Land North of A507, West of A10, Buntingford, Buntingford, SG9 9ER

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

• whether the proposed toucan crossing over the A10 would be safe, the acceptability of proposed speed limit reductions, whether the site would be capable of delivering safe access and route connections for all users in accordance with an acceptable Road Safety Audit, and whether the proposed access from the A507 would be suitable and safe
• whether the development would be in a sustainable location with convenient access to a choice of sustainable modes of transport, including safe and quality pedestrian and cycling routes to amenities, facilities, services, employment and shopping further afield, and whether proposed connections and bus improvements would achieve a suitable modal shift away from car use
• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including landscape character
• whether the proposal would provide the necessary infrastructure to make the development acceptable including affordable housing, custom/self-build housing, active travel provisions, education, and public transport provisions
• given policy S5 of the Framework, whether the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies, or, if the proposal does not fall within a listed category, whether the benefits would exceptionally and substantially outweigh any adverse effects, including on the character of the countryside and sustainable patterns of movement

What decided it

The Council's inability to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites engaged policy S5(j) of the Framework, meaning the substantial benefits of the housing-led scheme were not substantially outweighed by the identified limited landscape and heritage harms.

the very substantial benefits of the proposal (principally housing delivery in the context of a significant housing land shortfall, together with affordable/elderly/self-build housing, biodiversity, sports, open space, transport and economic benefits) were not substantially outweighed by the identified limited localised landscape harm, less-than-substantial heritage setting harm, and conflict with development plan policies