Skip to main content

Issue - meetings

25/02115/FP Kirby Manor Farm, Northfield Road, Ashwell, Baldock, Hertfordshire, SG7 5JQ

 

 

Meeting: 22/01/2026 - Planning Control Committee (Item 117)

117 25/02115/FP KIRKBY MANOR FARM, NORTHFIELD ROAD, ASHWELL, BALDOCK, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG7 5JQ pdf icon PDF 238 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Conversion of 3 existing agricultural buildings to provide 8 residential units, including gardens and formation of vehicular access

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 25/02115/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with additional Conditions 10 to 13 as follows:

 

‘Condition 10

 

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall provide for:

a)    the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors.

b)    loading and unloading of plant and materials.

c)     storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development.

d)    the hours of construction works.

e)    wheel washing facilities.

f)      measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction.

 

The approved construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy D3 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.

 

Condition 11

 

Prior to the installation of external lighting, full details including height, hours of operation, design, location of lighting, intensity and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall preclude the inclusion of motion sensors. The lighting installation shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the locality within the countryside and protection of neighbour amenity in accordance with Policies NE4 and D3 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.

 

Condition 12

 

Notwithstanding details of proposed boundary treatment in the submitted landscaping scheme (Drawing No. 164 LD 01) prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted details of the height of proposed boundary treatment shall be submitted to and approved in witing by the local planning authority, and  the boundary wall with Kirby Manor farmhouse  will be no less than 2.5metres measured from the highest point along the boundary within the neighbouring property and constructed in Arlesey White bricks. The boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the buildings are occupied.

 

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the development and the amenity of the locality and to comply with policies D1 and D3 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.

 

Condition 13

 

Notwithstanding the details in the submitted drawings, the development shall not include red external render. Details and/or samples of materials to be used on all external elevations and the roof of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works above ground level are commenced. The approved details shall be implemented on site and thereafter retained.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development will have an acceptable appearance which better reflects and does not detract from the appearance and character of the surrounding area and to comply with Policy D1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.’

Minutes:

Audio recording – 6 minutes 40 seconds

 

The Planning Officer advised that all updates had been provided in the Supplementary Document published.

 

The Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/02115/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Val Bryant

 

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       Curtilage referred to the area around a dwelling, including gardens and parking areas.

·       Under the Class Q permitted development rights, the impact on neighbouring amenity could not be considered.

·       Highways had objected to this application and had provided the previous objection to the Class Q permission. However, under Class Q permission, an objection under sustainability was not acceptable.

·       The application being considered regarding plans, elevations and materials was the same as approved under the Class Q application.

 

In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·       Under Class Q development, the extent of the curtilage was restricted to the total floorspace of the dwelling. Therefore, often properties end up with small gardens to serve the dwelling.

·       Consequently, it was common for residents to seek planning permission to extend their garden.

·       It was possible that this application had been submitted so these dwellings could be marketed with larger gardens.

·       Extant permission was already in place for 8 dwellings, and there was 2 years remaining on this permission. The application tonight should be compared against what had already been approved, as this would be the fallback position.

·       Recent legislation changes have meant that more prior approval could be sought for more dwellings within a scheme and also enlargement of buildings could take place under Class Q permitted development rights.

·       The only changes from the existing permission were the garden and parking arrangements, all other aspects were as approved under Class Q permission.

·       The minor extension to plot 4 had been approved in the Class Q application.

·       There were material aspects which could be considered under this application but would need to compare the proposal with the fallback position.

·       If this was an application for construction of new dwellings, it was likely Officers would have recommended refusal of permission.

·       In terms of location, a proposal under Class Q could only be refused where a building was in an isolated location and there unviable to carry out necessary works. However, this site was on an existing highway.

·       The proposal was to use existing bricks, some of which appeared to be in a bad condition and would therefore benefit from rendering. There were no proposals to demolish existing buildings.

·       He would not be able to provide comment on why the previous Class Q permission was granted, but it was approved and was now the fallback position.

 

The Chair invited the first Public Objector, Parish Councillor Norton Mahy to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Mahy thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117