Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
PDF 141 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 – 01 minutes 08 seconds
There were no apologies for absence received. |
|
|
MINUTES - 3 SEPTEMBER 2026 To take as read and approve as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 3 September 2026. Decision: RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 September 2026 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chair. Minutes: Audio Recording – 01 minutes 17 seconds
Councillor Nigel Mason, as Chair, proposed and Councillor Emma Fernandes seconded and, following a vote, it was:
RESOLVED:That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 3 September 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 notification of other business. Minutes: Audio recording – 02 minutes 01 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 06 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 26 seconds
The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance. |
|
|
24/02889/FP LAND AT ROUNDWOOD, BACK LANE, GRAVELEY, HERTFORDSHIRE REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER
Residential development of 281 dwellings and associated roads, parking, realignment of Back Lane, drainage, landscaping, open space, servicing facilities and associated works (as amended). Additional documents:
Decision: RESOLVED: That application 24/02889/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:
A) The completion of a satisfactory legal agreement, providing delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to resolve any outstanding matters and the Applicant agreeing the extend the statutory period in order to complete the agreement if required;
B) Providing delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to update conditions and informatives with minor amendments as required;
C) Providing delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to decide on the projects for NHS contributions; and
D) The conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager. Minutes: Audio recording – 05 minutes 36 seconds
The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 24/02889/FP and advised that:
· A written update on the application had been published with the supplementary documents, including an update on the decrease of the five-year housing land supply of the Council, which strengthened the recommendation to grant permission. · The NHS had been reconsulted but had not yet provided a response, and it would be worth checking with them whether they wished to amend their back up projects to allow flexibility, given the passage of time on this application. · Due to the above, recommendation C) should be amended to provide delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to decide on projects for NHS contributions rather than outdoor sports contributions.
The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 24/02889/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Ruth Brown · Councillor Dave Winstanley · Councillor Clare Billing · Councillor Martin Prescott · Councillor Emma Fernandes · Councillor Louise Peace · Councillor Nigel Mason
In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:
· Although the affordable housing had been halved since the last application, the mix would be kept the same with 65% being allocated for rent. · Following the independent review of the viability report from Dixon Searle, professionally, it would not have been appropriate to ask the Applicant to increase affordable housing at the expense of financial contributions that would address the impact of the development on infrastructure. · Despite disagreeing with Dixon Searle on the viability position, the Applicant had agreed to increase financial contributions to create a reasonable compromise. · A viability review mechanism would form part of the legal agreement and would mean that the Council could clawback any uplift if the viability of the development improved, and this would be split between affordable housing provision offsite and developer contributions. · Onsite affordable housing could not be increased at a later stage as the contract with the affordable housing provider would be on the commencement of development or earlier. · Any increase or decrease in viability would be measured against the viability report completed in April 2026, but a decrease would not affect financial contributions or affordable housing provision. · There had been no change to the number of dwellings in this application since it had been considered by the Committee last July. The change in economic circumstances had been set out in the report of the Applicant, and they were satisfied that this complied with Policy DM5 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). · Triggers for the bus service and other provisions had not yet been agreed, but they would seek advice from the NHS and Hertfordshire County Council (HCC), who were keen for infrastructure to be put in before it was needed such as sustainable transport. · Strand 2 contributions would go towards cycle and pedestrian links, although this had been reduced on the basis that the monitor and manage mechanism and Public Rights ... view the full minutes text for item 70. |
|
|
REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER
Installation of CCTV pole cameras and installation of valeting air/vac unit following removal of no.7 parking spaces. Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That application 26/01178/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons, with delegated authority granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons for refusal:
A) The proposed CCTV pole cameras and air/vac units would result in an unacceptable adverse intensification and visual impact, appearing out of context and harmful to the locality, failing to comply with the provisions of Policy D1 of the Local Plan and the aims of Policy DP3.1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
B) The residential amenity if North Herts Environmental Health respond with an objection to the application. Minutes: Audio recording – 02 hours 20 minutes 31 seconds
The Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) presented the report in respect of Application 26/01178/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Claire Winchester · Councillor Emma Fernandes
In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that:
· Some works had been undertaken before planning permission had been granted. · Existing CCTV cameras were not for consideration on this application, only the new cameras as outlined in the proposed plans. · The application had been submitted by Morrisons and the CCTV cameras were to protect the air/vac units that would complement the EV chargers.
