Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
PDF 148 KBVenue: Council Chamber - District Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth, SG6 3JF. View directions
Contact: Email: Committee.Services@north-herts.gov.uk 01462 474655
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: There were no apologies for absence received. Minutes: Audio recording – 1 minute 10 seconds
There were no apologies for absence received. |
|
|
MINUTES - 24 FEBRUARY, 12 MARCH, 19 MARCH 2026 To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 24 February, 12 March and 19 March 2026. Additional documents:
Decision: RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meetings of the Committee held on 24 February, 12 March and 19 March 2026 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair. Minutes: Audio Recording – 1 minute 17 seconds
Councillor Nigel Mason, as Chair, proposed and Councillor Clare Billing seconded and, following a vote, it was:
RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meetings of the Committee held on 24 February, 12 March and 19 March 2026 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 27 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.
(7) The Chair advised Members that a training session to be delivered by the Planning Officers Society had been arranged for Tuesday 19 May 2026. Minutes: Audio recording – 2 minutes 31 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.
(7) The Chair advised Members that a training session to be delivered by the Planning Officers Society had been arranged for Tuesday 19 May 2026.
|
|
|
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 – 5 minutes 14 seconds
The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance. |
|
|
24/00326/FP LAND ON, CAMPFIELD WAY, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY, HERTFORDSHIRE REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION
MANAGER Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That application 24/00326/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:
(1) The completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and the applicant agreeing to extend the statutory period in order to complete the agreement if required.
(2) The delegation of powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise a NHS contribution, and to update conditions and informatives with minor amendments as required.
(3) Conditions as set out in the report.
Minutes: Audio recording – 6 minutes 01 seconds
The Senior Planning Officer advised that written updates on matters relating to application 24/00326/FP had been published as a supplementary document and highlighted that:
· The applicant had agreed to the pre-commencement conditions, therefore point C in the resolution was no longer required. · There was an error at paragraph 4.8 of the report regarding the housing mix, which should be 45 1-bed flats, 43 2-bed flats and no 3-bed flats. The correct mix was outlined at 5.2.9 of the report.
The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 24/00326/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Ian Mantle · Councillor Louise Peace · Councillor Ruth Brown · Councillor Clare Billing · Councillor Tom Tyson
In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:
· The area had been a later addition to the Conservation Area but was its own character area due to the unique social purpose and adherence to Garden City principles of the site. · Whilst the site did provide heritage value, the units could not be retained as they were in poor condition, and individually they did not have value. · The Applicant did explore retention, but no units were suitable. · The Applicant could provide further information on whether museum storage for one of the units was considered. · There was a bus service on Icknield Way. · The Highways Authority offered advice on the number of parking spaces provided on site. · The parking provision was lower than required standards on site, but as there were a significant number of 1-bed flats, the proportion of spaces provided could be lower. · There was a provision of visitor parking spaces throughout the site. · It was felt that overall the parking provision was suitable for a location within an urban area, and a good provision of cycle storage had been included to help balance the shortage of parking spaces. · Around 50% of the bungalows were still occupied, but the Applicant could provide further details on this. · The recommendation on sound proofing had been requested by Network Rail and had been agreed with the Applicant. · There were no plans to install Solar PV, likely due to the Conservation Area character, but heat pumps were proposed which were efficient and would be suitable for the units on this site.
In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that new government regulations had been announced on 24 March 2026, to come into force on 24 March 2027, requiring homes to be delivered with lower carbon solutions, including solar panel installation.
The Chair invited the Public Supporter, Richard Clayton, to speak in favour of the application. Mr Clayton thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:
· He represented the Hawksley Bungalow Steering Group and provided comments on behalf of residents Mr Steven Fish and Ms Julie Baldock. · Mr Fish had been a lifelong resident on the site and had happy memories ... view the full minutes text for item 159. |
|
|
25/02547/FP LAND TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF SENUNA PARK, STATION ROAD, ASHWELL REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION
MANAGER 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. |
|
|
25/03149/RM LAND BETWEEN ROYSTON ROAD AND, CAMBRIDGE ROAD, BARKWAY, HERTFORDSHIRE REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION
MANAGER Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That application 25/03149/RM be GRANTED planning permission subject to:
(1) The delegation of powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to (i) resolve any outstanding matters and (ii) update conditions and information with minor amendments as required.
