Agenda, decisions and minutes

Members are required to notify any substitutions by midday on the day of the meeting.

Late substitutions will not be accepted and Members attending as a substitute without having given the due notice will not be able to take part in the meeting.

There were no apologies for absence.

Audio recording – 1 minute 18 seconds

There were no apologies for absence.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 7 August 2025.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 August 2025 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Audio Recording – 1 minute 25 seconds

Councillor Nigel Mason, as Chair, proposed and Councillor Ian Mantle seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 7 August 2025 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair.

Members should notify the Chair of other business which they wish to be discussed at the end of either Part I or Part II business set out in the agenda. They must state the circumstances which they consider justify the business being considered as a matter of urgency.

The Chair will decide whether any item(s) raised will be considered.

There was no other business notified. 

Audio recording – 2 minutes 16 seconds

There was no other business notified.

Members are reminded that any declarations of interest in respect of any business set out in the agenda, should be declared as either a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest or Declarable Interest and are required to notify the Chair of the nature of any interest declared at the commencement of the relevant item on the agenda.  Members declaring a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest must withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the item. Members declaring a Declarable Interest, wishing to exercise a ‘Councillor Speaking Right’, must declare this at the same time as the interest, move to the public area before speaking to the item and then must leave the room before the debate and vote.

(1)         The Chair advised that, in accordance with Council Policy, the meeting would be recorded.

(2)         The Chair drew attention to the item on the agenda front pages regarding Declarations of Interest and reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question.

(3)         The Chair clarified matters for the registered speakers.

(4)         The Chair confirmed the procedure for moving to debate on an item.

(5)         The Chair advised that Section 4.8.23(a) of the Constitution applied to the meeting.

(6)         The Chair informed Members that Item 9 had been withdrawn from the Agenda.

(7)         The Chair confirmed the cut off procedure should the meeting proceed at length.

Audio recording – 2 minutes 20 seconds

(1)   The Chair advised that, in accordance with Council Policy, the meeting would be recorded.

(2)   The Chair drew attention to the item on the agenda front pages regarding Declarations of Interest and reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question.

(3)   The Chair clarified matters for the registered speakers.

(4)   The Chair confirmed the procedure for moving to debate on an item.

(5)   The Chair advised that Section 4.8.23(a) of the Constitution applied to the meeting.

(6)   The Chair informed Members that Item 9 had been withdrawn from the Agenda.

(7)   The Chair confirmed the cut off procedure should the meeting proceed at length.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 5 minutes 48 seconds

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline Planning Application for Residential Development of up to 280 dwellings (including affordable housing) green infrastructure including public open space, landscape boundaries and SUDS with all matters reserved except for access which is to be taken from Barkway Road (as amended 22 April 2025).

RESOLVED: That application 21/00765/OP be DEFERRED.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

(1)         To allow the Applicant to conduct further traffic modelling.

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

Audio recording – 6 minutes 22 seconds

The Project Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 21/00765/OP and advised that:

·             Natural England had no objection to the application as they were satisfied that it would not adversely impact the nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Therfield Heath. However, they had recommended that a Recreation Management Strategy should be secured as part of the outline permission and as such, delegated powers were included in the list of recommendations. 

·             The Hertfordshire County Council Growth and Infrastructure Unit fee should have been listed in the report as £420 rather than £340.

·             The Emerging Strategy Document had not recommended any capital projects in the east analysis area, however, the views of Royston Cricket Club had not been considered as they had not responded to a survey sent out last summer.

·             Therefore, a case existed for developer contributions to be put towards a project such as practice cricket nets or enhancements to the pavilion, but consultants and both Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire Cricket Boards would need to verify any such project before it could be delivered on-site.

·             If secured, the recommended developer contribution towards this would be £61,620 as per the Sport England playing pitch calculator.

·             The Applicant had formally notified the Council of their intention to lodge an Appeal with the Planning Inspectorate and request the Inquiry procedure if the application was refused planning permission. 

·             An additional objection had been received from a resident whose reasons for objection were already set out in the published report.

·             All matters within the outline permission were reserved except for access.

·             There were recommendations within the report to secure technical matters, and together with the Masterplan, these would guide future Reserved Matters (RM) applications. 

·             Clarifications on the power line in the western part of the site had been provided.

·             Matters relating to open space and parking facilities were also clarified.

·             The Section 106 contribution to Rugby Union had been amended to reflect the recommendations within the Emerging Sports Pitch Strategy.

·             There were updates to Conditions 9 and 29 as set out in the Addendum.

·             Delegated authority was requested to amend the final condition wording.

The Project Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 21/00765/OP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Louise Peace

·             Councillor Bryony May

·             Councillor Tom Tyson

In response to questions, the Project Officer advised that:

·             The Masterplan was an illustrative layout of the site and did not fix anything other than the access to the site and its boundaries.

·             If outline permission was granted, future RM applications would be tested against the Masterplan.

·             The Town Council were present at site meetings where discussions on routing the active travel through Green Walk Plantation had taken place, however, it was unconfirmed as to whether the Applicant and the Town Council had a formal agreement in place for this to happen. 

·             The application site had a primary vehicular  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Change of use of land to equestrian and erection of stables and covered menage.

RESOLVED: That application 24/01042/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 2 hours 15 minutes 21 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 24/01024/FP and advised that:

·             An email had been received from a local resident to recommend that if the Committee granted permission, a condition should be applied to ensure the method of working complied with BS5837:2012, Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction.

