village approximately every 1 to 2 hours Mondays – Page 140 3/14/1448/OP

Saturdays and runs until about 7pm. There is currently no Sunday service. Richmond Coaches also offer a single Friday service to Cambridge (route 334), and a single Thursday service to Bishop’s Stortford (route 386). The bus stops are currently located approximately 450m south of the site; however the developer is proposing two new bus stops (which would be required to be Disability Discrimination Act compliant) near the entrance to the site which would be secured through any planning consent.

7.15 In relation to the services currently on offer in the village, and the level of public transport service, Officers consider that future residents would be largely car dependent and the proposal therefore represents unsustainable development in this respect. The applicant has submitted An Assessment of Current and Future Sustainability which suggests that the development will make a positive contribution towards the future vitality and sustainability of the community. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states that “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.” The developer suggests that the sustainability of Braughing remains vulnerable to the consequences of an ageing population, and a lack of new housing will result in the existing housing stock becoming more unaffordable for younger working families. The developer therefore proposes that 60 new dwellings will refresh the housing stock and provide a greater contribution to the vitality of the rural area and support economic activity and growth. Whilst Officers agree that a modest amount of development can support rural communities and their facilities, it is considered that the scale of development proposed in this case is excessive in relation to the capacity of the existing settlement and is unsustainable in this respect.

Education

7.16 There is an existing First School and Nursery in the village (Jenyns) and a number of concerns have been raised over its existing capacity. Herts County Council have visited the school recently and confirm that there is some current capacity and sufficient space available on site to expand to 1 form of entry. No detailed assessment has been carried out; however Officers have considered the expansion potential of the site and agree that some additional classroom provision could realistically be provided without causing undue harm. Financial contributions have therefore been requested by Herts County Council in order to mitigate the impact of the development on primary school services, and are deemed reasonable and necessary. Page 141 3/14/1448/OP

7.17 In terms of Middle and Upper school provision, future residents would be dependent on existing schools in Puckeridge (Ralph Sadlier) and Buntingford (Edwinstree and Freman College) and again no evidence of capacity issues has been submitted by HCC. They consider that financial contributions are sufficient to mitigate the future impacts of the development. As the application is in outline form, exact figures cannot currently be calculated, but would be in line with the HCC Planning Obligations Toolkit. Having regard to the Community Infrastructure Legislation (CIL) Regulations, Officers consider such financial contributions to be reasonable and justified. No contributions have been requested from HCC towards nursery or childcare service provision.

Employment

7.18 As set out above there are limited employment opportunities within the village, and of course no employment provision within the proposed development. However, the development would result in some temporary construction employment, which the developer estimates to be in the region of 65 full-time equivalent jobs over a 2 year build-out period, and an additional 71 full-time equivalent jobs in associated industries.

7.19 The applicant has submitted a Socio-Economic Sustainability Statement which sets out a number of benefits in delivering the site, including local employment opportunities, a £7 million construction spend to benefit the economy, with an additional £2.2 million gross value added, and an estimated provision of 102 new economically active residents, potentially generating a total gross expenditure of £2.1 million a year. The development would also result in New Homes Bonus payments and additional Council Tax payments.

7.20 The NPPF places significant weight on economic growth. Paragraph 19 states that “The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.” Whilst it is acknowledged that the development would generate some employment through construction and delivery, this is only temporary in nature and is not considered to weigh heavily in the overall balance of considerations. There is no employment proposed in the application and limited employment opportunities in the vicinity of the site. The proposal therefore does little to contribute to economic growth as required in the NPPF.

Page 142 3/14/1448/OP

Summary on Sustainability

7.21 Overall in respect of sustainability as set out in the NPPF, Officers consider that the development will make some contribution towards economic sustainability, albeit only in the short term. In terms of social sustainability, the development offers a mix of housing and a 40% provision of affordable housing. However, given the scale of the development in relation to the existing village (discussed above), and the location of the site detached from the main village with residents largely car dependent, Officers consider that there will be limited interaction between existing and new residents. The social benefits in delivering the site are therefore also considered to be limited. Finally, in terms of environmental sustainability, the development will result in the loss of agricultural land, and residents would be dependent on the use of private vehicles. This weighs against the proposal.

