ITEM NO: Location: Land at Police Row Between the Grange and 1 the Grange, Police Row, Therfield

ITEM NO: Location: Land at Police Row between The Grange and 1 The Grange, Police Row, Therfield

Applicant: Mr & Mrs N Ross

Proposal: Application for outline planning permission for residential development (all matters except access reserved) (as amended by plan received on 13 October 2015).

Ref. No: 15/02010/ 1

Officer: Richard Tiffin

Date of expiry of statutory period: 12 January 2016

Reason for Referral to Committee Housing development on site exceeding 0.5 ha in area. Site not allocated.

Reason for Delay Negotiations with applicant and attempts to secure more information

1.0 Relevant History / Background

1.1 No pre-application advice was sought on this site. It is however identified as a preferred option in the emerging Local Plan (TH1).

1.2 The application was originally received in July of this year as outline with all matters reserved, save access for 'up to 26 dwellings'. After reviewing the submission the applicant was asked to submit an exact layout and landscaping scheme (as allowed for by the Procedure Order within one month of application receipt) as it was considered that the site was too sensitive to adequately assess a planning application without knowing, in detail, what form development might take. The view was also expressed that had the Authority been in a position to offer pre-application advice on this site it would have likely been critical of the submitted justification for a 26 unit scheme (submitted as an indicative quantum). The applicant unfortunately did not agree to the request to submit further details.

1.3 Following further discussions with the applicant, it was decided that as the site had already been put forward by the Council as a 'preferred option' for housing ( and therefore enjoyed some level of tentative support from the Authority, based on an initial evaluation of its potential as set out in the published Site Selection Matrix ), the form of the application may be simplified to allow a more open and generalised discussion around its potential for housing development, as a matter of principle. The reasoning behind this concession was that removing any quantum within the red line might allow the Authority and the applicant to assess the concerns and responses from consultees and local people as to the merits of the site as a 'preferred option' site for housing, without the distraction of a specific number. This 'general discussion' opportunity has been taken by some making representations in that they have offered views on the prospect of limited forms of development on the site which they deem may be acceptable (see 3.3 below). Clearly, this 'discussion' would have happened as part of the next phase of progressing the Local Plan. However, as this application has been made in advance of this process and without dialogue with the Council, the submission perhaps represents an early albeit premature opportunity for all interested parties to comment on the sites suitably for housing as a matter of general principle and in the light of current material considerations. Of course, should a permission be approved in outline, a further application would be required specifying details such as layout, appearance and numbers.

2.0 Policies

2.1 North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No.2 with Alterations Policy 6 - Rural Areas beyond the Green Belt. Policy 26 - Housing proposals. Policy 29A - Affordable Housing for Urban Housing Needs Policy 51 - Development Effects and Planning Gain. Policy 55 - Car Parking Standards. Policy 57 - Residential Guidelines and Standards.

Supplementary Planning Document. Planning Obligations SPD Vehicle Parking Provision at New Development.

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 14 ' Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development' Paragraph 17 'Core Planning Principles' Section 1 - Building a strong, competitive economy. Section 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Section 4 - Promoting sustainable transport. Section 6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes. Section 7 - Requiring good design. Section 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Section 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

2.3 North Hertfordshire District Local Plan 2011-2031 'Preferred Options Consultation Paper' and Proposals Map Policy SD1 'Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development' Policy T1 'Sustainable Transport' Policy T2 'Parking' Policy HDS1 'Housing Targets 2011-2031 Policy HDS2 'Settlement Hierarchy' Policy HDS3 'Affordable Housing' Policy D1 'Design and Sustainability' Policy D3 'Protecting Living Conditions' Policy NE6 'Reducing Flood Risk' Policy NE7 'Water Quality and Environment' Policy NE9 'Contaminated Land' Policy ID1 'Infrastructure Requirements and Developer Contributions' Chapter 12 'Part 1': Development for North Hertfordshire's Own Needs' - Therfield

Proposals Map - proposed site allocation - TH1

2.4 National Planning Practice Guidance

2.5 A number of appeal decisions will be referred to in this report, including:

Reed House, Reed. 13/01999/1 APP/X1925/A/14/2218194 Gannock Thatch, Sandon. 13/00529/1 APP/X1925/A/13/2197573 Green End, Braughing, East Herts. APP/J1915/W/15/3004594

3.0 Representations

3.1 Therfield Parish Council - Objects (see consultant letter attached at appendix A). The Council also commissioned a review of the applicant's transport statement which was critical of the numbers given as generated by a scheme of 26 units. However, in the circumstances of the amended application with no quantum being suggested I do not consider this additional representation material to the determination of the application.

3.2 Hertfordshire Highways - No objection subject to conditions.

3.3 Local Residents - At the time of writing the report the Council had received over 250 objections to the application. These comprise objections made to the initially publicised outline scheme of 'up to 26 dwellings' and the subsequently amended and re-advertised scheme of outline only with no quantum stated. The range of issues / concerns expressed in these representations is summarised below:

 meadow is important for ecological and landscape reasons  marshland of high ecological importance  will give rise to problem parking issues in Police Row particularly with cricket ground opposite.  lack of detail in application makes decision impossible  lack of infrastructure in the village including school capacity, doctors etc.  no bus service  sewage and flooding an issue with occasional flooding on the road as it is  adverse impact on conservation area and listed buildings  adverse impact on archaeology  loss of amenity value to walkers and ramblers  loss of hedgerows  adverse impact on setting of the village and will give rise to coalescence with Hay Green.  loss of important amenity for village  adverse impact on local road network  suburban style development inappropriate  better brownfield sites in the village available i.e. Tuthill Yard  not safe for pedestrians particularly access to the school  light pollution  NHDC hiding behind 5 year supply  loss of grade 3 agricultural land  would require significant earth moving which would impact on character  need more affordable housing  small number of dwellings may be acceptable but no whole field  application too vague

The value of an 'outline only' application with no quantum of housing declared was appreciated by some who made representations. Comments were received such as:

"one suitably sized dwelling might be acceptable"

"any development of more than 1 or 2 houses or an estate type development would be totally inappropriate"

"would not object to mixed houses to be built on front to Police Row up to about 6"

"I would change my position to support if the area of development was housing merely along the roadside"

3.4 Env Health - No objections, subject to an informative in respect of hours of working and conditions pertaining to contamination.

