Up to 600 homes and a further 60 homes for older people have been approved west of Buntingford after an Inspector rejected the council’s case that the A10 would leave the development poorly connected to the town.
Hallam Land Management won its appeal on 24th September 2026, securing outline permission for housing, a local centre, sports facilities and a country park beyond the settlement boundary.
The bypass was central to the dispute. East Hertfordshire District Council questioned whether residents would use the proposed walking and cycling links, particularly at night, rather than drive into Buntingford.
Inspector D Hartley reached a different conclusion after examining the bridges, crossings and bus improvements. An acute housing shortage also counted heavily: even the council’s own assessment showed just 2.88 years of housing land supply.
Why the A10 did not cut the site off from Buntingford
Hallam Land Management’s proposal covers land north of the A507 and west of the A10. It conflicted with the adopted District Plan’s settlement strategy and the neighbourhood plan: this is countryside outside the defined settlement, although it is not Green Belt.
The A10 was therefore more than a line on a map. The inquiry examined whether future residents could safely and conveniently reach Buntingford’s shops, schools and other services without depending on a car.
Hartley found that the road, much of it in a cutting, did not create the severance opponents claimed. There was no intervening tract of countryside between the site and the settlement, and the existing and proposed connections were important.
In this location, the Inspector described the A10 as:
“a soft connection bridging the settlement of Buntingford with the proposed development”
The package includes a southern walking and cycling bridge, a northern stepped pedestrian bridge, improvements along Baldock Road and other active-travel routes, and a toucan crossing associated with reduced speed limits. The northern bridge should not be mistaken for a cycle crossing; nor does the permission turn Public Right of Way 36 into a cycleway.
Both sides agreed that the proposed routes would put everyday services in Buntingford within a two-kilometre walk or cycle ride of the centre of the site. The disagreement was whether those journeys would feel safe and attractive enough to become a realistic alternative to driving.
The highway evidence also tested a staggered toucan crossing near the Baldock Road roundabout, where a 40mph limit is proposed. Hartley favoured the option set further back from the roundabout to reduce the risk of queuing. Detailed road markings, signalling and other safety measures remain subject to approval.
The permission links occupation to delivery. Off-site works along Baldock Road and Monks Walk must be completed before the first home is occupied. Improvements to the footpath and Skipps Meadow route are required before the 50th occupation, with separate triggers controlling the bridges and northern connections.
Two mobility hubs and financial support for bus services form part of the package. The proposed funding would enable a half-hourly service on route 331, while a contribution of £500 per dwelling is proposed for Buntingford’s community transport scheme.
Housing need tips the balance
The developer put the district’s supply lower still, at 2.21 years. Hartley did not need to settle that dispute: the council’s more optimistic position already revealed a serious shortfall.
The decision records a housing requirement of 1,237 homes a year, compared with 839 in the adopted District Plan. A replacement plan was not expected to be adopted until April 2029. The council’s planning witness accepted that meeting the requirement was likely to involve sites outside existing settlement boundaries.
That left the Inspector weighing an immediate opportunity to deliver a substantial number of homes against a settlement strategy which did not provide for the district’s current housing needs.
Forty per cent of the conventional housing is to be affordable, equivalent to 240 homes if all 600 are built. The separate elderly accommodation, custom and self-build provision and wider housing delivery added to the benefits.
The August 2026 NPPF’s policy for development outside settlements was relevant because the proposal would address unmet need and was well related to Buntingford. But this was not permission simply because a new policy existed: the Inspector assessed the site’s connections, accessibility and effects before finding it acceptable.
For a useful contrast, the Aston Clinton appeal found a much closer site was not physically well related to its settlement, but still allowed 66 homes through the exceptional-circumstances route in S5(4).
Our separate guides explain development outside settlement boundaries and housing land supply.
Real harm, but not enough to stop the scheme
The decision acknowledges landscape change, a loss of tranquillity along rights of way and the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. It also identifies a low level of less-than-substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II* Holy Trinity Church at Throcking.
Those effects were not dismissed. Hartley nevertheless found that the housing and other public benefits outweighed the heritage harm and justified departing from the development plan. The overall adverse effects did not substantially outweigh the scheme’s very substantial benefits.
A local centre, but no guaranteed new school
The scheme includes a mixed-use local centre of up to 2,000 square metres and about 25 hectares of green infrastructure, including a country park. A cricket pitch, two football pitches, a multi-use games area and a pavilion would add to Buntingford’s sports provision.
Hartley gave positive weight to those facilities because the town has a deficit of open space and recreational provision. The local centre would also offer employment and services, although its eventual delivery was not guaranteed at this outline stage.
The permission limits the centre to flexible Class E and F uses and expressly excludes a hot food takeaway.
A first school appears in the proposal, but it should not be counted as a promised benefit. Hertfordshire’s education evidence showed surplus places and falling rolls. Hartley found that a new first school was not necessary to make the development acceptable and gave it no positive weight. The related school obligations therefore did not meet the statutory tests.
The outline appeal was allowed on 24th September 2026, subject to conditions and a completed planning agreement. Detailed layout, scale, appearance and landscaping remain for later approval.
Read the decision: Buntingford appeal 6008238, including the conditions. Application reference: 3/24/0966/OUT.
0 Comments