Skip to main content

Issue - meetings

25/01766/OP Land On The South Side Of, Cowards Lane, Codicote, Hertfordshire

 

 

Meeting: 04/06/2026 - Planning Control Committee (Item 6)

6 25/01766/OP LAND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF, COWARDS LANE, CODICOTE, HERTFORDSHIRE pdf icon PDF 545 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline application with means of access for residential development of up to 30 dwellings (including affordable housing); following demolition of all existing structures; associated landscaping, drainage, car parking; infrastructure and all ancillary and enabling works (all matters reserved except means of access).

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 25/01766/OP be DEFERRED.

 

REASONS FOR DECISION:

 

(1)         To enable Members to undertake a visit to the application site.

 

(2)         To allow further investigation into the application of the tilted balance to take place.

 

Minutes:

Audio recording – 05 minutes 46 seconds

 

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of Application 25/01766/OP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

In response to a request from the Chair to clarify matters for members of the public in attendance, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·                In cases where authorities such as the Council did not have a five-year housing land supply, paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) dictated that policies within adopted local plans were out of date and the tilted balance applied in favour of development, which meant that any harms would have to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against NPPF policies.

·                Legal opinion from King’s Counsel indicated that the approach taken when Council officers had last assessed the application had not correctly followed planning policies.

·                After officers had sought further legal advice, a full review of the application had been undertaken. In addition, the Council had entered into a S106 agreement with a landowner at Weston Hils in Baldock for a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) habitat bank. As such, the officer recommendation had been changed to grant permission as the application would be planning policy compliant, despite the objection from the Ecologist.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Dave Winstanley

·                Councillor Tom Tyson

·                Councillor Louise Peace

·                Councillor Claire Winchester

·                Councillor Martin Prescott

·                Councillor Ruth Brown

·                Councillor Caroline McDonnell

 

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

 

·                The titled balance had been engaged when the application had previously been assessed by officers.

·                Harms arising from the application and their attached weights were set out in the report, including the harm to the local wildlife stie, which had been downgraded to moderate weight as compensation could address this.

·                Weston Hills was a habitat bank where entities could purchase credits for BNG provision such as the Applicant who would purchase them to deliver a 15% BNG contribution.

·                Compensation for loss of the local wildlife site would be dealt with through a S106 agreement as legal advice had indicated that the purchase of BNG credits would not be appropriate.

·                Counsel had not instructed the Council on how they should weigh the benefits and harms of the application in respect of the tilted balance.

·                Relocation of horses and their potential to affect the biodiversity of other sites had not been accounted for by the Ecologist in their assessment.

·                There was a condition recommended to ensure the pavement along the access road to St Albans Road would be in place before first occupation.

·                Significant concern had been raised by the Ecologist on local ecology loss resulting from this application, and moderate weight had been given to this.

·                The report had considered how the ‘Golden Rules’ had been met at paragraph 4.3.27 onwards, and Paragraph 1.58 of the NPPF stated that significant weight should be given in favour of an application where they had been met.

·                Public open green space would not be lost by this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6