The Chair invited the first Public Objector, Ms Nicola Fox to speak against the application. Ms Fox thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:
· There was concern over the cumulative impact of the commercial infrastructure that would cause an intensification of the industrial character of the site. · CCTV cameras would violate privacy, and floodlights would light up their garden as per the lighting report. · The new assessment had not considered the cumulative noise impact of all the proposed development across various applications. · A response from the Environmental Health Team had still not been received. · The site had progressively changed over the last 7 years, and this had caused uncertainty and stress, which had affected their mental health.
In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Emma Fernandes, Ms Fox advised that a floodlight had been switched off after the Store Manager had visited their home, as level of their home meant that they saw and heard everything in the adjacent car park.
The Chair thanked Ms Fox for their presentation and invited the second Public Objector, Ms Jackie Sayers, to speak against the application. Ms Sayers thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:
· A similar application had been refused as seen at paragraph 1.7 of the report and living conditions had worsened for immediate neighbours since the EV charging points had been installed. · The cumulative industrial intensification of the area would have a major effect, rather than a minor effect as detailed in the report. · The noise impact assessment had not mentioned all the other noises that would arise from the car park such as car stereos and shouting above noise, and the cumulative effect of all noise should have been accounted for. · Two applications on this site, which had been refused earlier in the year, had not been detailed in the report and this application should be refused for the same reasons. · Paragraph 4.3.21 of the report mentioned that the CCTV cameras would face neighbouring dwellings, and the trees that screened them would soon be bare. · Concerns had been expressed by the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation on the impact to adjacent properties, contrary to the report, which stated that they had made no comments.
|
|
|
REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION
MANAGER Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That application 26/00853/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons, with delegated authority granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons for refusal:
A) The proposed floodlights and poles would have an unacceptable adverse intensification and visual impact appearing out of context and harmful to the locality as well as causing harm to nearby residential amenity, failing to comply with the provisions of Policies D1 and D3 of the Local Plan and Policy DP3.1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
B) The erection of the floodlight poles prior to the grant of planning permission is unacceptable intentional development and is given substantial weight in accordance with the advice contained in Policy DM8.2 of the NPPF. Minutes: Audio recording – 03 hours 02 minutes 41 seconds
The Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 26/00853/FP and advised that an amended plan had been received, which reduced the number of floodlights from 7 to 5, with four by the EV chargers, and one by the zebra crossing.
The Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) then presented the report in respect of Application 26/00853/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Ruth Brown · Councillor Tom Tyson · Councillor Emma Fernandes · Councillor Claire Winchester · Councillor Martin Prescott
In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that:
· The floodlight poles had already been installed, but the floodlights had not. · A condition could be recommended to have a back shield on the floodlights to stop light from spilling onto nearby houses. · Floodlights were needed to light a darker corner of the car park during evenings. · A sign on each EV charger detailed that they could not be used before 7am or after 10pm.
The Chair invited the Public Objector, Ms Jackie Sayers to speak against the application. Ms Sayers thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:
· Paragraph 4.3.3 of the report stated that the Applicant had previously confirmed that lighting would not be required for the EV charging units but had proceeded to erect them unlawfully anyway. · Some of the previous floodlights were switched off almost immediately after installation due to the impact on neighbours, and the proposed floodlights were much stronger. · Back shields would not prevent spill of lighting onto nearby houses. · The Committee should refuse the application citing the harmful impact to the living conditions of residents, contrary to the Local Plan and revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). · Previous flood lighting was completely random in timing.