7.22 Regard is also had to the history of the site where there have been two previous refusals for large scale residential developments of the site. Although these were determined in the 1980s under a different policy context, Officers consider the Inspector’s decision to carry some weight as the open rural characteristics of the site, and the setting of the village, have not changed significantly. In dismissing this appeal the Inspector stated that “I find it inconceivable that reasonable requirements for housing in Braughing could not be met with far less ill effects upon the character and setting of the village, than would result from this proposed gross extension into the northern countryside. I conclude that the proposed development would seriously harm the character and setting of Braughing, and undermine the approved policy objectives of preserving and enhancing the countryside and the character and layout of settlements.”

7.23 In respect of the 2009 refusal for the new access to No. 50 Green End, this access road was lengthy and unjustified in relation to the proposed scale of development (one new dwelling). It would have been seen in the context of open rural fields and was therefore deemed to be harmful. The proposed access is discussed in more detail below.

Health Services

7.24 NHS England have identified that the nearest surgery in Standon and Puckeridge is already constrained and that financial contributions would be necessary to mitigate the impact of the development. Officers consider that expansion and/or improvements to the current practice can be achieved and that funding to secure such improvements is reasonable and necessary in accordance with the CIL Regulations and Page 143 3/14/1448/OP

the Council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Document (SPD). A financial contribution of £621 per dwelling would therefore be required in connection with any planning approval.

Highway Impacts

7.25 A new access is proposed onto Green End (the B1368) and will result in some highway impact in terms of increased traffic movements. A full Transport Assessment (TA) has therefore been carried out and submitted to identify the impacts of the development on the local highway network. The TA uses the TRICS database and 2011 Census data to estimate the likely vehicular trips generated by the site – this equates to 45 movements in the morning peak and 42 movements in the evening peak. The TA takes into account completed developments at Pentlows Farm and Gravelly Lane and concludes that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development would be minimal, and there would be minimal impact on local junctions.

7.26 The Highway Authority agree with this assessment and recommend that there would be no harm to highway capacity or highway safety as a result of this development, subject to a number of conditions. The B1368 is in good condition and adequate visibility would be provided. Regard is also had to the previous Inspector’s decision in 1990 which concluded that objections on highway grounds were of insufficient weight to affect his decision. Officers are therefore satisfied that the proposal is in accordance with policy TR20 of the Local Plan.

7.27 Details of car parking provision would be required in a reserved matters application and should comply with the Council’s adopted maximum standards and Local Plan policy TR7. Officers are satisfied that adequate parking provision would be achievable on site. Cycle parking provision would also be required to comply with Local Plan policy TR14.

7.28 The applicants have submitted an Interim Travel Plan which sets out a framework for improving the sustainability of the site. The Highway Authority consider the contents of this initial report to be satisfactory – full details will need to be secured through a planning condition. The Travel Plan and Sustainable Transport contribution required by the Highway Authority will go some way to improving the environmental sustainability of the site through potentially improving pedestrian and cycle connections, and the frequency of the local bus service. However, no detailed proposals have been put forward and Officers consider that despite these potential improvements the site remains inherently detached from any significant employment opportunities, with only limited local services, and that future residents would therefore remain Page 144 3/14/1448/OP

highly dependent on private vehicles.

7.29 There is an existing public footpath (002) that crosses the site from the southwest corner to the northeast. The indicative layout in the Design and Access Statement indicates that the existing route of this footpath will be maintained, with a well landscaped buffer to prevent it appearing unduly urban. The new access will cross this footpath and measures will therefore need to be put in place to protect users during construction.

Layout and Design

7.30 The application is in outline form with all matters reserved except for access; however the Design and Access Statement includes a framework plan and indicative layout. The plans indicate that 3.1 hectares of the 5.25 hectare site would be developed for housing, representing a low density development of approximately 20 dwellings per hectare. The housing would comprise a mix of 2-5 bed properties, including 40% affordable housing. Areas of public open space are proposed throughout the site with well landscaped strips to accommodate existing rights of way. An Equipped Area of Play is proposed near the entrance to the site, along with informal amenity space towards the eastern boundary with the River Quin.

7.31 A main street is proposed through the site from the B1368 which will provide the principal route into the development for all users. Second tier ‘home zones’ are then proposed throughout the development with shared surfaces and slower vehicle speeds. The layout would need to ensure that all public spaces and play areas are overlooked and provide for a safe environment.

7.32 Overall, although the layout is only indicative at this stage, Officers consider the proposals to be acceptable and creating a low density and informal development which in itself is considered to be acceptable. The impact of the development on the wider landscape is discussed in more detail below.

