Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 85 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access point from Holwell Road. All matters reserved except for means of access.

RESOLVED: That, subject to the amended reason for refusal 3 below, application 17/02563/1 be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Reason for refusal 3 to read:

 

The proposed development lies within an Area of Archaeological Significance.  Records in close proximity to the site suggest it lies within an area of significant archaeological potential. Given this and the large scale nature of the proposal, this development should be regarded as likely to have an impact on significant heritage assets with archaeological interest, some of which may be of sufficient importance to meet NPPF para 139. This could represent a significant constraint on development. In the absence of a suitable archaeological field evaluation, there is insufficient information to determine the importance of any archaeological remains on the site. The proposal will be contrary to Section 12 of the NPPF.

 

The Chairman announced that there would be a brief recess

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 85 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access point from Holwell Road. All matters reserved except for means of access.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that there were a number of updates to the report as follows:

 

Pirton Parish Council

Pirton Parish Council had advised that the report did not provide an update on the progress of the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan.

 

They advised that the Plan was now being examined, with the Inspectors report due before Christmas.

 

The Parish Council asked that this be acknowledged in the weight given to the Neighbourhood Plan in the decision on this application.

 

The Area Planning Officer had checked with the Council’s Neighbourhood Plan Officer who had confirmed that the examination was nearing completion and that the examiner’s report was imminent.

 

As stated in the officer’s report, the weight that could be attributed to the Neighbourhood Plan as it stood, remained limited in terms of planning decisions.

 

Formal comments had been received from Hertfordshire County Council as the Highway Authority.

 

The Highway Authority advised that it did not wish to raise an objection to the development, subject to 8 planning conditions and highway informatives.

 

In addition, the Authority would require Section 106 to secure a Construction and Logistics Plan and support for a travel plan.

 

The County Council Archaeologist advised that a Written Scheme of Investigation for the site had been agreed with the applicant’s archaeological consultants.

 

Work to commence archaeological trial trenching on the site had not yet commenced, that applicant advised that this would now take place in January.

 

The Historic Environment Advisor at the County Council had advised that the recommendation for refusal on archaeological grounds until such time as the WSI and field work had been carried out, a satisfactory report received and that it was sufficiently certain that no further archaeological investigations were required prior to determination of this application. However, if the officer was satisfied with the data relating to the geophysical survey and therefore recommended that the reason for refusal 3 be amended to delete the words “geophysical survey or” from the penultimate sentence.

 

A consultation response had been received from Historic England who advised that they did not wish to offer any comments. They recommended that views be sought from the Council’s specialist conservation and archaeological advisors as relevant.

 

Progress on Section 106 matters had been made as mentioned in Paragraph 4.3.41 of the report, however, at this stage, matters had not progressed sufficiently to the satisfaction of the Council and therefore reason for refusal 4 remained as set out in the report.

 

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

 

Parish Councillor Diane Burleigh, Pirton Parish Council, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02563/1.

 

Parish Councillor Burleigh informed Members that Pirton Parish Council objected in the strongest terms to this application and supported, in the main, the full, considered and balanced report of the Officers.

 

She referred Members to page 32 of the Officer’s report for a clear list of the Parish Council’s detailed objections.

 

This application is virtually the same as the application that was refused in September.

 

Gladman had not addressed the environmental issues, nor dealt with Section 106 matters or the archaeology.

 

The development was not sustainable and therefore not in accordance with policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. It was also contrary to the adopted and emerging Local Planning Policies.

 

Although the Planning Officer had advised that the Neighbourhood Plan could not be given more weight, every step forward that the Plan took gave more weight. The Neighbourhood Plan examination was complete and the report was due before Christmas.

 

Parish Councillor concluded by emphasising the lack of sustainability, the sensitivity of the archaeology, the overdevelopment on the edge of Pirton and the prematurity of the application.

 

The application was not only premature due to the state of both the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan, but also because no safe route had been established for construction traffic to the site next door and, if no route was found, that site would not be developed and this site would be left isolated in the countryside.

 

She asked that the application be refused planning permission.

 

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Burleigh for her presentation.

 

Councillor Claire Strong, Member Advocate, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02563/1.

 

Councillor Strong informed Members that the application being considered had very little that was different to the application considered in September 2017.

 

This site was not in the Local Plan, it was never in the draft Local Plan nor was it ever considered as a site for development.

 

The site was outside of the village boundary and on a previous similar application she requested that the reasons for refusal be strengthened by mentioning the effect that the development would have on the village and its amenities and she would ask the Committee to consider doing the same for this application.

 

She expressed disappointment that Highways seemed to be unaware of the development due to be built next door to this site that did not, at present have an agreed construction route and questioned the potential impact of two lots of construction traffic travelling through the villages at the same time.

 

Councillor Strong concluded by stating that this development was unwelcome and was not wanted and urged Members to refuse the application and in doing so add as many reasons for refusal as they could including: the lack of a safe construction route and the impact on the surrounding areas.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Strong for her presentation.

 

Members sought clarification regarding the access to this development and queried whether the impact of two developments potentially being developed at the same time could be considered as a reason for refusal. They also questioned whether this was in accordance with the Local Plan.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that the means of access was through the adjoining site, this could be achieved through a condition or a Section 106 agreement.

 

Any cumulative impact would have been considered by the Highway Authority when making comment regarding the application. The Highway Authority still made no objection and officer had to take that advice.

 

Reason for refusal 1 mentioned that the development was beyond the village boundary and was contrary to Policy 6 of the current Local Plan.

 

Members complimented the officer on a full and detailed report, but expressed concern about the responses received from Hertfordshire Highways regarding the effect of traffic from this and the previous application on the villages.

 

It was suggested that the lack of access for construction to this site should be listed as an additional reason for refusal.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that it would be difficult to add a highways reason for refusal, bearing in mind this was a reduced number of dwellings from the previous application and this was not used as a reason for refusal at that time.

 

A Member commented that the site was adjacent to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that the views across the site were beautiful. Once this was concreted over this would be lost forever. If a large number of houses were built on the edge of this vibrant village, it would become a semi-urban dormitory and suggested an additional reason for refusal that the development would have an adverse impact on the rural aspect.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that reason for refusal 1 included detail regarding the harm done to the intrinsic beauty of the countryside.

 

In respect of the suggested Highways reason for refusal, the previous application had now been submitted to appeal and there had been no material changes since refusal of that application and in the absence of support for such a reason from Hertfordshire Highways, it would be difficult to add one now.

 

Members were very concerned that construction traffic for this proposed development would travel through the development in the previous application. They queried whether the Highway advice was regarding this development only, both consecutively or both concurrently.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that the advice related solely to this application.

 

Members suggested that a reason for refusal should include concern regarding the cumulative effect of the two developments on the highway for both construction traffic and ongoing traffic, particularly as the access for one was through the other

 

RESOLVED: That, subject to the amended reason for refusal 3 below, application 17/02563/1 be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Reason for refusal 3 to read:

 

The proposed development lies within an Area of Archaeological Significance.  Records in close proximity to the site suggest it lies within an area of significant archaeological potential. Given this and the large scale nature of the proposal, this development should be regarded as likely to have an impact on significant heritage assets with archaeological interest, some of which may be of sufficient importance to meet NPPF para 139. This could represent a significant constraint on development. In the absence of a suitable archaeological field evaluation, there is insufficient information to determine the importance of any archaeological remains on the site. The proposal will be contrary to Section 12 of the NPPF.

 

The Chairman announced that there would be a brief recess