In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Tom Tyson, Ms Sayers advised that the proposed middle floodlight column would have 3 lights on it and could not imagine that the proposed floodlighting would be any weaker or less intrusive than the previous ones.
The Chair advised that they were approaching the 10.30pm cut as per Section 4.8.24(g) of the Constitution and advised that they would proceed with Agenda Items 9 and 10 and defer Agenda Items 11, 12 and 13 to a future meeting.
The Chair thanked Ms Sayers for their presentation and invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor David Chalmers, to speak against the application. Councillor Chalmers thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:
· The application raised important questions on residential amenity and the integrity of the planning process. · The Committee were being asked to approve floodlights after being assured that they would not be required. · Lighting poles had been installed before planning permission had been obtained, and Planning Enforcement Officers had to intervene to stop further works. · The deciduous tree ... view the full minutes text for item 72. |
|
|
REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION
MANAGER Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That application 26/00262/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:
A) The receipt of no objection from the Environment Agency and the addition of any recommended conditions.
B) The conditions as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager. Minutes: Audio recording – 03 hours 27 minutes 10 seconds
The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on Application 26/00262/FP and advised that the recommendation was to grant permission subject to the receipt of no objection from the Environment Agency as they were being consulted on a revised flood risk assessment submitted by the Applicant.
The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 26/00262/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Louise Peace · Councillor Dave Winstanley
In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:
· It was unknown whether the dwelling would connect to the main sewage system. · The dwelling would be market housing. · Permission would not be granted if the Environment Agency upheld their objection. · The land had been concluded to be Grey Belt using the Grey Belt assessment but was within a wider parcel of the Green Belt.
The Chair informed Members that the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Ian Albert had given their apologies and was unable to attend the Committee meeting to provide a verbal presentation. The Chair proceeded to read out a written statement on their behalf, and highlighted the following:
· There were no clear long-term intentions for the land after multiple applications had been submitted on it. · Ickleford Parish Council had clearly articulated their reasons for objecting. · The Environment Agency had rejected the flood risk assessment, and the revised version had not covered the questions raised by them on the previous version. · The recommendation to grant permission should be revised or given more justification as it would go against the advice from the Environment Agency. · The Inspector for the previous application on this land stated that substantial weight must be given to the harm to the Green Belt as very special circumstances had not been demonstrated, and the conclusion for this application should be the same. · Harm to the Green Belt would also disengage the presumption in favour of development, as per the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The Chair invited the Applicant and their Representatives, Mr Bruce Parker, Ms Frances Barry and Mr Mike Jones to speak in support of the application. They thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:
· Planning permission was sought to build a modest dwelling to live in and to support and protect the land. · The landowner did their utmost to create a landscape that supported biodiversity and ensured public access so that public wellbeing could be maintained. · The dwelling would have exemplary environmental credentials and this should be encouraged in light of the climate crisis. · This land formed a vital part of a wildlife corridor with a chalk river. · The land was well used and appreciated by local people. · A sensitively designed farm dwelling would reinforce the identity of the rural land, help to preserve its character, and provide security to protect it and secure its long-term future.
The following Members asked points of ... view the full minutes text for item 73. |
|
|
26/00021/FP 1 AND 3 PRIORY LANE, LITTLE WYMONDLEY, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG4 7HE REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER
Erection of one pair of semi-detached dwellings and one detached dwelling to include cycle stores, hard and soft landscaping and parking following demolition of the existing commercial buildings. Alterations to existing vehicular access (as amended by plans rec'd 9 March 2026). Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: That application 26/00021/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons, with delegated authority granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons for refusal:
A) The proposed dwellings would result in unacceptable adverse overlooking and loss of privacy to the immediate neighbour to the west failing to comply with the provisions of Policy D3 of the Local Plan and would result in a form of development failing to respond positively to the site’s local context, failing to comply with the provisions of Policy D1 of the Local Plan and Policy DP3.1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
B) The loss of the commercial / business premises is objected to on the basis that they are occupied by business uses and due to the grant of planning permission for 300 homes in the village, it is anticipated that there will be the demand for local business or shop uses in the village in the long term. As a result, the retention of these commercial uses are protected by the provisions of Policy ETC2 of the Local Plan.
