Skip to main content

Issue - meetings

25/02547/FP Land To The South And East Of Senuna Park, Station Road, Ashwell

 

 

Meeting: 16/04/2026 - Planning Control Committee (Item 160)

160 25/02547/FP LAND TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF SENUNA PARK, STATION ROAD, ASHWELL pdf icon PDF 351 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Residential development of 36 no. dwellings including creation of vehicular access off Station Road, associated parking, drainage, amenity space and landscaping

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED:

 

(1)   That application 25/02547/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:

 

a.     The proposal would have an urbanising effect on the village edge and the density of the site was not appropriate in a village location, which would result in harm to the rural character and appearance of the area.

 

b.     The application was in conflict with policies SP2, SP5 and CGB1 of the adopted Local Plan and ASH1 of the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan.

 

c.     The site was in an unsustainable location.

 

d.     The Heads of Terms for the S106 agreement were incomplete.

 

(2)   That delegation be provided to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the wording for the reason for refusal.

 

 

Minutes:

Audio recording – 56 minutes 29 seconds

 

N.B. Councillor Tom Tyson declared an interest as Member Advocate Objector and moved to the public speaking gallery.

 

N.B. Councillor Bryony May declared an interest due to involvement with the Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens, who were making a S106 request on this application, and left the Chamber for the duration of this item. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that written updates on matters relating to application 25/02547/FP had been published as a supplementary document and advised that:

 

·       A revised recommendation had been included in the supplementary document.

·       Due to an error on the planning mapping system, the Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens had not been consulted but should have been due to the site being within the 5.8KM zone of influence of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

·       They had now been consulted and were requesting a contribution, in line with SP7 of the Local Plan.

·       There were no concerns with the Officers regarding this and the principle had been agreed with the Applicant, but not the final payment amount.

 

The Principal Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/02547/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

 

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       It was effectively an extension of the existing Senuna Park development, with both developments having a SUDs provision creating a green centre of the site.

·       It was understood the Applicant for both this, and the approved permission for Senuna Park, were the same.

·       The housing mix proposed not meeting the policies of the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan was a material planning consideration on this application.

·       As the Council did not have a 5-year housing land supply, as outlined in the NPPF, significant weight had to be given to the delivery of new homes.

·       24 live trees and 2 dead trees would be removed for access. This was discussed with the Applicant, but no other access for phase 1 was possible.

·       There would be 143 trees planted across the site once complete, therefore it was considered a suitable mitigation in terms of the planning balance.

·       Existing trees not to be removed would create a canopy effect over the road through the site.

·       The S106 Heads of Terms had been largely agreed, with just two matters outstanding relating to the amounts in contribution for the sports pavilion and contribution to mitigate the Therfield Heath SSSI requirements.

·       In most instances, Heads of Terms would be agreed before Committee, but if agreed at this meeting, the matter would be delegated to the Development and Conservation Manager who could agree this. If an agreement could not be achieved, it would be brought back to Committee to reconsider the proposal.

 

The Chair invited the Public Objector, Parish Councillor Graham Lee, to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Lee thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160