Agenda item

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).

RESOLVED: That application 24/02889/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the removal of clause (A), the addition of Conditions 50 to 53 and related Informative,  the amendments to Conditions 3 to 5, Condition 16, Condition 18, Condition 23, Condition 25, Condition 35, Condition 36, and the combining of Conditions 27 and 49, as follows:

 

‘Condition 50

 

All development shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted and approved Flood Risk Assessment (dated 6 December 2024), this includes all new residential dwellings to have a finished floor level raised a minimum of 300mm above any flood level and 150mm above the surrounding proposed ground level unless otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the flood risk is adequately addressed and not increased in accordance with NPPF and Policies of North Herts Council.

 

Condition 51

 

Prior to the commencement of development, construction drawings of the surface water drainage network, associated sustainable drainage components and flow control mechanisms and a construction method statement shall be submitted and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall then be constructed as per the agreed drawings, method statement, Flood Risk Assessment (dated 6 December 2024) and Technical Memorandum (dated 23 May 2025) and remaining in perpetuity for the lifetime of the development unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No alteration to the Page 3 Agenda Item 5 agreed drainage scheme shall occur without prior written approval from the Local Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development achieves a high standard of sustainability and to comply with NPPF Policies of North Herts Council.

 

Condition 52

 

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until details of the maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details in perpetuity. The Local Planning Authority shall be granted access to inspect the sustainable drainage scheme for the lifetime of the development. The details of the scheme to be submitted for approval shall include:

 

I.             a timetable for its implementation

II.           II. details of SuDS feature and connecting drainage structures and maintenance requirement for each aspect including a drawing showing where they are located.

III.          a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. This will include the name and contact details of any appointed management company.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development achieves a high standard of sustainability and ensure the flood risk is adequately addressed for each new dwelling and not increased in accordance with NPPF and Policies of North Herts Council.

 

Condition 53

 

Upon completion of the surface water drainage system, including any SuDS features, and prior to the first use of the development; a survey and verification report from an independent surveyor shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The survey and report shall demonstrate that the surface water drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the details approved pursuant to condition 51. Where necessary, details of corrective works to be carried out along with a timetable for their completion, shall be included for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any corrective works required shall be carried out in accordance with the approved timetable and subsequently re-surveyed with the findings submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the flood risk is adequately addressed, not increased and users remain safe for the lifetime of the development in accordance with NPPF and Policies of North Herts Council.

 

Informative

 

“For further advice on what we expect to be contained within the FRA and/ or a Drainage Strategy to support a planning application, please refer to the Validation List and Profroma on our surface water drainage webpage https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/recycling-waste-and-environment/water/surface-water-drainage/surface-water-drainage.aspx this link also includes HCC’s Flood Risk Management policies on SuDS in Hertfordshire. We do expect the Validation List to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and LLFA to show you have provided all information and the Proforma to the LLFA to summarise the details of the proposed development.

 

Both FEH13 and FEH22 are currently accepted to support drainage modelling calculations. For the avoidance of doubt the use of FSR and FEH1999 data has been superseded and therefore, use in rainfall simulations are not accepted.”

 

Condition 3

 

“Highways

 

No development shall commence until full details (in the form of scaled plans and / or written specifications) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to illustrate the following:

 

     i.        Roads, footways.

    ii.        Cycleways.

  iii.        Foul and surface water drainage.

  iv.        Visibility splays

   v.        Access arrangements

  vi.        Parking provision in accordance with parking locations plan DES-716-110 Rev 3

 vii.        Loading areas.

viii.        Turning areas.

 

Reason: To ensure suitable, safe and satisfactory planning and development of the site in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).”

 

Condition 4

 

“Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular and active travel accesses shall be completed and thereafter retained as shown on Transport Assessment drawing numbers (PL101 Rev - , PL102 Rev - & PL103 Rev ) in accordance with details/specifications to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the highway authority. Prior to use appropriate arrangements shall be made for surface water to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.

 

Reason: To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material or surface water from or onto the highway in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).”

 

Condition 5 

 

“Surface Water

 

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, arrangement shall be made for surface water from the proposed development to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge onto the highway carriageway. Reason: To avoid the carriage of extraneous material or surface water from or onto the highway in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).”

