Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
PDF 149 KBVenue: Council Chamber - District Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth, SG6 3JF. View directions
Contact: Committee Services- 01462 474655 Email: committee.services@north-herts.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 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. Decision: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bryony May and Caroline McDonnell. Minutes: Audio recording – 1 minute 24 seconds
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bryony May and Caroline McDonnell. |
|
|
MINUTES - 22 JANUARY 2026 To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 22 January 2026. Decision: RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Committee meeting held on 22 January 2026 be approved as a true record of proceedings and be signed by the Chair. Minutes: Audio Recording – 1 minute 35 seconds
Councillor Nigel Mason, as Chair, proposed and Councillor Emma Fernandes seconded and, following a vote, it was:
RESOLVED:Thatthe Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 22 January be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair. |
|
|
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS 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. Decision: There was no other business notified. Minutes: Audio recording – 2 minutes 19 seconds
There was no other business notified. |
|
|
CHAIR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS 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. Decision: (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 confirmed the cut off procedure should the meeting proceed at length. Minutes: Audio recording – 2 minutes 24 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 confirmed the cut off procedure should the meeting proceed at length. |
|
|
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public. Decision: The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance. Minutes: Audio recording – 4 minutes 40 seconds
The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance. |
|
|
25/01708/OP LAND OPPOSITE HEATH FARM, BRIARY LANE, ROYSTON, HERTFORDSHIRE REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER
Erection of up to 84 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) following demolition of No. 24 Echo Hill with all matters reserved save for access. Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That application 25/01708/OP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation manager. Minutes: Audio recording – 4 minutes 59 seconds
The Senior Planning Officer advised that written updates on matters relating to application 25/01708/OP had been published as a supplementary document.
The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/01708/OP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Ruth Brown · Councillor Val Bryant · Councillor Tom Tyson · Councillor Nigel Mason
In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:
· This application was similar, but not identical to the previous applications submitted at this site in 2019 and 2021. · Policy changes since the previous applications included the adoption of a new Local Plan, alterations to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the failure to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. · The Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) had assessed the application independently and felt that it did not alleviate their concerns on flood risk elsewhere. Their response had been considered as part of the application. · The titled balance was engaged due to the delivery of housing from the application. However, the harms identified in the application outweighed the benefits of this.
In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that the harms arising from the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits delivered by the development as detailed in the report.
The Chair invited the Public Objector, Claire Swarbrick to speak against the application. Ms Swarbrick thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:
· They represented over 250 households and residents who had made objections to the proposed development. · Residents of Echo Hill, specifically those living at numbers 23 and 25 would be significantly affected by the proposed access, and the prospect of this had caused uncertainty and stress to nearby residents. · They supported the reasons for refusal as detailed in the report of the Senior Planning Officer. · The site was situated in a valuable landscape, and the application would significantly harm its rural character, public footpaths, the local nature reserve and the adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Therfield Heath. · Existing homes at low elevations would be negatively affected by the proposed dwellings as they would be built at higher elevations. · Their Landscape Consultant Report confirmed that development would cause substantial harms and recommended refusal based on the visual and landscape impact. · The developer was recently refused planning permission for a similar development in Leicestershire, which the Planning Inspectorate had upheld after an appeal. · The developer had formally written to residents at numbers 23 and 25 of Echo Hill in 2020 to acknowledge the impacts that the development would have on them during construction and after completion. · Proposed access roads around the site would be unsuitable as technical data from their consultant proved that they would not meet safe access standards. · The Highways Authority had rejected the application due to poor access and its unsustainable location. · The site failed to conform to the Flood Risk Policy in ... view the full minutes text for item 134. |
|
|
REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER
Variation of condition 1 (revised plans) of planning permission 17/02627/1 granted 30.05.2018 for Application for approval of reserved matters comprising of access, landscaping, layout, scale and appearance of Phase 1 the development (pursuant to Outline application 14/02485/1 granted 07/12/2016) as amended by plans received on 22 December 2017; 30 January 2018; 27 March 2018; 18 April 2018; and 2 May 2018. Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That application 24/02656/S73 be GRANTED planning permission subject to:
A) The completion of a satisfactory deed of variation to the original s106 agreement or similar legal mechanism to ensure delivery of the agreed Heads of Terms; and
B) The applicant agreeing to extend the statutory period in order to complete the Deed if required; and
C) Granting delegation of authority to the Development and Conservation Manager to update conditions and informatives with minor amendments as required; and
D) Conditions from planning permission reference 21/02194/S73, as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager. Minutes: Audio recording – 30 minutes 48 seconds
The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 24/02656/S73 and advised that:
· It had been confirmed that VAT should not be added to the developer contributions, which meant that the contribution in the Deed of Variation should be £6,006, as detailed at paragraph 3.6.5 of the report. · The date for the agreement of the Open Space Scheme and Open Space Programme and Management Plan in paragraph 1.4 should read 7 December 2018.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Louise Peace · Councillor Ruth Brown · Councillor Nigel Mason · Councillor Ruth Brown · Councillor Val Bryant · Councillor Tom Tyson
In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:
· The developer had already paid £73K towards the restoration of the chalk grassland. However, the Green Space Team had obtained another quote to account for the steepness which came to £80K minus VAT, therefore, the £6,006 included in the report would cover this difference. · The Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) and Highways Authority had no objections to the slope, and the developer had provided a ground stability report. · The increase in material would be near the top of the hill and distributed evenly. · The Estates Team would conduct due diligence when adopting the land. · The slope may have been less steep before, but the steep section at the base of the slope was not part of this application. · The quality of the material deposited would be secured through the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, which formed part of the recommendations. · The site would be used as a community open space, which would complement Therfield Heath in terms of natural environment. · A footpath would go round the Meridian Gate site perimeter, and stairs and a level footpath would lead up to the chalk grassland. However, the open space had not been designed as a recreational space due to the gradients, and to preserve the ecological benefits of the chalk grasslands. · There was an obligation for a footpath to go through Newmarket Road Recreation Ground in the original application for outline planning permission, which they had received developer contributions towards. · There would be gated access to the community open space from Newmarket Road and the Green Space Team would use this to maintain the land. · After assessment by Green Space, their contractor would be able to maintain the area for 15 years if cut twice a year, and 20+ years if cut annually, based on the funding available. · The retaining wall had been agreed in a non-material amendment application.