3.5 Archaeology - Has advised that, should outline permission be granted, precise details on the impact of development on archaeology should be submitted prior to any reserved matters application being determined.

3.6 HCC (Planning Obligations) - On the basis of the originally suggested upper quantum of 26 units, the following contributions were suggested:

Financial Contributions

First Education £60,308 To be secured towards the expansion of Therfield First School Middle Education £57,547 To be secured towards the expansion of Greenway Middle School from 4FE to 5FE Library Services £4,621 To be secured towards reconfiguring the children's and teenage areas of Royston Library to increase capacity

All calculations are based on PUBSEC index 175 and will be subject to indexation.

Plus fire hydrant provision.

Note:

As this application is now being determined on the basis that it is outline with no stated quantum, a 106 agreement would be required which would commit to paying scaled contributions based on any reserved matters application. No s.106 has been submitted to date although the applicant has indicated a willingness to enter into such an agreement.

3.7 Environment Agency - does not wish to comment as its former function is now exercised by the LLFA (Herts CC).

3.8 CPRE - Objects on the basis of impact on character and loss of agricultural land.

3.9 Herts Ecology - No objection subject to the implementation of the suggested mitigation measures (set out by applicant's ecologist) and an informative.

3.10 Hertfordshire Garden Trust / Garden Trust:

"The HGT and TGT objections to the consultation, submitted on 30 August 2015 are still relevant. We consider that any development on this site contravenes NHDC's Policy 7 as well as harming the setting of the listed The Grange and the adjacent Conservation Area. It this does not fulfil the environmental criterion of sustainable development."

3.11 East and North Herts Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) - No requirement identified.

3.12 NHS Property - Awaiting response.

3.13 Herts County Rights of Way - Has commented as follows:

 The footpath currently runs through the middle of an open field and it does not have a defined width. However the development must not encroach onto the footpath and the width of the path from its centre point must be an absolute minimum of 2m, with 3m being preferable considering the natural surface of the footpath. Care must be taken when surveying the correct line of the footpath, to avoid encroachment

 The future residents of the development would benefit from quick access to the surrounding countryside and one or two pedestrian access points on the western boundary would enable this. It is not uncommon for homes backing onto footpaths to make their own access points onto rights of way and then start “owning” these access points, with compost bins and paving slabs which can detract from the countryside setting and cause enforcement problems for our team. Planned access points to make the development “porous” should help avoid this.

 Whilst works take place the footpath must be left open and available at all times and clear of any building materials, not deteriorate in its surface condition and be used only by pedestrians.

3.14 Herts Waste - Recommend the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP).

3.15 Anglian Water - No comment offered as AW inform that site falls with either Veolia or Thames (see 3.16).

3.16 Thames Water - Has responded as follows:

"Please be advised that reference 15/02010/1 Land at Police Row between The Grange and 1 The Grange, Police Row, Therfield will be required to submit a Pre-development enquiry to Thames Water. The customer can find details of how to make this application on our website from this link.

http://www.thameswater.co.uk/developers/17283.htm

Our sewer records indicate that there may be a sewer owned by Thames Water within the site. Our records do not indicate any shared drainage within the site however there may be newly transferred sewers that we do not yet have mapped and are not aware of.

If the site owner does encounter shared drainage then the sewers may need to be diverted as we do not allow new builds over public sewers. The site owner will need to submit their Pre-development application and discuss any potential diversions with the engineer dealing with their application."

3.17 Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA - Herts CC) - Objects on the basis of an inadequate assessment of flood risk.

3.18 Herts Fire and Rescue - No objection subject to detailed access and layout requirements as well as request that water supplies be provided in accordance with BS 9991.

3.19 DCLG - The Council has received the following from the Secretary of State:

"The National Planning Casework Unit has received a third party request for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to call in the above application. I am the case work officer responsible for dealing with this case. As I understand it the application has not been considered by the Planning Control Committee.

The Secretary of State does not act on a third party requests to call in a planning application until the relevant Planning Committee have resolved to approve the application. If the Committee are minded to approve the application then the Secretary of State could issue an Article 31 holding direction or the local planning authority could give an assurance that they would not issue a Decision Notice until the Secretary of State has considered whether or not to call in the application. I have attached for your information the House of Commons Briefing Note.

I should be grateful if you could confirm whether you are content not to issue a Decision Notice in this case until the Secretary of State has decided whether or not to call in the application. I would also be grateful if you could keep me informed of progress of this application."

In view of the recommendation below this request would only be engaged if Members were minded to make a contrary resolution.

4.0 Planning Considerations

4.1 Site & Surroundings

4.1.1 The application site currently comprises an open field/pasture on the western side of Police Row between the listed property to the north known as The Grange and a pair of semi detached dwellings to the south (Hay Green). The site adjoins the Therfield Conservation area and fronts Police Row, presenting a mature hedge to the road. Opposite and to the south is Therfield cricket ground preceded to the north by a listed thatched dwelling and a row of modern C20 properties, the two most prominent of which were built in place of some large farm buildings in the late 1990's. The site of the new development known as 'Nine Elms', opposite the listed property the Grange, was formerly occupied by a large 1970's detached property.

4.2 Proposal

4.2.1 The application is outline (all matters reserved, except for access). The original submission was for 'up to 26 dwellings' (see History above at 1.0). The access remains as originally submitted and has undoubtedly be designed to serve a scheme of up to 26 units. This is shown in the applicant's transport statement and would be located opposite the pair of modern dwellings located between the bungalow to the south and the Nine Elms development site to the north.

4.3 Key Issues

4.3.1 For ease of navigation I have set out what I believe to be the key issues below. Each substantive section or topic has an emboldened 'summary' - again for ease of understanding:

 Principle of development  Access to services and facilities  Highways and access  Impact on landscape and ecology  Impact on heritage assets  Hydrology (flooding and drainage)  Other matters (noise, contamination)  Planning obligations  Discussion of 'planning balance'  Conclusion

Principle of development.

