Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
PDF 151 KBVenue: Council Chamber - District Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth, SG6 3JF. View directions
Contact: Email: Committee.Services@north-herts.gov.uk 01462 474655
Note: Agenda Item 9 - 26/00403/S73 was deferred before the meeting took place and was not considered.
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 – 01 minutes 14 seconds
There were no apologies for absence received. |
|
|
MINUTES - 16 APRIL & 21 APRIL 2026 To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on the 16 April and 21 April 2026. Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 16 and 21 April 2026 were approved as a true record and signed by the Chair. Minutes: Audio Recording – 01 minutes 21 seconds
Councillor Nigel Mason, as Chair, proposed and Councillor Ian Mantle seconded and, following a vote, it was:
RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meetings of the Committee held on 16 April and 21 April 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 – 02 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. Minutes: Audio recording – 02 minutes 33 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 – 04 minutes 56 minutes
The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance. |
|
|
25/01766/OP LAND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF, COWARDS LANE, CODICOTE, HERTFORDSHIRE REPORT OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That application 25/01766/OP be DEFERRED.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
(1) To enable Members to undertake a visit to the application site.
(2) To allow further investigation into the application of the tilted balance to take place.
Minutes: Audio recording – 05 minutes 46 seconds
The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of Application 25/01766/OP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.
In response to a request from the Chair to clarify matters for members of the public in attendance, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:
· In cases where authorities such as the Council did not have a five-year housing land supply, paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) dictated that policies within adopted local plans were out of date and the tilted balance applied in favour of development, which meant that any harms would have to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against NPPF policies. · Legal opinion from King’s Counsel indicated that the approach taken when Council officers had last assessed the application had not correctly followed planning policies. · After officers had sought further legal advice, a full review of the application had been undertaken. In addition, the Council had entered into a S106 agreement with a landowner at Weston Hils in Baldock for a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) habitat bank. As such, the officer recommendation had been changed to grant permission as the application would be planning policy compliant, despite the objection from the Ecologist.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Dave Winstanley · Councillor Tom Tyson · Councillor Louise Peace · Councillor Claire Winchester · Councillor Martin Prescott · Councillor Ruth Brown · Councillor Caroline McDonnell
In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:
· The titled balance had been engaged when the application had previously been assessed by officers. · Harms arising from the application and their attached weights were set out in the report, including the harm to the local wildlife stie, which had been downgraded to moderate weight as compensation could address this. · Weston Hills was a habitat bank where entities could purchase credits for BNG provision such as the Applicant who would purchase them to deliver a 15% BNG contribution. · Compensation for loss of the local wildlife site would be dealt with through a S106 agreement as legal advice had indicated that the purchase of BNG credits would not be appropriate. · Counsel had not instructed the Council on how they should weigh the benefits and harms of the application in respect of the tilted balance. · Relocation of horses and their potential to affect the biodiversity of other sites had not been accounted for by the Ecologist in their assessment. · There was a condition recommended to ensure the pavement along the access road to St Albans Road would be in place before first occupation. · Significant concern had been raised by the Ecologist on local ecology loss resulting from this application, and moderate weight had been given to this. · The report had considered how the ‘Golden Rules’ had been met at paragraph 4.3.27 onwards, and Paragraph 1.58 of the NPPF stated that significant weight should be given in favour of an application where they had been met. · Public open green space would not be lost by this ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
|
25/00886/FP REED HOUSE, JACKSONS LANE, REED, ROYSTON, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG8 8AB REPORT OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That application 25/00886/FP be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager. Minutes: Audio recording – 02 hours 09 minutes 11 seconds
The Principal Planning Officer advised that there were no updated matters to report on since the publication of the agenda.
The Principal Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/00886/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Ruth Brown · Councillor Martin Prescott
In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:
· The titled balance has been disengaged as the land was within a conservation area, which was one of the protected areas that could provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposal as detailed at paragraph 11D of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). · The Council had to account for the opinion of the Highways Authority as a statutory consultee and could not provide reasons as to why they had raised no objection.
The Chair invited the Public Objector, Reed Parish Councillor Simon Aries to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Aries thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:
· They were here to speak on behalf of Reed Parish Council, who opposed the application and had listened to concerns from residents. · The site was outside the Local Plan settlement boundary and faced away from the village. · Minor adjustments and rebuttal statements had failed to overcome the fundamental location problem or the issues highlighted in the report of the Principal Planning Officer. · Site access would be via The Joint, which was a narrow, restricted country road that would fail to integrate it with the rest of the settlement in a meaningful degree and disrupt the settlement pattern, which would make it contrary to policies in the Local Plan. · The site would also be in the conservation area, contrary to the Local Plan. · 21 homes proposed on an allocated site elsewhere in Reed, which had been through consultation, showed how sustainable development should be carried out. · The Parish Council acknowledged the pressures of the lack of a five-year housing land supply and wanted to be an ally, not an obstacle when addressing this. · However, the lack of a five-year supply did not justify dismissing the Local Plan in favour of speculative development such as this. · This application would open the door to further speculative development in Reed such as a proposed application for 30-40 dwellings next to The Joint, which would urbanise and degrade the valued landscape of the area.