7.33 In terms of scale, the buildings are proposed to be predominantly two storeys, but up to 9.5m in height. Officers consider this height to be excessive and only appropriate for a small number of units within the site. Lower two storey ridge heights would be required across the rest of the development and in particular in areas of prominent views. The Design and Access Statement makes reference to existing architectural styles in the area and proposes that the new dwellings respect local distinctiveness including the provision of chimneys and varying ridge Page 145 3/14/1448/OP

heights. Detailed scale, design and appearance of the dwellings would of course need to be considered through any reserved matters application.

Landscape and Visual Impact

7.34 The Council’s adopted Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) identifies the site as being within Landscape Character Area 91 ‘Upper Rib Valley’, which is described as an undulating arable valley, generally quite open but narrowing towards Standon. The SPD identifies Braughing as a significant ancient settlement within the valley which was an important Belgic and Roman settlement, and there is a cluster of Scheduled Ancient Monuments representing the remains of the Roman town near the former railway station southwest of the present village.

7.35 The SPD goes on to state that the historic continuity of the area is masked by 20 th century development, but it retains its integrity, although the historic importance of the area is retained in the settlements rather than readily perceived in the wider landscape. It is generally quite open and is very tranquil away from the A120. It has therefore been identified with a strong strength of character and moderate condition, resulting in a strategy for change being ‘conserve and restore’.

7.36 A Landscape and Visual Appraisal has been submitted with the application to assess the impact of the proposal on the surrounding landscape, along with a number of photo viewpoints. This concludes that the development would give rise to moderate landscape effects at the outset, but this would not give rise to any unacceptable adverse landscape effects, and would reduce with the passage of time. Moderate-major visual effects would also occur to existing residential properties, and to users of the existing rights of way network. However, the report concludes that the proposals would positively address landscape and visual related policies and provide improvements to the green infrastructure and habitats on site. They therefore contend that “there would be no overriding or significantly adverse effects that should preclude the proposed development on landscape and visual grounds.”

7.37 The Council’s Landscape Officer does not agree with the conclusions in the submitted reports and recommends refusal on the grounds of landscape and visual impacts. He comments that the site is sensitive to the type and scale of development proposed and is not able to accommodate the level of change arising without unacceptable adverse impacts on the surrounding landscape. The development represents a major extension to the existing built form which is not in keeping with Page 146 3/14/1448/OP

the surrounding pattern of settlement that is characterised by smaller and segregated communities. The scale of development will result in the loss of coherent views from the surrounding countryside, in particular from the rights of way network and existing properties, and the sensitivity of these receptors is considered to be high.

7.38 He concludes that the scale of development does not relate well to the local area and represents an intrusion of built form into open countryside. The adverse impact on the surrounding landscape from pasture to housing development will be permanent and irreversible, and the development will fail to integrate into its surroundings either along the boundaries of the site or within the wider landscape setting. The extent of local opposition to this scheme is also indicative of the value of this landscape and the extensive use of the local rights of way network. Having regard to these objections and the comments from the Landscape Officer it is therefore recommended that the proposal fails to comply with Local Plan policy GBC14 and Section 11 of the NPPF.

7.39 With regard to trees, there are a number of existing trees within the hedgerow field boundaries to the north and west which are to be retained and enhanced. However, a section of hedgerow boundary along the B1368 will need to be removed to make way for the new access. The Council’s Landscape Officer advises that the extent of hedgerow loss may be greater than anticipated by the submitted Arboricultural Report. He comments that the proposed 2m wide footway along the roadside will encroach into an existing hedgerow bank, and the change in levels means that more of the hedge may be under threat in order to satisfy highway visibility splays. The loss of this hedgerow would have the effect of opening up views of the development to the B1368 resulting in a more significant adverse change to the landscape character on this approach to Braughing village. Officers note that the loss of roadside hedging also formed part of the reason for refusing permission for a new access to 50 Green End. Whilst the circumstances of the two applications are very different (one for 1 house, one for 60), Officers consider that the harm arising from the development is comparable.

7.40 Within the site extensive new tree planting is proposed, along with reinforcement of the existing field boundaries, and this could be secured through condition on any planning permission in accordance with policies ENV2 and ENV11 of the Local Plan.