4.3.2 The starting point for a determination in this case must be the adopted Local Plan. The site is just outside the current selected village boundary as set out in the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations proposals map and lies within the rural area beyond the Green Belt (Saved Policy 6). Despite the age of the Plan, Policy 6 is still regarded as being relevant and in some part compliant with the NPPF. In a recent appeal decision for a new dwelling at Gannock Thatch, Sandon, a site outside of the selected village boundary, the Inspector commented as follows:

"5. LP Policy 6 is broadly consistent with a core principle of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which is to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside....

6. A proposal could add to the vitality of rural communities and not fall within the categories of development specified in LP Policy 6. As such, there might be some tension between national guidance and this policy. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the word ‘normally does allow for some flexibility in the application of the policy and its main thrust is not inconsistent with the Framework. Therefore, I attach considerable weight to LP Policy 6 in this appeal."

The important point to note following this decision is that the Inspector found the 'main thrust' of Policy 6 to be consistent with the aims of the NPPF in protecting the countryside from development which may otherwise be injurious to the character of the rural area.The Policy is not however as well equipped to guide on other matters of sustainability and planning balance, specifically those relating to travel, access to services and housing supply. Indeed, the Policy, in promoting the legitimate aim of protecting the countryside will often paradoxically inhibit the supply of housing. To judge whether Policy can be considered up to date insofar as it restricts the supply of housing it is necessary to consider the Council's position on whether it can demonstrate a five year land supply of deliverable housing sites.

4.3.3 The Need for and Latest Position on Five Year Land Supply

Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to:

'identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.'

4.3.4 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF goes on to state that:

'Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.'

4.3.5 In line with the requirement of paragraph 47 of the NPPF the latest official position on the Council's five year land supply is summarised in paragraph 7.22 of the December 2014 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). Which states that:

'The latest calculations for whether the district has enough housing land to meet needs for the next five years are contained in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) of November 2014. It concludes that the district has between a 2.2 and 3.8 years' supply of housing land, and is therefore well short of a five year supply.'

4.3.6 A housing land supply must be judged against an overall housing target for the plan period. The 2014 SHLAA was based on a housing target of 14,200 (12,100 for the district's own needs and 2,100 for Luton's unmet needs) homes across the plan period (2011-2031) as contained in the Preferred Options Local Plan Consultation Paper (December 2014). Since this target was published new Office for National Statistics (ONS) household projections have been released. At the meeting of the Council's Cabinet on 10 November 2015 the new ONS figures were considered and as is set out in in paragraph 8.10 of the Cabinet report they lead to an increased objectively assessed housing need for the plan period from 14,200 to 16,500 (includes a proposed 2,100 for Luton Borough's unmet need).

4.3.7 Whilst not officially set out in any emerging Local Plan document this revised need of 16,500 homes to deliver over the plan period is effectively the requirement against which any housing land supply should be calculated. The revised SHLAA or indeed the 2015 AMR have not been completed yet. However, given the increase in the overall housing need by 2,300 homes it is highly likely that the latest five year land supply equation will be even lower than is stated above on the basis that the overall target is now higher. Housing delivery has not improved in the intervening period either.

4.3.8 From this evidence it is clear to me that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year land supply of deliverable housing sites. On this basis in accordance with paragraph 49 of the NPPF this planning application for housing must therefore be assessed against the 'Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development'.

4.3.9 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development for decision makers on planning applications as follows:

● approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and ● where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission 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.

Accordingly, in the absence of a five year land supply there is presumption in favour of supporting development on sites unless the adverse impacts of doing so would be such as to dictate otherwise. The circumstances which might dictate otherwise will inevitably centre on issues of harm in terms of social, economic or environmental sustainability, as well as matters specifically identified in the NPPF, such as protecting heritage assets (including listed buildings and conservation areas) and nationally important landscape designations. The determination of an application in this regard then rests on an examination of both the benefits and adverse impacts of housing development on this site and a judgement as to whether the latter significantly and demonstrably outweighs the former. In short, an exercise in 'planning balance' must be undertaken.

4.3.10 In carrying out a planning balance exercise in this case, it must be acknowledged that this site does enjoy some preference as a housing site such that might elevate it above a parcel of land not so identified in the emerging preferred option draft of the local plan. It is therefore important to consider what weight should be attributed to this preferred option status before carrying out any evaluation of planning balance.

4.3.11 The application land is identified as a preferred option site and the Council's Site Selection Matrix (Nov 2014) records the reasoning for the identification of TH1 as follows:

"Close to wildlife site ecology study required, adjoins conservation area and listed buildings. Front part of site to Police Row would be logical infill. Rear part of site would be development in depth, out of character with village, therefore only allocate front part."

At the time of writing this report, the trajectory of the preferred option plan is estimated as a likely submission to the Authority's Full Council next July and public consultation from September 2016 thereafter. The adoption horizon is still clearly some way off. Accordingly, I afford weight to the site's preferred option status in assessing this application. However, given the likely timeframe this weight must still be limited - a conclusion also reached by the applicant's agent at 4.2 in their Planning Statement:

"Given the emerging plan is at preferred option stage, some weight should be given to its policies in the determination of this application. The weight given should be proportionate to the level of objection and the degree of consistency with policies in the NPPF. Within this context and prior to the submission of a pre-submission version, the weight given to policies in the most part should be limited"

It should also be noted that the Council still holds an 'unresolved' objection / concern expressed by Historic England to the allocation of this site (see 4.3.26 below) and that this being the case the weight which may be attributed to the site as a preferred option is necessarily further diminished in line with the advice set out in paragraph 216 of the NPPF. A point conceded by the applicant above.

Access to services and facilities.

4.3.12 Development in the District should, as far as is practicable, enjoy good access to jobs, services and facilities. This is particularly true of housing. In progressing the local plan it has been acknowledged by the Council that any objectively assessed housing target will necessarily mean development in some of our villages where access to essential services is limited and that the use of a private vehicle, to reach a range of essential services and facilities, will be inevitable. In order to limit the impact of this necessity, as far as is practicable, the Council has deemed that future growth be directed toward villages with a primary school. Therfield has a school and has enjoyed 'selected' village status for many years in the current adopted plan. However, it is accepted that the occupiers of new housing in the village would rely heavily on private transport to access the wide range of services necessary to sustain a modern lifestyle, such as employment opportunities and access to a doctors surgery, dentist, shops and leisure facilities as well as educational establishments beyond the primary level. Further, residents assert that there is no longer a bus service to the village, contrary to the claims of the applicant. I have checked this on the Herts CC website and it appears to be the case.