There were no points of clarification from Members.
The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Aries for their presentation and invited the Agent to the Applicant, Rosanna Metcalfe, to speak in support of the application. Ms Metcalfe thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:
· This site was previously developed land as confirmed by legal advice that had been shared with the Council. · The NPPF required local authorities to give substantial weight to housing developments on brownfield sites unless substantial ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
|
REPORT OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That application 25/02260/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:
A) The resolution of the LLFA matters to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority with the imposition of planning conditions or amendment of planning conditions as necessary with any actions required pursuant to LLFA response being devolved to the Development and Conservation Manager; and
B) The conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the additional condition as follows:
‘Conditon 6
Within 12 months of the first implementation of the approved use, the operator shall undertake monitoring of vehicle movements within the Northway Service Station forecourt and their interaction with the adjacent highway network (A1). A GG104 Risk Assessment Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with National Highways, at the end of the 12-month period and any mitigation shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with an agreed timetable.
Reason: To enable the operational impacts of the development on the Strategic Road Network to be assessed and to ensure that the safe and efficient operation of the A1 slip road is maintained in the interests of highway safety and network performance and in accordance with Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 – 2031.’ Minutes: Audio recording – 02 hours 32 minutes 31 seconds
N.B. Councillor Tom Tyson declared an interest as Member Advocate Objector and moved to the public speaking gallery.
The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 25/02260/FP and advised that:
· They were awaiting a final response from the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA). · Following further concerns raised by the Agent to the Neighbour, National Highways were willing to propose an additional condition to mitigate any concerns over internal vehicle movements.
The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of application 25/02260/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Caroline McDonnell · Councillor Louise Peace · Councillor Clare Billing · Councillor Claire Winchester · Councillor Martin Prescott
In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:
· Those wanting to access the Greggs Pod would turn left as they drove into the service station. · The application had been deferred from the Committee meeting on 12 March 2026 as National Highways concluded that the application needed a risk assessment. · After discussion, the site needed to be assessed while the pod was live, which would take place during the two years given for temporary permission. · There were also food facilities on the A1 northbound service station. · The site layout had already been amended after comments from National Highways.
In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:
· National Highways did not have an issue with the slip roads entering and exiting the site, they only wanted to assess internal vehicle movements. · The site layout may be changed to improve its functioning during the assessment period, but if this could not improve the situation, it would weigh against any proposal to renew planning permission. · Planning permission would be recommended for refusal if there was a highways safety issue, but National Highways had not raised concerns of this kind.
The Chair invited the first Public Objector, Ms Hayley Doyle to speak against the application. Ms Doyle thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:
· They had not been made aware of the additional condition detailed by the Senior Planning Officer in their verbal update until now. · They had reviewed the application on behalf of the adjoining landowner who had raised concerns on several issues. · Members should defer the application until they were able to visit the site as online pictures did not provide an adequate view of the site. · The slip road to exit the site was already unsuitable for the existing arrangement and this application would only intensify this. · A safety audit would be carried out if a permanent application was applied for in two years, but consideration had to be given to the possibility of a serious accident occurring before then. · Severity of the highway impacts should be considered against paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). · The Committee needed to consider whether the application for temporary permission ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|
|
26/00403/S73 151C BEARTON ROAD, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG5 1UB REPORT OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER Additional documents: Decision: The Chair advised that this item had been DEFERRED to the next Committee meeting on 18 June 2026. Minutes: Audio recording – 03 hours 33 minutes 02 seconds
The Chair advised that this item had been DEFERRED to the next Committee meeting on 18 June 2026. |
|
|
To update Members on appeals lodged and any decisions made. Additional documents:
Decision: The Development & Conservation Manager provided an update on Planning Appeals. Minutes: Audio recording – 03 hours 33 minutes 12 seconds
The Development & Conservation Manager provided an update on Planning Appeals and advised that:
· There had been 3 appeal decisions, one of which had been a decision taken by the Committee, which had been dismissed. · 7 appeals had been lodged, and all of them would be decided through written representations.
In response to a question from Councillor Martin Prescott, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that it was likely that the appeal decision related to application 21/00765/OP would not be announced for another 3 to 4 weeks as the normal target for releasing an appeal decision following a Public Inquiry was 6 weeks. |