Agenda item

Outline application: erection of up to 75 new dwellings, parking and landscaping with associated access onto Chalfont Road (Appearance, Layout, Landscaping and Scale as reserved matters) at Land at North of Chalfont Road, Chalfont Road, Maple Cross, Hertfordshire.

Recommendation: That authority is delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission following the completion of a S106 agreement securing the Heads of Terms (set out in 10.18.2 of the report), subject to planning conditions (set out at section 11.1.2) and to make any minor amendments necessary to the Heads of Terms and planning conditions in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair.

The application was outline, for erection of up to 75 new dwellings, parking and landscaping with associated access onto Chalfont Road (Appearance, Layout, Landscaping and Scale as reserved matters) at Land at North of Chalfont Road, Chalfont Road, Maple Cross, Hertfordshire.

The Planning Officer provided updates and clarifications as follows:

·         Following consideration of a preliminary report by the Committee in December 2025, and a site visit, the officer report had been updated to provide full justification for the officer recommendation, including in relation to the material points raised in discussion of the preliminary report. 

·         Since publication of the report the Growth and Infrastructure Board had provided further comments withdrawing its request for the development to provide financial contributions towards primary education.  Following discussions with officers it was considered appropriate to facilitate primary education funding through CIL in order to mitigate the impact from the site.  The Board had, however, maintained its position in respect of contributions towards secondary education and SEND, and further discussions would be required to complete the S106 agreement.  Therefore, the recommendation before the Committee was that in order to allow for those discussions, authority be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission following the completion of a S106 securing Heads of Terms and subject to planning conditions; and that authority be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to make any minor amendments necessary to the Heads of Terms and planning conditions in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair.

·         Two further objections had been received since publication of the agenda.  Officers did not consider that they raised any new material planning considerations which were not already addressed in the report.

·         The proposed development was for 75 dwellings, and the published report set out the officers’ view that the proposal was development of Grey Belt land which satisfied the requirements of paragraph 155 of the NPPF.  Officers therefore considered that it was an appropriate form of development.  Furthermore, the site was considered to have met the ‘Golden Rules’ set out within paragraphs 156 and 157 of the NPPF.  The Planning Officer highlighted that the NPPF emphasised that a development which complied with the ‘Golden Rules’ should be give significant weight in favour of the grant of planning permission. 

·         Members were reminded that the application site was included within the Council’s Local Plan Regulation 19 site allocations document, which had been approved at Full Council in January 2026.  Although the Regulation 19 consultation had been paused following intervention by the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government, this was nevertheless a material consideration in the assessment of the principle of residential development at the site.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

County Councillor Paula Hiscocks spoke against the application.

Points raised by the speaker in favour of the application included: a legal opinion sought by the applicant had agreed with the officers’ view that the site met the definition of Grey Belt land and met the relevant tests within the NPPF; the applicant had worked closely with the Council and key consultees, including engagement with the LLFA and Herts Highways and a public exhibition and as a result there were no outstanding technical or statutory objections; the issues which had been raised during consideration of the preliminary report had been addressed; benefits of the proposal included 75 homes of which 38 would be affordable, as well as a significant new public open space and connectivity, a sensitively designed scheme on the edge of a settlement location, delivery of at least 10% biodiversity net gain, off-site highways improvements to Chalfont Road and bus stop facilities, and flood storage and SUDS arrangements which would result in a reduction of flood depths and a betterment to existing properties.

Points raised by the speaker against the proposal included: the site was not Grey Belt but was instead open, functional green space forming the last buffer before the Colne Valley Regional Park; Colne Valley Regional Park had objected to the proposal, as had the Campaign to Protect Rural England; the proposal was unsuitable due to the impact on the already congested Chalfont Road as the addition of further properties would intensify an existing unsafe situation and increase air pollution; the site suffered from drainage problems and there was insufficient evidence in the application that the land could be engineered to cope with the increased hard surfacing without displacing flood risk to neighbouring homes; there was uncertainty about the real impact of the proposal as appearance, layout, landscaping and scale were reserved matters; and the effect of recent and pending developments in Maple Cross had not been properly assessed, resulting in incremental urbanisation and a lack of strategic planning, infrastructure investment or environmental safeguards.