In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:
· 6,500 HGV movements would be saved by keeping the material on-site. · If the application was refused, the material would have to be moved elsewhere.
The Chair invited the Agent to the Applicant, Claire Newbury to speak in support of the application. Ms Newbury thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:
· The application was a ... view the full minutes text for item 135. |
|
|
REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER
Erection of four detached dwellings including landscaping, parking and widening of existing vehicular access off Stevenage Road. Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That application 25/02998/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:
A) The receipt of the Impact Assessment and Conservation Payment Certificate (IACPC) following an application to Natural England under the GCN District Level Licensing (DLL) and a response of no objection from the North Herts Ecologist; and
B) The agreement to an extension of time to the statutory determination date to allow time for (A) to occur; and
C) The conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager. Minutes: Audio recording – 57 minutes 48 seconds
The Senior Planning Officer gave a verbal update on matters relating to application 25/02998/FP and advised that the comment from Todds Corner at paragraph 3.1 of the report was an objection rather than a neutral comment.
The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of application 25/02998/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Dave Winstanley · Councillor Ruth Brown · Councillor Louise Peace · Councillor Nigel Mason · Councillor Val Bryant · Councillor Martin Prescott
In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:
· The application had been assessed against the Grey Belt rather than Green Belt as Todds Green was not a village under Policy SP2 of the Local Plan, therefore, it did not constitute infilling in the Green Belt. · The in-depth development would impact the character of the landscape and the area, but the delivery of housing was deemed to outweigh the perceived harms of this. · Changes made to plots 1 and 2 from the last application had been summarised in the report, but the plots were similar in scale and form. · The last application at this site had also been assessed against the Grey Belt. · Despite the loss of an on-site 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) from the last application, the application was still subject to the mandatory 10% BNG condition, and this would likely be delivered off-site. · Harm resulting from the view lost between plots 1 and 2 had been considered and more on this was detailed at paragraph 4.3.57. · They were unaware why the Applicant had decided to submit this application with two extra dwellings compared to the previous application. · The proposed road within the site would lead to the neighbouring paddock.
In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:
· It would not be reasonable to impose a condition relating to development that would require planning permission. · If a separate application was submitted, it would be considered on its own merits. · Conditions only came into effect once development on the site began.
The Chair informed Members that the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Caroline McDonnell had given their apologies and was unable to attend the Committee meeting to provide a verbal presentation. The Chair then read out a written statement on their behalf, and highlighted the following:
· The application should be refused permission because of the effect it would have on the nature of Todds Green. · Although each application should be determined on its own merits, several Members had raised concerns over the gap between the two dwellings in the last application. · Wymondley Parish Council had objected to both this application and the previous one. · This land represented the last remaining open space in Todds green that provided views of the countryside. · On-site BNG in the form of a hedge between plots 1 and 2 had been removed. · Provision had been made for refuse and emergency vehicle access, resulting in further loss of the Green Belt. · Double stacking ... view the full minutes text for item 136. |
|
|
To update Members on appeals lodged and any decisions made. Additional documents: Decision: The Development and Conservation Manager provided an update on Planning Appeals. Minutes: Audio recording – 1 hour 48 minutes 51 seconds
The Development and Conservation Manager provided an update on Planning Appeals and advised that:
· One appeal relating to uPVC windows on a listed cottage had been dismissed, which was the second appeal for this type of development dismissed at this site. · There were new appeals to report, including an appeal relating to the 280-dwelling development on Barkway Road, Royston. · The appeal would involve a 6-day Public Inquiry commencing on 12 May 2026 and The Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens had registered as a Rule 6 Party. · The Appellant was challenging the five-year housing land supply of the Council and Officers may need to give evidence on this. · A Planning Consultant and Barrister had been appointed to represent the Council at the inquiry, and a Highways Consultant would also be appointed soon. · Members who voted against the officer recommendation were recommended to attend the Public Inquiry to set out their concerns with the application to the Inspector.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Ruth Brown · Councillor Martin Prescott
In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:
· Royston Town Council was a statutory consultee for the application and could make written submissions and attend the inquiry to speak. · Members could also attend and speak at the inquiry. · The inquiry would be held in the Council Chamber. · The Inspector would give greater weight to evidence that had been subject to cross-examination from a barrister. However, it was uncommon for non-expert witnesses to be cross-examined in depth at an inquiry. · The Inspector appointed to oversee the inquiry was Rekha Sabu. |