PLANNING COMMENT FOR APPLICATION REF:  5/2025/1875

Chris L

Eagle Way
St Albans

Object to Proposal

1. Object to proposal

This objection is based solely on material planning considerations.

2. Prematurity and the Plan-Led System

The site is being promoted in advance of an adopted Local Plan. Granting permission for a development of this scale at this stage would be premature and would undermine the plan-led approach set out in Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Approving this proposal now would reduce the ability of the Local Planning Authority to manage growth strategically and could set a harmful precedent for further speculative development.

3. Unsustainable Location and Car Dependency

Despite claims made by the applicant, the site is not well located for a development of this scale. Many daily journeys, including access to secondary education, healthcare, and major shopping facilities, would require car travel.

Public transport options are limited and do not provide a realistic alternative for many residents. The Transport Assessment relies on optimistic assumptions about future behaviour rather than firm, deliverable measures. This conflicts with the NPPF objective of reducing reliance on private cars.

4. Traffic Impact and Highway Safety

Local roads, particularly Sandpit Lane and nearby junctions, already experience congestion and safety issues, especially at peak times. As a regular user of these roads, I can confirm that traffic conditions are already difficult and often unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.

The proposed development would significantly increase traffic levels. The application does not convincingly demonstrate that the local highway network can safely accommodate this increase or that proposed mitigation would be effective.

NPPF paragraph 111 states that development should be refused where the cumulative impact on the road network would be severe. In my view, this threshold is met.

5. Impact on Landscape Character

The site currently contributes to the open, green, and semi-rural character of the area and helps define the settlement boundary. This character is highly valued by local residents.

The proposed development would urbanise this landscape and introduce built form at a scale and density that is out of keeping with its surroundings. Landscaping proposals rely heavily on future planting and would not adequately mitigate the long-term visual harm.

This conflicts with NPPF paragraph 174, which requires planning decisions to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

6. Biodiversity and Ecology

The site supports existing habitats and forms part of a wider ecological network. The development would result in habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance to wildlife.

Although the application refers to Biodiversity Net Gain, there is insufficient clarity regarding baseline assessments, on-site delivery, and long-term management. The proposal fails to demonstrate that ecological harm can be adequately avoided or mitigated, contrary to NPPF paragraph 180.

7. Drainage and Flood Risk

The development would significantly increase hard surfacing, increasing surface water runoff. The drainage strategy provided is high-level and lacks sufficient detail to demonstrate that flood risk will not increase on or off site, particularly when climate change is taken into account.

There is also insufficient evidence that existing drainage and sewerage infrastructure has the capacity to support the development without adverse impacts.

8. Pressure on Local Infrastructure

Local schools and healthcare services are already under significant pressure. While land is proposed for a future primary school, there is no certainty regarding delivery, funding, or timescales. Similarly, there is no clear strategy for providing additional healthcare capacity.

This raises serious concerns about the social sustainability of the proposal and conflicts with NPPF paragraph 92.

9. Design and Density

The scale and density of development proposed are inappropriate for an edge-of-settlement location. The layout appears cramped and lacks sufficient green space and transition to surrounding areas.

The design approach is generic and fails to respond positively to local character, contrary to the requirements of NPPF paragraph 130.

10. Conclusion

While the provision of housing is acknowledged, the harms arising from this proposal are significant. These include unacceptable traffic impacts, permanent harm to landscape character, loss of biodiversity, increased flood risk, and unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Local Planning Authority refuses planning permission for the Oaklands Blossom development.