4.3.13 The existing local plan obviously does not take full account of the NPPF as it relates to the aims of steering development toward places which enjoy good access to services and facilities. It is effectively silent on the issue. The emerging (preferred option) local plan can only be afforded limited weight as both I and the applicant suggest above. In the circumstances then it is incumbent on the decision maker to give significant weight to the NPPF when determining applications in areas with poor access and weigh any concern in this regard in the planning balance. This is precisely what the Inspector did in dismissing an appeal for housing on the edge of nearby Reed earlier this year:

"Taking the above factors together, I see no reason to take a different view to that of my colleague in 2012 in respect of this matter. Accordingly, I consider that the scheme would be likely to give rise to a significant reliance on private transport. This would conflict with relevant requirements of the Framework, including the principle (included in paragraph 17) of actively managing patterns of growth to make the fullest use of public transport, walking and cycling."

In the absence of an up to date local plan which confers significant weight at this stage, this reliance on private transport in Therfield is harm in planning terms both in environmental and social sense and must be weighed in the planning balance against the presumption in favour of development and the benefits of delivering housing. The fact that Therfield has been a focus for some development in the saved local plan for some years may count in some small measure in favour of development when comparing with the scheme in Reed (above) in my view, despite the application site being just outside the boundary. However this weight is also necessarily very limited.

Summary: Therfield does not enjoy access to a wide range of services and has no bus service. Consequently, new housing development will be highly dependant on private transport. This would conflict with the requirements of the NPPF in its aim of managing growth to make the fullest use of public transport.

Highways and access.

4.3.14 Access is the only matter to be considered in detail at this stage, all other matters being reserved for a subsequent application should outline permission be granted. The specified access arrangements have been deemed acceptable in principle by the Highway Authority and are shown at the northern end of the site. Unfortunately, the access shown in the application is associated with the former quantum of 26 houses illustrated in the originally submitted application. Accordingly, it would be unlikely to be suitable for other forms of development which might have a lesser impact on the character of the locality, such as any linear scheme which might only address Police Row as suggested in some of the representations received from local people. The proposed access which, while it may be technically satisfactory, would be highly prominent, even urban, in what is presently little more than a country lane. With vehicle to vehicle inter-visibility splays of 2.4 by 43m in either direction, 8m curb radii and a minimum 5.5m access roadway width, the proposed access would, in and of itself, radically alter the appearance of Police Row is this location.

Summary: The proposed access forms part of this outline application and is not a reserved matter. If outline permission is granted, the access shown to serve an indicative 26 unit scheme would be approved and would, in and of itself, have a significant and urbanising impact in what is currently a quiet country lane.

Impact on landscape and ecology.

4.3.15 In terms of the ecological value of the site, the Council's consultant ecologist (Herts Ecology) has raised no objection provided the mitigation measures identified in the applicant's submission in relation to Great Crested Newts (GCN) are carried out. Herts Ecology do not dispute the applicant's assertion that other than GCN the site has low biodiversity value. It is noted by Herts Ecology that the hedgerows, which presumably do increase habitat potential of the site, are to be retained. This said, the implementation of the proposed access would require hedgerows to be removed and re-planted along the visibility splays. In my view this would degrade the sites biodiversity value, albeit for a transient period given that the removed hedge could be re-planted along the back of the visibility splays. However, this re-configuration would in my view have an adverse impact on the established character of the site.

4.3.16 The potential impact of development on the character of the village is a central theme in all of the submitted representations. In my view the question of impact is also linked to the consideration of any developments effect on historic assets, including the adjacent conservation area, which I address below. This said, and as I indicate above in respect of the new vehicular access, I am concerned about the impact of any development on the character of Police Row generally and the immediate countryside beyond. Before, examining this matter in any detail it may be worth summarising the views of the applicant on this issue.

4.3.17 Firstly, I would correct the applicant's assertion made at 5.4.1 in their planning statement when they conclude as follows :

"Furthermore, the appropriateness of the site for residential use was confirmed in the NHDC Site Selection Matrix (2014)..."

The Site Selection Matrix does not in any meaningful way represent an exhaustive evaluation of any sites constraints and possibilities. It is merely an initial sieve which, for the purposes of progressing the plan, offers up sites which have possible development value. As I point out above, the preferred options process is some way from reaching a stage where the 'confirmation' the applicant prematurely attributes to this site has any significant material weight. Indeed, this limited weight conclusion is also a view offered by the applicant themselves elsewhere in their submission (see 4.3.6 above). It is therefore at best premature to conclude that this land has any 'confirmed' status such as might be enjoyed by an allocated site or even a pre-submission listing.

4.3.18 Turning now to what the applicant has to say about the impact of residential development on the site. The applicant has carried out a Landscape Visual and Heritage Assessment (LVHA, Sept 2015) and also comments on landscape impacts in their Planning Statement. These documents make a number of assertions which in my view betray a lack of evaluatory coherence. For example, on page 10 the LVHA summarily dismisses the value of the site to the setting of the adjacent conservation area:

"In terms of heritage value, there is not special value attached to the site itself and building here would not adversely affect the setting of the CA [conservation area] as it makes little contribution to it"

The Council's conservation officer on the other hand offers a more considered opinion when consulted on the originally submitted 'up to 26' variant:

"I appreciate that it may be perverse to apply a "more restrictive policy (seeking to prevent coalescence of a village with a closely-related hamlet) than we do in the green belt" but it is also important to establish the level of significance to be given to the application site as an established part of Therfield's setting and to the appropriate level of development the site is capable of receiving. Whilst I would not wish to object to the principle of residential development, I remain skeptical that the amount currently shown on Indicative Layout Plan is appropriate and I have sought to offer some justification for reducing those numbers. If one were to take the view that the density is too high and that a greater degree of separation between Therfield and Hay Green (by perhaps omitting Plots 10-14 and 21-24) would be very desirable or indeed necessary to safeguard the setting of the Designated Heritage Asset that is Therfield Conservation Area, and that the spacing between Plots 2,3 and 4 could be greater, then this would suggest that a scheme more likely not exceeding 16 units may be a more acceptable number given the site's context. It may be the case that even these numbers may prove to be too high."