Heritage Assets

7.41 The site is located approximately 40m north of the Braughing Page 147 3/14/1448/OP

Conservation Area at its closest point (to the rear of Heatherbank). There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the vicinity of the site – the closest are at the old Roman Town near the former railway station south of the village, but there are a number of listed buildings to the south of the site. A Heritage Statement has been submitted which assesses the impact of the development on designated and non- designated heritage assets and concludes that there would be some harm to heritage assets as a result of the development.

7.42 The submitted Heritage Statement considers that the historic origins of Braughing as an Anglo-Saxon settlement has no designation to highlight its importance and therefore should only be given limited weight. They conclude that whilst there will be harm to the Conservation Area this is less than substantial due to the inward looking nature of the Conservation Area. They conclude that built development on the site is likely to have a neutral-minor negative impact, and they suggest that any impact could be mitigated through sensitive landscaping, open space and access arrangements.

7.43 The Conservation Officer has recommended refusal of the application and considers that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the historic and architectural character and appearance of Braughing. She comments that Braughing is of considerable historic significance as an ‘Anglo-Saxon tribal centre, important for ecclesiastical and administrative affairs’, made up of a collection of historic hamlets flanking the River Quin, with the village core being Braughing village. One of the small hamlets is Hay Street, located to the north of the site, which includes Quinbury Farm and a cluster of some 30 houses. The hamlet is separated from the built form of Braughing village by open green space and it is this separation that is important in the area’s sense of place. The proposed development will erode this sense of space and separation to the detriment of the character of these settlements, including the wider setting of the Braughing Conservation Area.

7.44 Officers agree with this assessment and consider that, given the location of the site, and the scale of development proposed, the proposal would result in a harmful extension of development along the B1368 and would erode the important space between Braughing and Hay Street. Whilst the applicant has indicated that the Conservation Area is ‘inward looking’ and that mitigation measures could overcome harm to its character, Officers consider that, given the scale and siting of the development, the proposal would result in material harm to the significance of the Braughing Conservation Area, particularly when approached from the north. The proposal is thereby contrary to Section Page 148 3/14/1448/OP

12 of the NPPF and this weighs against the proposal.

7.45 The submitted Heritage Statement also identifies a neutral to minor impact on a number of listed buildings – Braughing Bury, Pentlows Farmhouse and outbuilding, and St. Mary the Virgin Church. This impact is mainly due to a possible agricultural functional association. No harm will arise to the setting of any listed buildings, and no objection has been raised by the Conservation Officer in respect of this issue.

7.46 In terms of archaeological remains, the site does not lie in an Area of Archaeological Significance but an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment has been submitted which identifies that the site has a moderate potential for evidence of Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval activity, and a low-moderate potential for prehistoric evidence. The County Archaeologist raises no objection with the content of the report and concludes that, given the location of the site adjacent to an ancient route running from Ermine Street to Cambridge, its topography, and the density of evidence for multi-period settlement in the areas, the proposed development is deemed likely to impact on remains of archaeological significance. However the findings are not of such historic importance as to justify a refusal of planning permission. A condition to secure a programme of further archaeological work is therefore recommended by the County Council’s Historic Environment Unit in the event of an approval. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the NPPF, and policies BH1, BH2 and BH3 of the Local Plan.

Impact on Residential Amenity

7.47 The development is proposed to the rear of existing dwellings on Green End, and any reserved matters application would need to ensure that there is an acceptable relationship between these dwellings, and appropriate boundary treatments. An adequate distance would be retained between existing dwellings to the south, including Heatherbank in the southeast corner. Therefore, subject to acceptable details being agreed through a reserved matters application, Officers do not consider that the proposed development would harm neighbour amenity in accordance with policy ENV1.

7.48 The increase in local traffic will have some impact in terms of noise and disturbance; however this is not considered to be unacceptably harmful. A Noise Screening Report has been submitted by the applicant which identifies that the most dominant source of existing noise would be traffic on the local road network, and the occasional noise from activities at Quinbury Farm to the north. Road traffic is also likely to be Page 149 3/14/1448/OP

the main contributing source of noise affecting the proposed development, but this is unlikely to be significant. Standard garden fencing and double glazed windows would be deemed sufficient to prevent harm.

7.49 The detailed design of the new dwellings will also need to be considered through a reserved matters application to ensure that no significant harm would arise within the development to future residents.