C) Loss of local employment opportunities. Minutes: Audio recording – 04 hours 10 minutes 39 seconds
The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 26/00021/FP and advised that:
· A late neighbour representation had been received, which raised matters relating to loss of privacy, subsidence and the unresolved objection from the Environment Agency. · New conditions were recommended to retain and protect the existing trees, and to install a 2.5m high fence along the boundary with no.32 Priory View to retain privacy and mitigate overlooking from the proposed dwellings, which would be implemented by the Development and Conservation Manager under the delegation of authority that would be granted to them if permission was granted.
The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 26/00021/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.
The Chair invited the Public Objector, Wymondley Parish Councillor Paul Harding to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Harding thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and advised that:
· Under Section 38 of the 2004 Planning Act, the Committee was bound to determine the application on the material reality at the time the decision was being made. · There had been a monumental change in circumstances since the application had been submitted as 300 dwellings had been approved on a site nearby, yet the report did not mention this. · The new development doubled the size of Little Wymondley and created customer catchment in an area that desperately needed local services. Therefore, these commercial units were highly important. · Unit 1 was a Class E unit that could transition into a grocery shop or pharmacy, and the physical infrastructure and retail layout was intact for both units. · Granting permission would mean that a flexible community asset would be extinguished forever, which would violate the Neighbourhood Plan and contradict the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). · The Council could not justify approving an application for 300 dwellings, and then removing the units needed to service them and ensure the future sustainability of the village. · The application would comprise overdevelopment, be overbearing, and would erode structural integrity and quiet enjoyment of the adjoining properties.
In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Claire Winchester, Parish Councillor Harding advised that there were no other commercial units in the village.
The Chair informed Members that the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Dominic Griffiths had given their apologies and was unable to attend the Committee meeting to provide a verbal presentation. The Chair proceeded to read out a written statement on their behalf, and highlighted the following:
· The existing neighbouring resident already had one property overlooking their garden and would have their property overlooked by a further two properties if this application was granted permission. · Their right to privacy would be lost and this would also damage their ability to resell the house. · There is no other funeral director within an 800-metre radius as referenced in paragraph 4.3.2 of the report, and their business would be a huge loss ... view the full minutes text for item 74. |
|
|
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC To consider passing the following: That under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting on the grounds that the following report will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended). Decision: The Chair advised that this item would be DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning Control Committee in accordance with Section 4.8.24(g) of the Constitution. Minutes: N.B. This item was deferred to a future meeting and therefore no recording was available.
As previously advised by the Chair under Agenda Item 8, this item would be DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning Control Committee in accordance with Section 4.8.24(g) of the Constitution. |
|
|
PART 2 MINUTES - 3 SEPTEMBER 2026 To take as read and approve as a true record the Part 2 Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 September 2026. Decision: The Chair advised that this item would be DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning Control Committee in accordance with Section 4.8.24(g) of the Constitution. Minutes: N.B. This item was deferred to a future meeting and therefore no recording was available.
As previously advised by the Chair under Agenda Item 8, this item would be DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning Control Committee in accordance with Section 4.8.24(g) of the Constitution.
|
|
|
REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER
To update Members on appeals lodged and any decisions made. Additional documents:
Decision: The Chair advised that this item would be DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning Control Committee in accordance with Section 4.8.24(g) of the Constitution.
Minutes: N.B. This item was deferred to a future meeting and therefore no recording was available.
As previously advised by the Chair under Agenda Item 8, this item would be DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning Control Committee in accordance with Section 4.8.24(g) of the Constitution. |