It is also difficult to reconcile the comments set out on page 11 of the applicant's LVHA (associated with the originally submitted scheme for up to 26 dwellings shown extending to the back of the identified application site) :

"Density should match that of the village and not the urban scale of Hay Green, which while interesting in isolation is not typical of the grain. A set back of building in deference to the Grange to the north would ensure that development did not impinge on the setting of a listed building"

Further, the originally submitted indicative layout was in my view completely at odds with the advice in the applicant's own LVHA when it intones that development options for the site should:

"...help preserve the 'string of beads' feel to the plateau as a whole where landscape acts to modulate the clusters of houses and farms from Reed, through Hay Green to the centre of Therfield"

In my view this last statement from the applicant's LVHA is perhaps an unguarded acknowledgment of the real and significant value of this site in that the ‘modulation’ referred to is precisely the value of this site. Passing through the village of Therfield or walking in the area, one certainly appreciates the sites important contribution for the very reason that it does 'modulate' or punctuate the small clusters of historic development typical of the locality while simultaneously framing the conservation area, particularly when arriving in the village from the south. This value is clearly acknowledged in the Council's design SPD:

390. The design principles for Therfield are:

Development south of Therfield should be resisted as this will cause coalescence with Hay Green.

The open nature of the village centre should be maintained.

The historic character of Therfield should be protected, especially the development to the south and south west of the village where the older buildings are located.

It is interesting to note that the applicant inexplicably argues that the development of the site " would be consistent with the design principles and requirements for Therfield as set out in the Design DPD" (page 21, Planning Statement).This again would not seem to be a credible conclusion based on a straightforward reading of the document at 390 (above).

4.3.19 The originally submitted quantum of 'up to 26' to my mind clearly disregards advice in the LVHA submitted with it in that it certainly did not reflect the 'string of beads' characterisation candidly offered in that assessment. Moreover, the original planning statement suggested, with no apparent sense of contradiction or reference to the applicant's own LVHA, that the development of the site with 26 houses would not materially alter the character of the area:

"Whilst the proposed development would increase housing density and massing within he site itself [currently a field?] the proposed density is lower than what would usually be sought on similar sites reflecting its position on the edge of the existing village. The scale of the proposed development would therefore not materially alter the character of the wider area ....."

"Overall this would mean that any local impact would be negligible"

The above conclusions are not only at odds with the applicant's own LVHA or the Council's Design SPD, they are simply not credible and perhaps betray a misplaced assumption that because the site has been identified as an 'option' for housing, no subsequent or rigorous evaluation of impact is therefore necessary.

Summary: The development of the site with housing clearly has the potential to seriously erode the 'string of beads' characterisation offered by the applicant. The meadow plays a significant and important role in defining the character of the area in this location and framing the setting of both the main part of Therfield and Hay Green. In the absence of any details however, other than the proposed access arrangements, the magnitude of this impact is difficult to predict.

Impact on heritage assets.

4.3.20 Both the Council's Conservation Officer and Historic England have commented on the suitability of this site for housing. The Conservation Officer offers the following general overview and cites the national body:

"The application site lies to the south and straddles the boundary with the Therfield Conservation Area. I understand that the site is identified as TH1 (Land at Police Row) in the Preferred Options and I have seen the representations made by Historic England (formerly English Heritage) on 6 February 2015. The site is located between Therfield and Hay Green and would, in effect, link the two. To the north and outside the application site is The Grange (grade II) whilst immediately opposite and located on the other side of Police Row is The Thatch (also grade II). There is no up-to-date Character Statement for Therfield Conservation Area, however, Historic England stated the following when considering the Preferred Options for housing sites:

"Site TH1 [wrongly identified as TH2 in response] has been considerably reduced in size since the 2013 consultation, but still has the potential to harm the significance and setting of the conservation area and the surrounding countryside, as well as the Grade II* listed The Old Rectory to the west. It is worth noting that the conservation area covers virtually the entire settlement of Therfield, suggesting a cohesive historic character. As before, the impact of development on the historic environment should be assessed before this site is taken forward. We remain concerned regarding the potential impacts and suitability of this allocation until further information has been produced. Allocation of the site needs to be justified in terms of historic environment impact. If the site is taken forward to the next consultation stage, there would need to be site specific criteria to guide development. "

Note: This is the HE response quoted in full.

This cautionary approach from Historic England remains unresolved and seriously diminishes any weight which may be attributable to the sites preferred option status at this stage.

4.3.21 The Conservation Officer goes on to establish the NPPF's requirement to safeguard acknowledged historic assets:

"Turning to page 2 of Historic England's publication 'The Setting of Heritage Assets' (March 2015) it should be noted that in primary legislation, the setting of conservation areas is not a statutory duty. However, the NPPF states that the setting of a designated heritage asset can contribute to its significance. Furthermore, at para 27 on page 12, I find there is no case to suggest that any of the actions listed as potentially achieving an enhancement are applicable here, however, there may be a case to suggest that the development may improve access to the conservation area?

Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that:

In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

 the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

 the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

 the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Paragraph 132 states that:

"..... Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting ...."

Following the revision of the scheme to omit any quantum, the Conservation officer re-considered the matter and concludes as follows:

"Acknowledging the apparent anomaly between the Design Guide and Preferred Options, I realise that even a modest amount of perhaps linear development to the south of The Grange, would contradict the Council's adopted Design Guide but I consider that, on balance, some development south of The Grange may be justified. I have taken the opportunity to review the Summary in my earlier comments and after further consideration, I have taken the view (as I previously stated) that a scheme not exceeding 16 units may still prove to be too high.

In primary legislation, the setting of conservation areas is not a statutory duty. Furthermore, without a detailed scheme on the table, I also cannot say at this stage that harm would be occasioned to the setting of nearby listed buildings, therefore, I advise that failure to satisfy Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is not an option.