Affordable Housing

7.50 Although only in outline form, the application proposes the provision of 40% affordable housing comprising of 2 and 3 bed mews units. The Council’s Housing Manager has raised no objection to the proposals but indicates that the housing and tenure mix will need to be agreed through a reserved matters application. The tenure mix should be provided as 75% social rented, and 25% shared ownership, and the layout should incorporate affordable housing in groups of no more than 15% of the total number of units or 25 units, whichever is the lesser. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policies HSG3 and HSG4 of the Local Plan.

7.51 The developer has proposed an alternative option that the number of affordable units delivered on site could be reduced if the Council were to consider part provision as a commuted sum for off-site provision. However, the Council’s Housing Team are satisfied that there is sufficient demand for 40% affordable housing provision on site, and no overriding justification has been submitted for part off-site provision.

7.52 The developer proposes securing affordable housing through condition rather than Section 106 Agreement. However, given the complexities in dealing with the delivery of affordable housing, and the likely need for a legal agreement in any event, it is considered appropriate that the provision of affordable housing be secured through legal agreement rather than condition in the event of an approval.

7.53 Policy HSG6 requires that 15% of new dwellings are constructed to Lifetime Homes Standards – this can be secured through a planning obligation.

Open Space Provision

7.54 Given the scale of development proposed, the Council’s adopted Open Space, Sport and Recreation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) requires that parks, gardens, amenity green space, Local Areas Page 150 3/14/1448/OP

of Play (LAPs) and a Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) be provided on site. The indicative layout indicates the provision of extensive green amenity areas including a LEAP. Officers are satisfied that adequate provision could be provided on site in accordance with the requirements of the SPD with full details, including delivery and future maintenance, to be required through a planning obligation.

7.55 However, outdoor sports provision is not provided on site and would need to be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement. According to the SPD, Braughing comes under the Buntingford area in terms of outdoor sports provision. Whilst the SPD highlights a surplus of provision in Buntingford, the Council commissioned a Playing Pitch Strategy and Outdoor Sports Audit in 2010 which identified issues around the quality of provision and access to these facilities. A financial contribution towards off-site outdoor sports facilities would therefore be considered reasonable and necessary for a development of this scale in accordance with policy LRC1 of the Local Plan, and the SPD.

Flood Risk and Drainage

7.56 The majority of the site lies in Floodzone 1; the lowest level of potential flood risk. Land to the east of the development site, and adjacent to the River Quin falls within floodzones 2 and 3. A number of concerns have been raised over local flooding issues; however no objection has been raised by the Council’s Engineers or the Environment Agency (EA) subject to a number of conditions.

7.57 A Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy document has been submitted which identifies that the site is at a low risk of flooding, and there would be no residual flood risk from the development to the surrounding area due to the mimicking of greenfield storm water flow rates to the local watercourse. The application proposes to make provision for an on-site surface water retention pond towards the northeast of the site that will serve the drainage needs of the development and prevent increased discharge to the downstream watercourse for extreme events. Full details of the drainage scheme would be required by condition. Overall Officers are satisfied that the developable part of the site has been sited away from the river and floodzones 2 and 3, and subject to the incorporation of appropriate drainage is not considered to result in any harm to people or property in accordance with policy ENV19 of the Local Plan.

7.58 In terms of groundwater, the EA recommend no restrictions or control on groundwater protection. However, further work will be required on contamination to ensure a low risk to future residents. A Ground Page 151 3/14/1448/OP

Conditions Desk Study report has been submitted which identifies that based on historic land uses and its current operational use, the overall risk from contamination is low, but this would need to be confirmed by appropriate intrusive investigation and testing. A condition to secure further work in respect of contamination, as recommended by Environmental Health, would therefore be deemed reasonable and necessary.

7.59 In terms of foul drainage a Foul Drainage Analysis report has been submitted and identifies that all foul flows will be connected to the existing public sewerage network which is owned and operated by Thames Water. There is an existing sewer in the western part of the site that will most likely require diversion, but this will be carried out in association with Thames Water. An on-site pumping station will also most likely be required as the development site slopes naturally from west to east. The report concludes that the development will have minimal impact on the existing public sewerage network and sewerage treatment works, and sufficient time would be available for the developer to carry out any necessary improvement works. No objection has been raised by Thames Water and no conditions would be necessary or relevant as the works are controlled under other statutory legislation.

