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.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Caroline McDonnell and Councillor Val Bryant.

Having given due notice, Councillor Jon Clayden substituted for Councillor McDonnell and Councillor Daniel Allen substituted for Councillor Bryant.

Audio recording – 1 minute 50 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Caroline McDonnell and Councillor Val Bryant.

Having given due notice, Councillor Jon Clayden substituted for Councillor McDonnell and Councillor Daniel Allen substituted for Councillor Bryant.

To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 19 June 2025.

RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 19 June 2025, as amended, be approved as a true record of the proceedings and are to be signed by the Chair.

Audio Recording – 2 minute 18 seconds

N.B. Cllr Clare Billing entered the Chamber at 19:05.

Councillor Nigel Mason as Chair proposed, and Councillor Martin Prescott seconded.

The following Members made comments on the minutes:

·       Councillor Jon Clayden

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

The following comments were made:

·       The attendees listed ‘Councillor Claire Winstanley’, however this should have read ‘Councillor Claire Winchester’.

·       Councillor Tom Tyson left the Chamber after acting as Member Advocate on application 24/02214/FP and this needed noting in the Minutes.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 19 June 2025, as amended, be approved as a true record of the proceedings and are to 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 – 4 minutes 33 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 advised that Section 4.8.23(a) of the Constitution applied to the meeting.

(5)   The Chair advised that Agenda Item 8 - 25/00309/FP - has been deferred to the meeting of the Planning Control Committee on Thursday 7 August.

Audio recording – 4 minutes 39 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 advised that Section 4.8.23(a) of the Constitution applied to the meeting.

(5)   The Chair advised that Agenda Item 8 - 25/00309/FP - has been deferred to the meeting of the Planning Control Committee on Thursday 7 August.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 7 minutes 8 seconds

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

RESOLVED: That application 23/01552/OP be DEFERRED.

REASONS FOR DECISION:  

(1)   To explore potential modifications to the scheme to have further minimal impact to Swangleys Lane Gateway junction.

(2)   To request an amended Transport Assessment with up-to-date traffic surveys to have a true reflection of the current traffic flows as members felt an up to date surveys would assist them in making their decision.

Audio recording – 7 minutes 59 seconds

N.B. Cllr N.B. Cllr Ruth Brown declared an interest due to her role as Deputy Executive Member at Hertfordshire County Council. It was agreed by the Chair she would leave the chamber after the presentation.

The Senior Planning Officer presented an update and highlighted that two further neighbour objections had been received. These related to concerns regarding increased levels of traffic along Swangleys Lane and in Datchworth villages, increased journey times through the use of Watton Road and an increased pressure on local services, including the GP surgery.

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 23/01552/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

N.B. Councillor Ruth Brown left the Chamber following the Officer presentation.

The following Members asked questions:

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Jon Clayden

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Louise Peace

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

·       The Copenhagen crossing formed part of the highways scheme and could be debated part of this application.

·       It would still be possible to travel west to east on the site, however this would now require diverting to Watton Road, before rejoining Swangleys Lane at the new ‘T’ junction.

·       Residents on Swangleys Lane would be able to turn either way onto the lane from their properties.

·       The flood risk on London Road would be alleviated with the incorporation of sustainable drainage solutions where necessary and appropriate.

In response to questions, the Hertfordshire County Council Highways Officer advised that:

·       Copenhagen crossings were considered safe and visible in the right locations. They were already in place in parts of London, and Hertfordshire County Council now consider them suitable.

·       The details of the section 278 agreements would be at the next stage of development which would ensure the details of the design were safe.

·       There would be a full safety assessment conducted as part of the section 278 agreement, which would assess all risks associated with the implementation of the Copenhagen style crossing on this site.

·       The proposal to close Swangleys Lane was to ensure a sustainable transport corridor existed which would allow pedestrians to travel safely by minimising the existing risk.

·       The impact of traffic from this development would be minimal and many of the traffic issues related to an existing problem. It would therefore not be for the developers of this site to resolve existing issues.