On the basis that the extent of the red line site would potentially leave the door ajar for a level of development that would neither i) secure frontage development only or ii) secure a degree of separation between Therfield and Hay Green, I consider there is justification for raising an OBJECTION. This is on the basis that the proposed outline application fails to provide sufficient information for the Local Planning Authority to properly assess the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of heritage assets i.e. the setting of nearby listed buildings and the adjacent Therfield Conservation Area (paragraph 128 of the NPPF). "

4.3.22 The County Council archaeology officer has advised that, should outline permission be granted, precise details on the impact of development on archaeology should be submitted prior to any reserved matters application being determined (i.e. with the reserved matters application). Clearly, this exercise is only really possible if the form of development on the site is known and should planning permission be granted in outline I would expect the applicant to carry out the necessary investigations before proceeding to a reserved matters submission.

4.3.23 In my view the applicant's assertion (LVHA cited at 4.3.13 above) that the application site makes 'little contribution' to the setting of the adjacent conservation area is again not a credible conclusion and certainly not the view of the Council's Conservation Officer, The Hertfordshire Garden Trust or Historic England, not to mention the significant number of local people who know and value the site as an integral part of the village and its setting. The development of the site also has the potential to impact adversely on the setting of adjacent listed buildings.

Summary: The development of the site with housing clearly has the potential to impact seriously on the setting of the adjacent conservation area and nearby listed buildings as well as site archaeology. This negative potential in relation to historic assets is clearly flagged by Historic England and this amounts to an unresolved objection to the draft allocation of this site. Accordingly, and in the absence of any details other than the proposed access arrangements, the magnitude of this impact, as a matter of principle, is difficult to predict.

Hydrology (flooding and drainage).

4.3.24 There has been some anecdotal evidence about flooding on the site and a concern has been expressed that this may be exacerbated by development. The responsible body, the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) has requested that any approval should only be contemplated in the light of detailed drainage plan. In the absence of such detail they recommend refusal:

"In the absence of an acceptable FRA we object to the grant of planning permission and recommend refusal on this basis for the following reasons:

The FRA titled Flooding, Flood Risk and related considerations dated May 2015 submitted with this application does not comply with the requirements set out in the Planning Practice Guide (as revised 6 April 2015) to the National Planning Policy Framework. The submitted FRA does not therefore provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development.

In order for the Lead Local Flood Authority to advise the relevant local planning authority that the site will not increase flood risk to the site and elsewhere and can provide appropriate sustainable drainage techniques.

We appreciate that the current planning application is for Outline permission with access only being applied for with all other matters reserved. However it is important that certain details are confirmed and a certain level of commitment is provided to ensure that the most appropriate drainage scheme can be implemented to ensure there will be no flood risk to the site and the surrounding area and to demonstrate that an appropriate scheme using the key principles of SuDS is feasible. "

At the time of writing this report, the details requested by the LLFA had not been submitted. Accordingly, the concerns set out above by the LLFA must translate to a reason for refusal.

Other matters.

4.3.25 There is no obvious issue in relation to either contamination or noise. Suffice to report that the Council's Environmental Protection team recommend a condition which would require the applicant to adequately screen for contamination and an informative in respect of construction activity.

4.3.26 The CPRE has raised a concern over the loss of agricultural land. However, at 3B and as land used for grazing I would not attach significant harm to its loss to development.

Planning obligations.

4.3.27 In view of the absence of any quantum, it is not possible to scope all of the 'heads of terms' a section 106 agreement might encompass. The applicant has however expressed a willingness to enter into an agreement, the terms of which are supported by adequate justification. This might include affordable housing on any quantum above the threshold of 20 units and will inevitably include contributions to the County Council toward the local primary school should the number of units exceed 5. There is no draft 106 on the table at present but should Members be minded to resolve in favour of granting permission, contrary to the recommendation set out below, officers would work with the applicant to produce an 'in principle' agreement acceptable to the necessary parties. If Members are minded to support the recommendation however, the absence of a 106 agreement is necessarily one of the reasons for refusal as set out below.

4.3.28 Since the Localism Act 2011, Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, any local finance considerations and any other material considerations. The Act defines local finance considerations for the purposes of determining planning applications as income derived from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the government's Homes Bonus scheme as a top up to revenue grant to support the delivery of new homes. Whilst the Council has not adopted a CIL it is necessary to consider homes bonus income to the Council that would result from this development proposal. This another potential benefit of the scheme that must be considered as part of the planning balance.

Discussion of 'planning balance'.

4.3.29 In circumstances where a local authority does not have an up to date plan and where it can not demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land, the Government, as set out in the NPPF, is clearly of the view that the balance of any planning decision should be weighted in favour of granting permission unless the harm in counter balance is significant and demonstrable. Both benefit and harm comprise those matters which the NPPF classifies under the general sustainability headings economic, social and environmental. The circumstances described above clearly apply to this Council and it must be acknowledged that there is a pressing economic and social case for approving more housing in the District, including in the larger villages like Therfield. However, this imperative should not blind the authority, as some might argue, to the significant social and environmental harm of approving development in the wrong places - as this is also a key theme in the NPPF in its aim to promote 'sustainable' development.

4.3.30 The Parish Council has commissioned a report on the merits of this application (see appendix A) from the consultancy Bidwells. Unsurprisingly, it does not share the view of the case made by the applicant. Bidwell's suggest that it would be 'impossible' to carry out a meaningful evaluation of planning balance where there is little detailed information provided about the nature of the development proposed. I have some sympathy with this view. However, it must be recognised that the Council has given some endorsement to this site for housing in identifying it as a preferred option. This said, it is not an allocated site and this prospect remains some way off. Accordingly, it is my view that only limited weight can be attributed to this endorsement. Further, while I might concede that it is difficult to carry out a planning balance exercise (as required by para 14 of the NPPF) in the absence of any details as to what form the development might take, it may be possible to consider an outline application on the basis that there may be some obvious areas where development should not take place within the red line and other areas where development may be acceptable, as a matter of principle (as has been demonstrated by some of the representations set out above). Such a proactive consideration at this stage, if possible, would then inform any subsequent reserved matters submission. Accordingly, I will proceed with a discussion of planning balance in this case on the basis that it may be difficult to exercise the balancing exercise advocated in para 14 of the NPPF rather than 'impossible' as Bidwells suggest.

