# 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 (years):** 2.88 - **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 - **Tags:** large-scheme, s5-1-j, sustainable-location-pass, connectivity-tool, housing-shortfall, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, annex-a-weight-reduction, inconsistent-weighting, landscape-harm, old-heritage-wording, old-wording-slip, heritage-harm-outweighed, affordable-led, self-build, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## 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 - **AnnexB:settlement: not-engaged.** settlement taken as the LP settlement boundary, mostly the eastern edge of the A10; site outside it (DL 14) - **HO11: not-engaged.** common ground that the scheme is not isolated homes (DL 15) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** supply 2.21 to 2.88 years, so evidenced unmet need; scale accommodated with the s106 infrastructure (DL 17-19) - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** physically well related despite the A10, which is largely in cutting and read as "a soft connection"; bridges, toucan crossing, intervisibility with Neale Drive, adjacent business park and allocation (DL 20-24) - **Transitional(2): conflict (limited weight).** DPS2, GBR2 (Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt) and NP HD1 "materially inconsistent" with S5; Annex A paragraph 2 quoted ("very limited weight") but "limited adverse weight" given; reasoning also cites the out-of-date housing requirement and lack of supply (DL 25-29, 165) - **S6: not-engaged.** neighbourhood plan made in 2017, more than five years old (DL 27) - **TR6: pass.** staggered shared toucan crossing on the A10 (option 2) with new 40 mph limit accepted despite guidance against shared staggered islands; 85th percentile about 30 mph; guard rails; no severe cumulative impact (DL 33-58) - **TR3: pass.** services within 2 km; Connectivity Tool 45, district band B; lit and widened PROW 35/36, new stepped footbridge and active-travel bridge, shared route on Baldock Road, bus services 331 (30-minute), 18 and 37 into the site, travel plan; "genuine choice" found (DL 59-94) - **TR8: harm (limited weight).** limited localised harm to users' experience of PROW 40 and 41 (DL 121, 164) - **N2(1)(a): harm (limited weight).** limited localised landscape harm at year 15 to LCA 141 (medium value), built form kept off the plateau and ridge (DL 113-122, 126) - **DP3(1): not-engaged.** held to govern on-site scale, layout, landscaping and appearance, not effects on landscape character (N2 covers that); in the alternative a DP3(1) conflict would still be outweighed under S5(2) (DL 123-125, 168-169) - **N2(1)(b): harm (limited weight).** loss of BMV land, common ground (DL 130-131) - **HE6(4): pass.** Grade II* Holy Trinity Church about 1 km west; harm at the lower end of the spectrum (DL 135); letter uses 2024 "great weight" wording (DL 132) and gives the harm "limited adverse weight" (DL 164), not HE6(3) considerable importance and weight; public benefits "clear and convincing justification to outweigh the harm" (DL 132-135) - **TC3: pass.** sequential test passed for the local centre (DL 136) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to each of market homes, affordable homes, elderly homes and self-build, disaggregated with reference to HO1 (DL 30, 138-139) - **HC4(1): benefit (limited weight).** local centre, sports facilities and country park given limited weight despite HC4(1) "substantial" wording (DL 147) - **DM7(2): neutral.** no off-site foul and water supply conditions, as water companies have statutory duties; not duplicating other regimes (DL 151-154) - **S5(1): pass.** very substantial collective benefits not substantially outweighed; Framework given very significant weight; s38(6) departure (DL 163-171) ## 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 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008238 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fc346315-2334-4c6d-aeff-31ec7399f09e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008238.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.