Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 99 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 application 17/01543/1 be REFUSED outline planning permission, for the reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 99 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 presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

The Area Planning Officer advised that, since writing the report, he had received 14 additional letters from members of the public, and the points raised in this correspondence had already been covered in the summary of the objections to the development and covered in the key issues as set out in his report.  All of these letters had been placed on the Council’s public access website.

In addition, the Area Planning Officer had received the following:

(1)     Pirton Parish Council had submitted a supplementary letter to their formal comments which were attached at Appendix 1 to his report.  This additional letter repeated many of the points covered in Appendix 1, however, he summarised them as follows:

·      The proposals were premature in advance of the local and neighbourhood plan preparation;

·      There would be an adverse impact on the landscape and setting of the village;

·      There would be a negative cumulative impact;

·      Adverse impact from traffic and poor connectivity;

·      Loss of agricultural land;

·      Negative impact on the environment and biodiversity;

·      Potential impact on archaeology and heritage assets;

·      Would lead to an urbanising impact on the Hambridge Way and Icknield Way contrary to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan;

·      The development was unsustainable.

(2)     Comments from Holwell Parish Council which had also appeared on the web site under a neighbour representation.  However, they had been submitted now as a consultee representation.  He summarised them as follows:

·      The Holwell Parish Council objected in the strongest possible terms;

·      Concern of the impact of construction traffic on the rural villages of Holwell and Pirton;

·      Concern of the impact on pedestrians and other users of local roads and footpaths;

·      Query whether the homes would be affordable;

·      Lack of local infrastructure to support the additional dwellings;

·      The development would detract from the Chilterns Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

·      Increase in traffic and congestion detrimental to highway safety;

·      In summary, the Parish Council considered the proposals an overdevelopment at the highest level.   

The Area Planning Officer had received formal comments from the Council’s Waste and Recycling Manager, who recommended conditions relating to refuse collection routes and full details of on-site storage facilities for waste and recycling.  The comments also included technical advice with regard to matters of waste storage and separation.

In summarising, the Area Planning Officer drew the Committee’s attention to the Government’s high priority, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, to deliver new housing.  Clearly this proposal would provide a significant number of dwellings, including affordable dwellings and there would also be economic benefits to the local economy.  On the other hand, the proposal would, by reason of its scale,  cause significant environmental harm to the character and appearance of the countryside.  In addition, the development would not be sustainable, as the new residents would have limited access to facilities, services, jobs and sustainable transport choices. 

The Area Planning Officer considered that the benefits of delivering new housing would not outweigh the fundamental issue that the proposal was not the right development  for this rural location.  Accordingly, he asked the Committee to support his to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.

The Committee was addressed by Parish Councillor Diane Burleigh (Pirton Parish Council) and Carol Anne McConnellogue (Pirton Action Group) in objection to application 17/01543/1.

Parish Councillor Burleigh advised that she was speaking on behalf of both Pirton and Holwell Parish Councils which supported the Area Planning Officer’s conclusions and recommendations for refusal set out in the report.

Parish Councillor Burleigh considered that application 17/01543/1 was premature, and that the harm from its adverse impact significantly and demonstrably outweighed any benefit of housing development.  It was premature as both the Local and Neighbourhood Plans were well advanced, and therefore to grant permission would seriously interfere with both Plans’ well thought through, highly consulted upon and accepted housing plans for Pirton.  She stated that the villagers were not NIMBYs.  There was no agreed construction route as yet to this or to the adjacent site.  There were no proposals for addressing the significant adverse impacts.  She felt that Members simply did not have the information they needed to be able to grant this application.

Parish Councillor Burleigh stated that the adverse impact of a further 99 houses on top of recent permissions would lead to a cumulative growth of Pirton, and of its population, of some 37%, a greater percentage increase than that planned by the Council for Hitchin, Letchworth Garden City or Royston.  Pirton’s facilities would be overwhelmed.  Socially, the village would struggle to assimilate so many people at one time.  Historically, growth had been steady and small scale, and so assimilation had been positive and easy.

Parish Councillor Burleigh commented that access to the site would mean constructing a road across the very green corridor that the Committee had approved to protect wildlife in the adjacent sites, as well as destroying part of the hedge that the Council insisted should remain because of the importance of hedges and verges to wildlife and diversity.

Parish Councillor Burleigh considered that the proposal failed to enhance (an important word in the National Planning Policy Framework) the wider landscape of the Pirton Lowlands and its place next to the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty..  Also, important for the agricultural industry, the site comprised Grade 3A agricultural land, the best and most versatile agricultural land, which the UK needed to cherish.

Parish Councillor Burleigh advised that heritage was important to Pirton.  Given the significance of material remains found on the adjacent site, including human remains, further extensive archaeological work would be needed on the site.  This would enable Historic England to consider the possibility of scheduling it, or consider whether any remains should be preserved in situ before any planning permission was granted.  She believed that was also the view of the archaeologists at Hertfordshire County Council.

Parish Councillor Burleigh explained that the Parish Council was wholly against any measures that would urbanise the countryside and Hambridge Way, an ancient part of the Icknield Way path used extensively by walkers, cyclists and horse riders, precisely because it was both ancient and rural.  These visitors were an increasingly important economic group for Pirton, and the villagers did not wish them to be discouraged.

MsMcConnellogue advised that the Pirton Action Group urged the Committee to refuse this application.  78 new houses were already going to be built in Pirton, bringing potentially hundreds of more vehicles into the village.  A further 99 homes would be perilous for pedestrians, dog walkers, riders and particularly for children walking to school.  The village roads were also very narrow, many of which had no pavements.

MsMcConnellogue queried how this application could even be considered when the construction traffic plan and access had not even been agreed for the 78 houses already approved.  In addition, the small village school and pre-school were at full capacity and local secondary schools were all heavily oversubscribed.

MsMcConnellogue stated that those leaving the village by car already experienced lengthy delays due to the sheer volume of traffic into Hitchin, Stevenage and Luton.  There was also a significant pollution issue to consider.

MsMcConnellogue commented that the location of this large proposed development was definitely outside the village boundary and would create a large and vey separate estate.  It threatened to destroy the wonderful community spirit that made Pirton so special, as well as changing forever the village’s unique and historic setting.

MsMcConnellogue concluded by re-iterating that the villagers were not NIMBYS.  They supported and encouraged reasonable development, however, the current proposal was unsustainable and disproportionate, but more importantly, would put lives at risk.

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Burleigh and Ms McConnellogue for their presentations.

The Committee supported the Planning Officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused on the basis that the benefits of delivering new housing would not outweigh the fundamental issue that the proposal was not the right development  for this rural location.  The reasons advocated in the report and the comments of the Pirton and Holwell Parish Councils were supported.  The Committee could see no merit in the application; no benefit to the village; it was overdevelopment; and was totally unsustainable.  It was in the area beyond the Green Belt and would detract from the village’s setting and the adjacent Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

RESOLVED: That application 17/01543/1 be REFUSED outline planning permission, for the reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.