4.3.31 The issue of access to services is central to the idea of directing development to the most sustainable locations, a key theme in the NPPF and one which has been articulated by a significant number of Inspectors presiding over appeals in the District to date. Approving development in locations which would necessitate occupiers relying heavily on private transport, in order to access everyday facilities and services, amounts to harm in social and environmental terms. This harm attracts substantial weight and was the central reason a scheme in nearby Reed was dismissed earlier this year (see 4.3.8 above). However, unlike this site, the site in Reed had not been identified as a preferred option in the emerging local plan, an identification which must attract some weight in counter-balance to the issue of location and car use, albeit this weight is limited by the distance to adoption still left to travel. Further, while this site is not within the established Therfield Selected Village boundary, it is immediately adjacent to it. In my view this proximity must also contribute a modicum of weight toward its favourable consideration in terms of location. Moreover, the Council has now acknowledged a target of some 16500 dwellings in the plan period (NHDC Cabinet 12th Nov 2015) and this pervading and weighty consideration must add to the benefit counter-balances cited.

Summary: While I would suggest that the harm of approving development in this location, in terms of reliance on private transport, continues to outweigh the benefits of delivery, I am of the view that, unlike the Reed case, the sites identification as a preferred option and its proximity to an established 'selected' settlement boundary, act in the balance to render this harm less than demonstrably significant in relation to the benefits of more housing. Accordingly, if this were the only substantive issue in this case it would not alone in my view amount to sufficient grounds to refuse permission when assessed in the planning balance required by paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

4.3.32 I turn now to the impact the development of this site might have on the character of the area and the presence of heritage assets, including the Therfield Conservation Area. As set out above, I agree with the applicant's assessment of value of this site in the LVHA when asserting that its development should:

...help preserve the 'string of beads' feel to the plateau as a whole where landscape acts to modulate the clusters of houses and farms from Reed, through Hay Green to the centre of Therfield"

I also agree with the conclusion of Historic England when they express concern about the development of the site and its impact on the conservation area:

It should be noted that this remains an unresolved objection / concern from a statutory body and, according to paragraph 216 of the NPPF, this acts therefore to diminish the weight attributable to emerging policy. Moreover, the concern expressed by HE is precisely that which forms the basis for my recommendation namely that the site is so sensitive that without 'specific' details or 'criteria' as to the form development should or would take it is not possible to confirm its inclusion as a viable housing site in the emerging plan.

The concerns expressed above are repeated in the Council's Design SPD:

390. The design principles for Therfield are:

Development south of Therfield should be resisted as this will cause coalescence with Hay Green.

The open nature of the village centre should be maintained.

The historic character of Therfield should be protected, especially the development to the south and south west of the village where the older buildings are located.

Further, the Site Selection Matrix which informed the sites preferred option status was similarly cautious:

4.3.33 In a recent appeal decision (dismissed) in the County at nearby Braughing (East Herts District Council ) the Inspector describes a rural scene very similar to that being considered here:

"The appeal site is a field of open pasture, located outside the settlement boundary just to the north of the village. The site is important to the landscape as it forms part of the open undulating valley, the valley slope to the River Quin and the countryside setting to Braughing. Although development along Green End becomes interspersed with fields towards the settlement boundaries, the appeal site marks a clear change from the village to the countryside, with long field boundaries, open views of countryside seen through gaps in the hedges and large open fields on the opposite side of the road. It forms part of an effective gap between the small Hamlet of Hay Street and the village of Braughing, and they appear as separate settlements, a typical characteristic of the surrounding rural landscape. [my underlining] There is a row of houses further along Green End sitting some distance from Braughing and Hay Street. However, because it is a small, single row of houses, surrounded by open land (including the appeal site) it does not reduce the sense of being in the countryside. In terms of both visual and landscape character, the appeal site makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the area."

I draw attention particularly to the importance the Inspector places on the change from village to countryside and the 'effective gap' between 'separate settlements' afforded by the pasture land subject of the appeal. He goes on to place significant weight on the loss of this land even if the scheme were to be lower in density:

"The appeal scheme could be low density with large areas of open space and landscaping. Nevertheless, 52 (or up to 60) would be a considerable number of dwellings sited over a large area which could not be easily assimilated. There is no doubt that the appeal scheme would significantly alter the visual and landscape character of the site from open pasture to a housing development. Although there is some development along the valley sides and ridges, there would be a significant adverse effect on the character of the landscape within the local area. The contribution of the site to the rural, undulating valley landscape and the attractive and open setting of the village would be lost. The countryside gap between Hay Street and Braughing would be significantly reduced undermining the distinct and separate settlements typical of the area. "

"The greatest visual effect would be experienced in local views due to the topography and range of high field boundaries. However, where there are views of the site from both nearby houses and local footpaths, those living and walking in the area would experience the change as significant, clearly harmful to the attractive vistas and countryside views, and the appreciation of the open and rural land surrounding the village..."

4.3.34 In my view the general characterisation of the Braughing site is similar to the Therfield site. So to is the importance attached to the preservation of the respective sites - in Braughing by the Inspector and in Therfield by a range of parties including the Council, Historic England, The Garden Trust, local residents, the Parish Council and, most notably, the applicant's independent LVHA. I agree with the thrust of all these expressed reservations and would attribute weight to this environmental concern at the same level as the Inspector in the East Herts case when he summarises:

"I have found that the environmental impact is a significantly adverse one, of a very high order leaving permanent damage to the landscape character and the appearance of the area. The environmental harm would not meet the environment strand of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF which is described as contributing to protecting and enhancing, among other things, our natural environment. I conclude that the harm in this respect would be more than substantial and of a high order, significantly and demonstrably outweighing the benefits in this case and, taking into account the NPPF as a whole, it would not be sustainable development. For these reasons the appeal fails. "

There is now little doubt in my mind that the development of the TH1 site could all too readily occasion significant harm to the agreed 'string of beads' attributes of the land between Hay Green and the village. Attributes which not only act to frame the setting of the Therfield Conservation area but to reinforce an historic and important pattern of settlement, especially between Hay Green and the main body of the village.