Committee Members asked questions about the detail of the proposal which were responded to by officers.  The Committee’s discussions included the following:

·         The Stage 4 Green Belt Review had suggested that the site was Grey Belt.  In assessing the application, officers had given consideration as to whether it strongly contributed to purposes (a), (b) and (d) of paragraph 143 of the NPPF.  As set out in the report, officers did not consider that Maple Cross was a large, built-up area; or that the site prevented the neighbouring towns of Rickmansworth, Chalfont St Peter, Chalfont St Giles and Gerrards Cross from merging; or that it had historical significance.  Therefore, the site was not considered to strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) and (d) of paragraph 143 of the NPPF and could be regarded as Grey Belt land.  Some Committee Members did not agree with this assessment, considering that the site comprised Green Belt land.

·         The surface water flooding on Chalfont Road was noted; however, the LLFA had been consulted and had raised no objection.  The applicant had provided an evacuation plan and the proposal included a compensation basin and other ponds and basins across the site which would reduce the extent of surface water pooling on Chalfont Road and was considered to be a betterment to the site and the surrounding area.

·         Several Committee Members disagreed with the officers’ assessment of the sustainability of the site, raising concerns about the distance to schools, play areas, sports facilities, underground station, health and dental services and the lack of shops in close proximity, none of which was considered to be within safe walking distance of the site.  The Planning Officer provided the reasons why the site was considered by officers to be sustainable (as set out at paragraph 10.1.22 of the report) and highlighted that the proposal also included a contribution for electronic timetables and improvements to bus stops which would comprise a betterment to the local bus network.   Several Committee Members considered that, notwithstanding these improvements, the development would be car dependent and expressed the view that because of the unsustainability of the site the proposal represented inappropriate development.

·         Committee Members also raised concerns about the ability of existing infrastructure to cope with the development, and in particular the condition required by Thames Water which prevented the occupation of the development until all sewage works upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development had been completed, or a development and infrastructure phasing plan had been agreed.  A Committee Member recommended that the Chief Executive be asked to write to Thames Water to convey dissatisfaction with the requirement to include such a condition.  In responding, the Planning Officer reported that legal advice obtained on the matter had concluded that the approach taken by Thames Water was appropriate and acceptable.

·         Committee Members agreed that great weight needed to be given to the need for housing, particularly in light of the council’s limited housing land supply.  Following the ministerial direction, Committee Members commented that only limited weight could be given to the emerging Local Plan.

·         Whilst acknowledging that Hertfordshire Highways had not objected, several Committee Members remained concerned about the highways implications associated with the proposal.

·         In response to a Committee Member’s questions on road safety, officers clarified that whilst there weren’t any 30mph speed limit signs of that section of the road, the access road to the development was close to the existing residential development of Oakhill Road.  Relocating the access further up the road had been considered but dismissed due to the loss of additional trees and hedgerow and the further urbanisation of Chalfont Road which it would involve.  The siting of the access closer to Oakhill Road would allow drivers rounding the bend of Chalfont Road to see the access point.  Other modifications to the access point included improving the visibility splay; widening of the carriageway and access road (to 5.5m) and existing footpath (to 2m); linkage of the existing footpath to a new footway within the development which would provide a walking route to The Reach Free School and primary schools; and dropped kerbs and tactile paving for a crossover across Oakhill Road. 

·         In debate it was noted that paragraph 10.18.2 of the report set out that Hertfordshire County Council was seeking a contribution of £864,943 for the delivery of a new secondary school at Carpender’s Park.  In response to a Member’s question, the Planning Officer reported that HCC had subsequently clarified that the reference to Carpender’s Park was incorrect and should refer to The Reach Free School.

·         Several Committee Members expressed concern about the inclusion of shared ownership as part of the affordable housing tenure mix, expressing the view that First Homes would be a preferable option.

·         A Committee Member recommended that whilst great weight was given to the provision of housing and affordable housing, and weight was also given to the economic benefits during construction and the contributions to be secured through S106, the application should be refused on the basis that the unsustainable location of the site would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and there were no Very Special Circumstances which outweighed the harm caused.  Particular factors contributing to the unsustainability of the site were cited as a lack of GP facilities; primary and secondary school inaccessibility; and the distance from the public transport network.  This was endorsed by other Committee Members.

Councillor Cooper moved, and Councillor Whately-Smith seconded, that the application be refused on the basis that the development is not in a sustainable location and would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and the development fails to secure contributions through a S106 agreement.  Final wording of the reasons for refusal would be circulated to Committee Members separately.

On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 10 for, 0 against, 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: that the application be refused on the basis that the development is not in a sustainable location and would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and the development fails to secure contributions through a S106 agreement.  Final wording of the reasons for refusal would be circulated to Committee Members separately.