(2) The conditions as set out in the report, with the following amendment to Condition 6 and additional Condition 9:
‘Condition 6
Prior to any above slab level development approved by this application, an Ecological Enhancement Plan (EEP) for the creation of new wildlife features such as the inclusion of integrated bird/bat boxes in buildings/structures and hedgehog highways must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Swift bricks should be used where building heights allow.
Reason: To ensure development is ecologically sensitive and secures biodiversity enhancements in accordance with Policy NE4 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan (2011-2031) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Condition 9
Prior to their installation, details of any solar photovoltaic (PV) panels to be installed as part of the development hereby approved, including their siting, design and appearance, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The PV panels shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that any solar photovoltaic panels are appropriately designed and integrated into the development, in the interests of high-quality design, in accordance with Policy D1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework’
Minutes: Audio recording – 2 hours 27 minute 23 seconds
The Senior Planning Officer advised that written updates on matters relating to application 25/03149/RM had been published as a supplementary document and highlighted that:
· A summary of consultee comments had been included in the written updates. · A new condition was proposed to cover the installation of Solar PV panels, and an amendment was proposed to Condition 6. · There were no remaining pre-commencement conditions to be agreed with the Applicant.
The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/03149/RM accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Martin Prescott · Councillor Ruth Brown · Councillor Louise Peace
In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:
· The site had existing permission for 140 dwellings, which would consist of three character areas, including a village scene and woodland provision. · The wooded areas were of lower density and located to the north of the site, with the higher density being further south on the site. · The north-western SUDs would be more permanently filled with water, with the SUDs in the centre of the site being empty. This had been considered and the unfilled SUDs basins would be suitably landscaped. · The flood assessment submitted previous was not accurate and therefore changes were required to accommodate associated works to adapt to the new assessment. · Throughout the process workshops had taken place with the Applicant and Officers to deliver a scheme that was deemed acceptable, whilst adhering to the adopted Masterplan for the site. · This scheme was now more developed and detailed than the Masterplan. · This Reserve Matter application would not affect Condition 9 on the Outline Permission application. · There was no shop currently, as it has been offered to the market, but no offers had been received. · There were no conditions to require delivery of a shop on site and it was not considered a reason for refusal of the Reserve Matters application. · The shop could still come forward at a later stage.
In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that the mix of housing provision compared to the existing village had been assessed at the Outline Permission stage, where permission was granted. However, Barkway did have a mixed density of housing, with some terraced housing with small garden plots through to large houses with large gardens.
In response to questions, the Local Planning Lawyer advised that the Reserve Matters application was not to consider the density on site.
The Chair invited the Public Objector, Parish Councillor Graham Swann, to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Swann thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:
· Condition 9 on the Outline Permission had been included to ensure capacity in the sewage network and waste water plant. However, there were concerns regarding this with evidence of spillage and fowl water run off into nearby chalk streams. · There was no publicly available information from Thames ... view the full minutes text for item 161. |
|
|
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 – 3 hours 13 minutes 41 seconds
The Development and Conservation Manager provided an update on Planning Appeals and advised that:
· One appeal decision had been received and the appeal had been allowed, relating to St Albans Road, Codicote. The Inspector had found the development was inappropriate, as it would cause harm to the greenbelt, however, it was allowed due to the specific circumstances on this site and potential conflict with the Equality Act 2010. · One appeal had been lodged for a two-storey side extension in Baldock.
Councillor Martin Prescott noted that it was disappointing that the appeal in Codicote was allowed, as it implied that rules did not seem to apply to all people equally. |