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 Councillors Ruth Brown, Emma Fernandes, Bryony May and Tom Tyson.

Having given due notice, Councillor Jon Clayden substituted for Councillor Brown and Councillor Daniel Allen substituted for Councillor Fernandes.

Audio recording – 1 minute 27 seconds

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ruth Brown, Emma Fernandes, Bryony May and Tom Tyson.  

Having given due notice, Councillor Jon Clayden substituted for Councillor Brown and Councillor Daniel Allen substituted for Councillor Fernandes.

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 – 1 minute 49 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 confirmed the cut off procedure should the meeting proceed at length.

Audio recording – 1 minute 56 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.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 4 minutes 49 seconds

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance and advised that Member Advocate, Councillor Joe Graziano, would arrive ahead of Agenda Item 6.  

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of self-build detached dwelling and associated external works to include pedestrian/vehicular access to the highway.

RESOLVED: That 25/00872/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the amendment to Condition 7, as follows:

‘Condition 7

All ecological measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the March 2025 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal as already submitted with the planning application, including integrated bird, bat and bee bricks and hedgehog boxes, and agreed with the local planning authority prior to commencement of the approved development, demonstrating that a biodiversity net gain can be achieved from those measures/works.

Reason: To ensure development is ecologically sensitive and secures biodiversity enhancements in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.  To comply with Policy NE4 of the Local Plan.’

Audio recording – 5 minutes 21 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer advised that there were no updated matters to report on since the publication of the agenda.

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of application 25/00872/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Councillor Clare Billing

·                Councillor Val Bryant

·                Councillor Louise Peace

·                Councillor Dave Winstanley

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

·                Trees within the site boundary were not covered by the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in the nearby area, however, the remaining trees in the south part of the site were proposed to be retained under a tree protection condition if permission was granted.

·                The Highways Authority had raised no objection to the proposed access.

·                Condition 7 within the report recommendations could be amended to include integrated bat, bird and bee bricks and hedgehog boxes as referenced by the Ecologist in their response to the application.

·                Trees located in the north-east corner of the site would also be covered by the proposed tree condition if permission was granted.

The Chair invited the Public Objector, Kimpton Parish Councillor Simon Davies to speak against the application. Councillor Davies thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following: 

·                The self-build dwelling would be located on a busy and dangerous road.

·                An appeal lodged against a decision to grant permission to a self-build dwelling on the adjoining site at number 51 Beech Way had been allowed and consequently, refused planning permission by the Secretary of State. 

·                Residents had contacted Kimpton Parish Council to express their concerns over the removal of trees on the site prior to development. 

·                The density of this application exceeded the density of the prevailing area in Kimpton Road, The Drive and Lime Avenue. 

·                This proposal appeared to be cramped given the size of the site, with limited amenity space compared to neighbouring properties.

·                Creeping urbanisation resulting from infill development elsewhere in Blackmore End threatened to change the character of the rural community.

·                Access was proposed to lead onto Kimpton Road where there were two adjacent bus stops and two busy road intersections.

·                A mirror at the end of The Drive helped with access onto Kimpton Road but this provided limited visibility.

·                Traffic analysis carried out by former Hertfordshire County Councillor Richard Thake in 2022 concluded that Kimpton Road suffered from excessive speeding. 

·                Kimpton Road suffered from frequent standing water problems due to ground water flooding.

·                The proposed access situated between two junctions onto a busy and poorly maintained stretch of road had the potential to interfere with local infrastructure and presented a danger to bus and vehicle users, as well as pedestrians due to the absence of a footpath.

·                They felt that this application and the application at 51 Beech Way had been treated unequally as the site sizes were similar before the removal of mature trees had taken place.

·                There was intention from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of one detached self-build 2-bed retirement dwelling and ancillary works (additional plans received 16.04.2025).

RESOLVED: That 25/00309/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the delegation of authority and additional Condition 10 as follows:

(a)         That delegated authority be granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to resolve whether the decision should be subject to a condition relating to archaeology in consultation with the Hertfordshire County Council Archaeologist, and

(b)         ‘Condition 10

The dwelling herby permitted shall incorporate integrated swift bricks which shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To enhance biodiversity in accordance with the aims of the NPPD and the North Hertfordshire Local Plan Policy NE4.’

Audio recording – 53 minutes 25 seconds

The Planning Officer advised that there were no updated matters to report on since the publication of the agenda.

The Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of application 25/00309/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

·             Councillor Jon Clayden

·             Councillor Louise Peace

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

·             The main policy change since the previous scheme in 2022 was that the Council did not have a five-year housing land supply, therefore the tilted balance applied.

·             The site conflicted with Policy CGB1 and Policy SP2 in the Local Plan as the application fell outside of the settlement boundary in Barley, but due to the absence of a five-year housing land supply, those policies were deemed to be out of date and the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) were given greater weight than those in the Local Plan. 

·             Policies in the NPPF emphasised that dwellings should be located close to existing facilities within settlements, but not in isolated locations, therefore, a dwelling in this location was acceptable in principle.

·             Improvements had been made to the design of the scheme since the previous application.

·             The Conservation Officer, who had objected to the previous scheme did not object to this one as the significance of the impact on the conservation area was low compared with the previous scheme.

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that the balcony would be set into the roof and walled either side, therefore all views from it would be the same as those from a window.  

The Chair invited the first Public Objector, Barley Parish Councillor Yvonne Lee to speak against the application. Councillor Lee thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following: 

·             Two objections with detailed comments had been made by Barley Parish Council on the application.

·             The scheme conflicted with Policy SP2 in the Local Plan as it was not within the settlement boundary of Barley in addition to Policy CGB1 as it did not meet any of the criteria for development in rural areas beyond the Green Belt.

·             As it did not comply with key policies, it should be refused planning permission.

·             The appeal decisions referenced in the report of the Planning Officer were materially different to this application as one was in Kelshall which was a Category B Village that complied with Policy CGB1, and neither were in a conservation area, making them irrelevant.

·             Adopting a tilted balance in the absence of a five-year housing land supply was questionable as it meant that the policies in the NPPF overrode the policies in the Local Plan.

·             The application also failed to meet key policies in the NPPF as it provided no affordable housing and the vitality of the rural community would not be maintained.

·             Barley Parish Council were convinced that there were no mitigating factors in the application to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.