Land North of A507, West of A10, Buntingford

Decision

allowed, 24 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: D Hartley

Authority

East Hertfordshire (East of England)

Appeal reference

6008238

Application reference

3/24/0966/OUT

Procedure

inquiry

Development

Outline, access only, for up to 600 dwellings (40% affordable, 1% self-build), 60 elderly units, mixed-use local centre, first school, about 25 ha open space and country park, access from the A507 and bridges over the A10

Homes

660

Site context

open countryside, settlement edge, agricultural land BMV, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.88 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), S5(1)(j)(i), TR3, Transitional(2), HO7

Development plan policies

East Herts District Plan 2018 DPS2, GBR2, DES2, TRA1, TRA2, ED2, Buntingford Community Area Neighbourhood Plan 2017 HD1, HD2, ES1

Main issues

highway safety of A10 crossing; sustainable location; landscape character; infrastructure; S5 balance

Summary

An inquiry into up to 600 homes plus 60 elderly units, a local centre and a country park on 50 ha of arable land west of the A10 at Buntingford, East Hertfordshire. The site is outside the settlement but was found "physically well related" under S5(1)(j)(i), because the A10 runs largely in cutting and the scheme adds bridges and a toucan crossing. Supply is 2.21 to 2.88 years. A package of lit paths, bridges, a shared route and in-site bus services passed TR3. Limited landscape, PROW, BMV and low-level Grade II* setting harm did not substantially outweigh the "very substantial" benefits. Allowed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The Framework is "a material consideration of ‘critical importance’"; parties gave written and oral comments (DL ¶3).
• Settlement. "I have applied the definition of a settlement in Annex B of the Framework and taken the settlement of Buntingford to be that which is shown by way of a settlement boundary" in the local plan (DL ¶14).
• S5(1)(j)(i): PASS. The A10 "constitutes a soft connection bridging the settlement of Buntingford with the proposed development rather than being perceived as being a hard boundary, or a prominent landscape break" (DL ¶22).
• Plan weight. Quoting Annex A ¶2 ("should be given very limited weight"), the inspector says: "I afford the above development plan policies limited adverse weight in decision making terms because they materially conflict with national decision-making policy S5" (DL ¶29). He also relies on the fact that the plan's housing requirement "is materially different to the one that is in place now" (DL ¶28). The weight word ("limited") is higher than Annex A prescribes, and the out-of-date-requirement reasoning is 2024-style.
• Highway safety: PASS. "I find that a shared toucan crossing within a 40mph zone is acceptable in principle on this part of the A10" (DL ¶37).
• TR3: PASS. "With the proposals in place, the location of the development would limit the need to travel by private car, and it would offer a genuine choice of sustainable, quality and safe transport modes for residents and users" (DL ¶92). On perfection: "an absolutists approach to the application of LTN 1/20 is not warranted when the guidance is considered as a whole" (DL ¶94). On the 800 m figure: it "is in the context of considering proposals against specific proposals around well-connected railways stations. This appeal does not relate to such a proposal" (DL ¶74).
• Landscape: limited localised HARM. "Even by year 15, it is my judgement that limited localised adverse harm would be caused by the proposal to the overall character and appearance of the countryside" (DL ¶113).
• DP3(1) scope. "national decision-making policy DP3(1) relates to matters such as on-site scale, layout, landscaping and appearance rather than to the effect of a proposal on the landscape character and visual attributes of the countryside" (DL ¶124). In the alternative, even with a DP3(1) conflict "the very substantial benefits of approving the development would not have been substantially outweighed" (DL ¶169). The letter calls DP3(1) "a refusal type policy" (DL ¶168); the refusal limb is DP3(3), and no clear-justification question is asked.
• Heritage: HE6(4) PASS, with 2024 wording. "The Framework states that great weight should be given to a heritage asset’s conservation" (DL ¶132). The harm is "at the lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm" and the public benefits "would collectively present a clear and convincing justification to outweigh the harm" (DL ¶135). In the overall balance "it is afforded limited adverse weight" (DL ¶164), where HE6(3) requires considerable importance and weight.
• HO7: substantial weight to each housing type. "I find that the appellant has correctly disaggregated these benefits rather than considering them as one single benefit" (DL ¶139).

Planning balance

S5(1): approve unless the benefits are substantially outweighed. Benefits: "very substantial" collectively (DL ¶163), with substantial weight to each housing element, moderate weight to BNG, sports, open space, transport contributions and economic benefits, and limited weight to community facilities and PROW 36. No weight to the first school, which is not needed. Harms: limited landscape and PROW harm, limited BMV loss, limited weight to the heritage harm and limited weight to the plan conflict. "the benefits associated with the proposed development would not be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶167). s38(6): material considerations outweigh the plan conflict (DL ¶171).

What made the difference

Two things. First, an acute supply shortfall (under 3 years against a much higher new requirement, with no new plan before 2029) and a plan whose countryside policies conflict with S5. Second, an unusually complete active-travel and bus package, tested line by line at inquiry (crossing design, lighting, surveillance, island widths, cycle dismount points). A weaker transport package, or a finding that the A10 was a hard edge, would have failed S5(1)(j)(i) or TR3.

Transferable points

• S5(1)(j)(i): a trunk road need not break the physical relationship with a settlement where it runs in cutting and is bridged by new active-travel links (DL ¶21–24).
• TR3 does not demand perfection against LTN 1/20. A route package that gives alternatives for users who avoid a particular path at night can amount to a "genuine choice" (DL ¶61, ¶77, ¶92–94).
• The 800 m "reasonable walking distance" belongs to the station limbs (GB7(1)(h), S5(1)(h)), not general housing sites. For those, the Manual for Streets 2 km figure is a guide (DL ¶74–75).
• DP3(1) read as an on-site design policy that leaves landscape character to N2 (DL ¶123–124). This is contestable, because the DP3(1) text itself defines context as including the site's setting.
• HO7 substantial weight may be given separately to market, affordable, elderly and self-build housing (DL ¶139).
• Caution: plan-weight (DL ¶29) and heritage-weight (DL ¶132, ¶164) wording departs from the 2026 text; do not cite this letter for Annex A ¶2 or HE6(3) weights.
• CIL Reg 122: a school site and a PROW status contribution not needed to make the scheme acceptable are disregarded, and a school not needed carries no benefit weight (DL ¶149, ¶174–178).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Supply 2.21 years (appellant) to 2.88 years (Council); requirement 1,237 homes a year against 839 in the 2018 plan; new plan not before April 2029 (DL 18, 137)
• Connectivity Tool 45 excluding driving, district band B (A to J) (DL 60)
• Staggered toucan crossing on the A10 with 3.0 m island against a 4.0 m county guidance minimum; departure justified (DL 79-81)
• PROW 36 cycle upgrade not permitted by the highway authority; the s106 PROW contribution and the first-school obligations fail CIL Reg 122 (DL 72, 174-178)
• BNG 11.22% (DL 13; 11.25% at DL 140); hedgerow gain 49.78% (DL 140)
• Separate employment appeal on land to the south pending (DL 4)
• Emerging plan likely to need sites outside settlement boundaries, per the Council's witness (DL 138)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.