In response to the questions, the Senior Transport Policy Officer advised that:

·       The Copenhagen crossing consisted of a continuous footway along the road at the same level of the road and was more accessible, especially for those who were differently abled and those with pushchairs.

·       The County Council was beginning to adopt the Copenhagen crossing style as standard County wide.

·       The site would be designed for 20mph, pedestrians already had prioritised right of way, and a change of crossing style would be subject to a road safety audit.

·       The design could change following a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline planning permission for a residential development to provide 9 flats with associated vehicular parking and access via existing dropped kerb from King James Way with ancillary bike and refuse store.

The Chair advised that the item was deferred to the Planning Control Committee meeting on Thursday 24 July 2025 as the Members who called-in the application were not present at the meeting (as required under the Members Planning Code of Good Practice), nor provided a written statement, or appointed another member to present the item, as required under 6.1 of the speaking procedure for the Planning Control Committee. This item would be considered as an urgent item of business as the matter cannot wait until the scheduled meeting of the Planning Control Committee in August, given the statutory period for the matter to be determined (26 March 2025) had already been extended (to 30 July 2025), and therefore the Council could be liable to appeal against the failure to determine the application.

Audio recording – 1 hour 59 minutes 57 seconds

The Chair advised that the item was deferred to the Planning Control Committee meeting on Thursday 24 July 2025 as the Members who called-in the application were not present at the meeting (as required under the Members Planning Code of Good Practice), nor provided a written statement, or appointed another member to present the item, as required under 6.1 of the speaking procedure for the Planning Control Committee. This item would be considered as an urgent item of business as the matter cannot wait until the scheduled meeting of the Planning Control Committee in August, given the statutory period for the matter to be determined (26 March 2025) had already been extended (to 30 July 2025), and therefore the Council could be liable to appeal against the failure to determine the application.

Agenda Item 8 - 25/00309/FP - has been deferred to the meeting of the Planning Control Committee on Thursday 7 August. 

This item was deferred to the meeting of the Planning Control Committee on Thursday 7 August.

This item was deferred to the meeting of the Planning Control Committee on Thursday 7 August.

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 – 1 hour 59 minutes 2 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager provided an update on Planning Appeals and advised that:

·       The appeal relating to 10 St Katherines Close, Ickleford had been dismissed.

·       The appeal relating to 68 Chiltern Road, Baldock was rejected by the Committee for the impact on the street scene. This appeal was allowed by the Inspector who decided it would not impact the street scene.

·       The appeal decision relating to 14 dwellings at the High Street, Ashwell was rejected by the Committee due to harm on the Conservation Area which would outweigh the harm of the dwellings. However, as the Council no longer had a 5 year housing land supply, the Inspector decided that the contribution this would make to meeting the 5 year land supply outweighed the impact on the Conservation Area.

The following Members asked questions:

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

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

·       When the High Street, Ashwell application was considered, the Council had met its 5 year housing land supply. However, the circumstances around this had now materially changed since the Committee decision.

·       Substantial weight would be given to the delivery of housing in all appeals lodged going forward, as the Council cannot now demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply following changes to the NPPF.

·       The land ownership issues relating to the High Street, Ashwell application were resolved during the appeal process, which did not materially change the plans and was considered acceptable by the Inspector.

·       The Council would not be liable for cost for either the Rhee Spring or the High Street, Ashwell applications as neither party made an application for costs and there was no basis that the Council had acted unreasonably.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented an update on the recent appeal decision relating to Rhee Spring, Baldock and advised that:

·       The application was rejected by Committee as it did not meet the need for 40% affordable housing to be provided, as per the policy of the adopted Local Plan.

·       However, the Inspector concluded there was a viability issue with the requirement to provide 40% affordable housing on this site.

·       As part of the process, there remained scope for a greater number of affordable housing units to be delivered, subject to further appraisal once the review mechanism was triggered.

Councillor Ruth Brown noted that she was disappointed with this decision not to follow the adopted policy of the Council regarding affordable housing provision and the impact this might have on other applications.

In response to a question from Councillor Daniel Allen, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that the Council had spent approximately £90k for the Waldon End Inquiry. The applicant did not apply for costs in this instance.