Ecology

7.60 The site is not located within, or adjacent to, any Wildlife Site and currently comprises of arable land. An Ecological Appraisal report has been submitted which identifies that the site comprises of heavily grazed semi-improved grassland which is of low nature conservation value. The field boundaries comprise of hedgerows and trees, and represent the habitat of principal importance on site.

7.61 No evidence of badgers, reptiles, amphibians or dormice have been found. The field boundaries may provide a suitable habitat for nesting birds and bat commuting, but there are no mature trees in the area to provide a habitat for roosting bats. The river area may provide a suitable habitat for grass snakes and water vole; however this lies outside the development site and no evidence has been identified. The development proposes enhanced planting across the site and surface water attenuation ponds which will in fact enhance the biodiversity interest of the site. Statutory consultees agree with the conclusions in the Ecological Appraisal and raise no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the NPPF and policy ENV16 of the Local Plan.

Page 152 3/14/1448/OP

7.62 The nearest Wildlife Sites are The Old Vicarage (approximately 120m southeast from the southeast corner of the site) and Braughing Meads South of Bingles Wood (approximately 900m southwest of the site). These locally protected sites are considered to be at a sufficient distance so as not to be harmed by the development. The proposal therefore complies with Local Plan policy ENV14.

7.63 There are no other statutorily designated sites within 1km of the site.

7.64 Concerns have been raised over the impact of lighting on wildlife in the area. Full details of any lighting could be controlled through a reserved matters application to prevent harmful overspill into the rural area or harm to wildlife (especially bats). Officers are therefore satisfied that no harm would arise as a result of lighting.

Financial Contributions

7.65 Given the scale of development proposed, the proposal triggers the requirement for a range of contributions and Section 106 requirements. This includes contributions towards first, middle and upper education, youth and library services. A sustainable transport contribution has also been requested by the Highway Authority which is necessary to mitigate the impact of the development on the transport network, in accordance with the Council’s adopted Planning Obligations SPD.

7.66 Further contributions would also be requested from East Herts Council with respect to outdoor sports facilities as discussed above. In all cases these financial contributions are considered to be reasonable and necessary in connection with the proposed development in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 In summary, Members will now be familiar with the complex balance of considerations in relation to residential proposals on land within the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt. Although the proposal is in conflict with Local Plan policies GBC2 and GBC3, the Council continues to lack a 5 year housing supply as required in the NPPF, and the provision of new housing in the district must weigh heavily in the determination of such proposals. This application proposes 60 houses, including 40% affordable housing provision which will make a material contribution towards the district’s housing supply. The proposal also offers some benefit to the local and national economy in terms of construction.

8.2 However, there are a number of factors that weigh against this Page 153 3/14/1448/OP

proposal. Objections have been received from both the Council’s Landscape and Conservation Officers. It is considered that the scale and location of the proposed development will result in a harmful intrusion into the countryside and erode the separation between existing settlements to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Braughing Conservation Area. The development will also result in adverse landscape and visual impacts for a number of sensitive receptors including users of the public rights of way that cross the site, and local residents. Officers consider that the proposed development is thereby contrary to Local Plan policy GBC14 and Sections 11 and 12 of the NPPF. This is in line with the previous appeal dismissed for development of the site in which the Inspector concluded that the development would result in “serious harm to the rural beauty of the valley. It would involve a major extension of the village, drastically reducing the broad open area between Braughing and the village of Hay Street to the north.”

8.3 A question also arises over the sustainability of the site. The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that “where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out of date”, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so “would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”. In this case Officers consider that, given the scale of development proposed in relation to the village, and its location in an area highly dependent on the private car with limited public transport, the proposal represents an unsustainable form of development in conflict with the NPPF. Although a Sustainable Transport contribution and Travel Plan would go some way to improving the sustainable credentials of the development, Officers consider that this would not be sufficient to override the inherently unsustainable location of the site and that future residents would remain highly dependent on private vehicles contrary to the aspirations of the NPPF.

8.4 The economic sustainability of the proposal is also limited due to insufficient local employment opportunities, and the provision of no employment opportunities on site (other than temporary construction jobs). The social sustainability of the site is also considered to be limited as, although an element of affordable housing is proposed, the location of the site is likely to result in a detached form of development that may not integrate well with the local community. Finally, in terms of environmental sustainability, the development will result in the loss of agricultural land and natural grassland habitats. Whilst it is acknowledged that some habitat enhancements will arise from the development, the development will have some environmental impact. Future residents will also be highly dependent on private cars for a Page 154 3/14/1448/OP

number of daily service needs which weighs against the proposal.