·             If permission was granted and that condition was not secured, there should be a condition that stated compensation would be paid if trees died within 20 years of the development.

·             Compensation should be based on Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees.

The Development and Conservation Manager then presented the report in respect of Application 24/01042/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

In response to questions from Councillor Dave Winstanley, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

·             An Appeal had been lodged against the buildings adjacent to the application site.

·             There would be no reason to determine the decision on this application pending the decision of the Appeal.

The Chair invited the Public Objector, Mr Tim Wise to speak against the application. Mr Wise thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

·             He was speaking on behalf of the Three Houses Lane Action Group.

·             He urged the Committee to support the officer recommendation to refuse permission for the proposal.

·             Built form would be within the 20-metre root protection zone of the Church Wood Ancient Woodland which was protected by a Tree Protection Order.

·             This also conflicted with the mandatory BS5837:2012, Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction document.

·             A Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan, Arboricultural Method Statement and Construction Management Plan should have been provided by the Applicant to comply with BS5837.

·             Nearby trees were threatened from the stables as horse urine and faeces could cause their death.

·             Trees on and off-site were at risk from an individual and cumulative impact of excavation, compaction, pollution, contamination, flooding, service provision, and damage to bark, trunks and canopies.

·             If the Council were to grant permission, the building footprint should be moved away from the woodland.

·             At over 1900 square metres, the proposed buildings were vastly larger than the 800 square metre barn already on-site and there was no proposed mitigation or buffer zone for the loss of residential amenity that this would cause. 

·             In their opinion, the building did not relate to outdoor activities as permitted in paragraph 154 of the NPPF.

·             The application site could not be classified as Grey Belt as the Applicant had not demonstrated an unmet need which the facilities would address. 

·             Special circumstances had not been advanced by the Applicant to explain why this development should be approved.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Mr Wise for hisr verbal presentation and invited the Agent to the Applicant, Mr Simon Warner to speak in support of the application. Mr Warner  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of two detached dwellings with private gardens including landscaping, parking and widening of existing vehicular access off Stevenage Road.

RESOLVED: That application 25/00949/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 2 hours 34 minutes 7 seconds

N.B. Councillor Caroline McDonnell declared an interest in this item due to her role as a Parish Councillor for Wymondley Parish Council but clarified that she had not been involved in the application nor made any public comments on it. She remained in the Council Chamber and took part in the debate and vote.

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that there were no updated matters to report on since the publication of the agenda.

The Development and Conservation Manager then presented the report in respect of Application 25/00949/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

·             Councillor Dave Winstanley

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Tom Tyson

·             Councillor Clare Billing

·             Councillor Bryony May

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

·             After assessing the application against purposes A, B and D of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF, they had concluded that the application site was classified as Grey Belt.

·             It had also met the criteria at paragraph 155 of the NPPF.

·             If the application was larger, they would ask for a greater housing mix, however, as it was a small development, there was no reason to resist the application because it comprised two 5-bed dwellings.

·             Decisions could not be made using assumptions of what the Applicant might do in the future, they could only consider the application before them.

·             A gap between the dwellings would be made to retain a view of the land to the rear within a substantially built-up frontage.

·             This was not a major development and the Golden Rules relating to 50% affordable housing did not apply.

·             If more applications were submitted by the Applicant on the adjacent site, they would look at the cumulative impact of each additional application and assess the need for affordable housing on this, therefore, affordable housing provision would not be avoided by submitting separate applications of fewer dwellings.

·             There would not be a noticeable difference in height between these dwellings and those nearby in Shangri-La and Todds Corner.

·             No conditions on the gap between the dwellings would be necessary to prevent an access road being built there to access the land to the rear.

The Chair informed Members that the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Dominic Griffiths had given their apologies and was unable to attend the Committee meeting to provide a verbal presentation and read out a written statement on their behalf, and highlighted the following:

·             The land was Green Belt unless the Committee was minded to redesignate it.

·             No very special circumstances had been demonstrated to allow development on the Green Belt.

·             Infilling was not allowed in the proposed development area as it was within a hamlet.

·             The open land provided the hamlet with the only place to enjoy distant country views.

·             There was risk of adjoining properties being overlooked and the street scene being diminished with parked cars.

·             Access to the proposed dwellings would be next to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Variation of wording to Condition 3 and Condition 20 of planning permission 18/01502/OP granted on 25.07.2023

The Chair confirmed that this item was withdrawn from the agenda, as the Applicant had withdrawn the application. 

Audio recording – 3 hours 6 minutes 2 seconds

The Chair confirmed that this item was withdrawn from the Agenda, as the Applicant had withdrawn the application. 

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

To update Members on appeals lodged and any decisions made.

The Development and Conservation Manager provided an update on Planning Appeals.

Audio recording – 3 hours 6 minutes 25 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report entitled ‘Planning Appeals’ and advised that:

·             There were no appeal decisions to report on.

·             Two appeals had been lodged, one on a householder application and the other on application 24/01994/S73 which had been withdrawn.

In response to questions from Councillor Martin Prescott, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

·             The Applicant for application 24/01994/S73 had withdrawn their appeal on the grounds of non-determination, therefore the application had been withdrawn.

·             A further Section 73 application would be submitted by the Applicant in due course.

·             There was no indication that the new Section 73 application would include a variation on Condition 9.