4.3.35 The application as originally submitted (up to 26 units) utilised the full depth of the site and would have been unquestionably and seriously harmful to the character of the area in my view. The removal of a quantum has allowed an examination of the broader principle of residential development on the site. However, an access to serve a scheme of the scale indicated by the applicant (26 units) remains to be considered now suggesting strongly that this quantum is still envisaged and, moreover, that this number of dwellings would utilise the full width of the currently drawn red line site area to the west. This is certainly not indicative of limited frontage development. After considering the principle of development on the site and its broader implications I am of the view that any form of development has the very real potential to have deleterious impacts. Further, it is my view that the range of impacts would also have the potential to occasion 'significant harm' given the consistent and coherent characterisation of the attributes of this pasture and its importance in the local landscape by all parties.

Summary: There is a broad consensus amongst interested parties, including the applicant's independently appointed landscape consultant and a statutory consultee (Historic England), that this site is important in landscape and heritage terms. The lack of any details (layout and quantum) makes an assessment of the environmental harm resulting from development on this site very difficult to weigh against any counter-balancing economic or social benefits which might accrue. Consequently, and in the absence of any convincing detail to the contrary, I consider that the development of the site, as indicated by the red line and the proposed access, would be highly likely to have a demonstrably significant and permanently damaging environmental impact on both the landscape character and appearance of the area and designated historic assets, such that would outweigh any benefits which might otherwise accrue.

4.4 Conclusion.

4.4.1 There are undoubted social and economic benefits in supporting development on this site and these must be acknowledged. Therfield is a selected village which does have a primary school. The site has been identified as a candidate for housing in the evolving local plan. The site is not in the Green Belt and the Council is presently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land or an up-to date local plan. The site is however in an area where access to services will inevitably depend heavily on private transport and this represents harm in both social and environmental terms. Harm which might , had the site not been on the edge of a currently selected village or identified as a potential housing site in the emerging plan (preferred option), be considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified benefits by itself (see Reed appeal decision). In the circumstances unique to this case however, I am not persuaded that this harm reaches the magnitude required by paragraph 14 of the NPPF to refuse permission on this specific issue alone, although it must be weighed in the balance along with other harm.

4.4.2 Having concluded above - that owing to the stated counter balances, poor mixed mode access to services and facilities does not reach the required magnitude of harm to warrant refusal in its own right - it is now necessary to conclude on whether the impact of development on the character and appearance of the locality, when added to the poor accessibility of the site, elevates 'harm' in the planning balance beyond the 'demonstrably significant' threshold set by the NPPF. Based on what information is currently available to inform a conclusion in this regard it is my view that it clearly does. In the application before the Council this information amounts to details of a vehicular access of urban proportions, a red line site boundary which encloses a significant depth of land back from Police Row and a broad and now considered assessment of the sites importance to the setting of the Therfield conservation area and, most importantly, its contribution to the appearance and character of the established 'string of beads ' settlement pattern of the Therfield plateau as a whole.

4.4.3 Finally, It should be noted that this site, unlike other preferred option allocations hitherto considered by the Council, still carries an unresolved representation from a statutory body (Historic England - see 4.3.27 above). This representation is such that it casts serious doubt on whether the site is capable of development as a matter of principle without a detailed understanding of how such development might impact on the acknowledged historic value of the locality. In these circumstances I do not consider that it is possible to grant outline planning permission until such time as this concern has been robustly examined and resolved. This resolution, preferably via the local plan process, might remove this site as preferred option altogether.

5.0 Legal Implications

5.1 In making decisions on applications submitted under the Town and Country Planning legislation, the Council is required to have regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations. The decision must be in accordance with the plan unless the material considerations indicate otherwise. Where the decision is to refuse or restrictive conditions are attached, the applicant has a right of appeal against the decision.

6.0 Recommendation

6.1 That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The submitted planning application has not been accompanied by a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a completed Unilateral Undertaking or Section 106 Obligation) securing the provision of the necessary obligations as set out in the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted November 2006). The secure delivery of these obligations is required to mitigate the impact of the development in accordance with the adopted SPD and Policy 51 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations.

2. The lack of any details (layout, landscaping and quantum) make an assessment of the environmental harm to the character of the area, resulting from development on this site, very difficult to balance with any economic or social benefits which might accrue. Further, the site is located in an area which is poorly served by services and facilities making the use of private transport highly probable in order to service everyday needs. In particular, and based on the limited information submitted (red line area and submitted access detail), it is considered that the development of the site would be very likely to have a demonstrably significant and permanently damaging environmental impact on the landscape character and appearance of the area such that would outweigh any associated social or economic benefits. On balance therefore, and in the absence of any convincing detail to the contrary, it is considered that the development of the application site with housing would be likely to give rise to significant and demonstrable harm which would be materially and decisively at odds with the NPPF insofar as it aims to promote sustainable development and protect the character of the countryside and specific heritage assets. The development of the application site is also likely to offend the spirit of Policy 6 of the Local Plan as it relates to the protection of the countryside.

3. The submitted FRA entitled Flooding, Flood Risk and related considerations dated May 2015 submitted with this application does not comply with the requirements set out in the Planning Practice Guide (as revised 6 April 2015) to the National Planning Policy Framework. The submitted FRA does not therefore provide an adequate or suitable basis for an assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from development on this site.

4. The application site is subject to an unresolved representation from Historic England which raises concerns about the suitability of this site for development of any kind without fully understanding how this might be achieved or justified in terms of its impact on the historic environment. The Local Planning Authority shares this concern and considers that in the circumstances the grant of an outline permission at this stage would not allow a proper assessment of the potential impacts of development on the significance of heritage assets i.e. the setting of nearby listed buildings and the adjacent Therfield Conservation Area, as required by paragraphs 128 - 132 of the NPPF and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Proactive Statement

Planning permission consent has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted proactively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The Council has therefore acted proactively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.