8.5 In terms of local infrastructure, no objection has been raised by Herts County Council in relation to education provision subject to financial contributions. The NHS have requested contributions towards improving local healthcare facilities, which is considered to be a reasonable approach. And no objection has been received from the Highway Authority in respect of the capacity of the highway network, although a contribution would be required in relation to Sustainable Transport.

8.6 However, in summary, Officers do not consider that the proposal amounts to a sustainable form of development and that the adverse impacts of the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Weight is also attached to the appeal previously dismissed for residential development of the site. The application is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons set out above.

Page 155 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 156 H

a y

Stud Farm Bungalow The S

Kennels

H H

Hay House H

H H H

a a a

a t a a

y y y

a a a

y y y

S S S

t t t

S S S

t r r t t r

t r t t r r 1

e r e e

r r r

e e e

t t t

e e e

t t t

Haywood e

East View e

Westwood Cottage t Rats Cottage Cockfield

Marshalls Cottage The Stables Monkhams Cottage

The Cottage

Cardinals Rise

Adam and Eve Quinbury Farm Cottage

Rose Cottage Quinbury Farm

The Bungalow

Haybury

Quinbury El Sub Sta

B B B

B B B 1 1 1

B B B 3 3 3 1 1 1

6 6 6

3 3 3 1 1 1 8 8 8 6 6 6 3 3 3 8 8 8 6 6 6

8 8 8

66 SITE

Heatherbank

56 Pump House (disused) 52

GRGRGR AVAEVALEVLLEYLL YL AYL NALENAENE GGRRAGVARVEALEVLLEYLL YL Y GRGRGR LALANLNEAENE AVAEVALEVLLEYLL YL AYL NALENAENE

Hazeldene

50 Ash House Gravelly Lane

Bear House GRGRGR GRGARGVARVAV GRGARGVAREVALEVLEL AVAEVALEVLLEYLLYLY ELELLEYL LDYL YD D L L DL EDL EDLEL Y Y EY ELEL L DEDLEDLLELLL LLLLLL

4 6 Bounty

Hawthorn House The Old Vicarage Bury Cottages

Green End Farm

4 1 2

n r a

t n n r a a

s B a

1 y n e l r l h a e P B v a r i n

G u

r 6 e v i

Totts Cottages 3

2 d PPP OOUNUONUN The Granary POPUOPOUDUD C DLC LCL POPOPNODNN DD OOSSOS UNUNUNCLCOLCOLEOEE D DCD LC LCSLESESE OSOEOSESE Nokes a 1 Cottages

2 9

8 o Spencer 2 1 Thomas

4 Birch House

2 3 R House

4 4

The Elms m 6

D D D ADADAD RORAORAOA Braughing MM O MA ODAODAD A A RAO R ORO H HMH MRM R R a ELEHLEAHLMAHMAM P PLPLALA A PEPLEPHLEHLH Bury PEPEPE 36 lh 2

1 9 2 1 3 8 0 e The Old Barn

3 2 Pentlows Cottages

1 P 8

3 2

Barn Royde 2

6 1

4 2 5

4 3 2 6

2 1

4 e 6 t

1 s

1 8 7 p m 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: Land off, Green End, Braughing, Herts Wallfields Reference: 3/14/1448/OP Pegs Lane Hertford Scale: 1:5000 SG13 8EQ O.S Sheet: TL3925 Tel: 01279 655261 Date of Print: 23 October 2014 Page 157 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 158 Agenda Item 8

Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing Dates

Public Inquiries:

Application Location Proposal Date Number 3/14/1408/FP Land at Swains Residential and 16 – 19 Mill, Crane Mead, employment June 2015 Ware floorspace development 3/14/1448/OP Land at Green Residential 11 – 21 End, Braughing development August 2015 14/02153/1 Swangleys Farm, Solar Farm 10 – 20 Swangleys Lane, November Knebworth – North 2015 Herts*

*Note: this application site is located in North Herts but adjacent to the East Herts boundary. The Inquiry arrangements will be established by North Herts Council. The Council is able to appear at the Inquiry.

Informal Hearings:

None.

Enforcement Appeals (where the matter does not relate to an associated planning or similar application which are set out above):

None.

Page 159 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 160