 

Reason: To avoid the carriage of extraneous material or surface water from or onto the highway in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).”

 

Condition 16

 

“Ecological Enhancements

 

No development shall take place until an Ecological Enhancement Plan (EEP) for the creation of new wildlife features such as hibernacula, the inclusion of integrated bird/bat and bee bricks, at a rate equivalent to one per unit, in buildings/structures and hedgehog holes in fences, as informed by the December 2024 Ecological Impact Assessment, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved Ecological Enhancement Plan shall be implemented on site.

 

Reason: To conserve and enhance biodiversity in accordance with Policy NE4 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan 2011-2031.”

 

Condition 18

 

“Fencing

 

Notwithstanding the approved plans, details of the proposed fencing along the western boundary (adjacent to the woodland) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented on site and permanently maintained.

 

Reason: In the interests of ecology and visual impact in accordance with Policies D1 and NE4 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan.”

 

Condition 23

 

“Land contamination

 

Prior to any permitted dwelling being occupied a validation report shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate the effectiveness of any agreed Remediation Strategy (agreed under condition 22). Any such validation shall include responses to any unexpected contamination discovered during works.

 

Reason: To protect human health and to ensure that no future investigation is required under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.”

 

Condition 25

 

“Noise

 

The development shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted plans including the noise mitigation scheme as set out in the submitted MEC Ltd noise assessment report dated March 2025 (25521-ENV-0402 Rev B).

 

Reason: In the interests of protecting living conditions of future occupiers in accordance with Policy D3 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan 2011- 2031.”

 

Condition 35

 

“EV charging points plan

 

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved details of siting, number and design of the Electric Vehicle Charging Points shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall thereafter be installed prior to the occupation of each dwelling and permanently retained thereafter. Each of the proposed new dwellings shall have an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging point. Proposals should also be made for the provision of EV charging within other public parking areas of the proposed development.

 

Reason: To avoid obstruction of the footpaths and in the interests of good urban design/visual impact in accordance with Policy D1 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan 2011-2031.”

 

Condition 36

 

“Cycle parking

 

No development shall commence until details of the cycle parking in accordance with DES-716-265-0 (Bins and Cycle Storage Plans and Elevations) and DES-716-110-3 Parking Location Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking provision shown shall accord with the guidance in LTN 1/20 on Cycle Infrastructure Design as a minimum unless local cycle parking standards are greater. The development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, shall not be occupied until the cycle parking has been constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be kept free of obstruction and permanently available for the parking of cycles only.

 

Reason: To ensure the provision of cycle parking that meets the needs of occupiers of and visitors to the proposed development in compliance with the guidance in the Hertfordshire Place & Movement Planning and Design Guide and LTN1/20 on Cycle Infrastructure Design as a minimum, and in the interests of encouraging the use of sustainable modes of transport in accordance with Policies 1, 5 and 8 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018) and in the interests of good urban design/visual impact in accordance with Policy D1 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan 2011-2031.”

 

Condition 27

 

“Landscape Management Plan

 

No development above ground level shall take place until a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management Page 7 responsibilities and maintenance schedules and periods for all soft landscape areas (other than privately owned domestic gardens) together with a timetable for the implementation of the landscape management plan, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape management plan shall cover the management and maintenance of all areas of open space (to include parks, greenways, play areas, informal open space, seminatural green space). Details to be submitted shall include:

 

a)           Management organisation;

b)           Details of landscape management and maintenance plans;

c)           Details of planting, grass cutting, weeding and pruning;

d)           Management of sustainable urban drainage features;

e)           Inspection, repair and maintenance of all hard landscaping and structures;

f)            Management, monitoring and operational restrictions; and

g)           Maintenance and planting replacement programme for the establishment period of landscaping.

 

The landscape management plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. The open spaces provided shall be retained for their intended purpose and in accordance with the approved management plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the longevity of the landscaping scheme and protect the visual amenity and character of the area, in accordance with Policies SP12, NE6 and GA1 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan 2011-2031.’

 

Audio recording – 1 hour 2 minutes 54 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters within the Addendum to the report in respect of Application 24/02889/FP, as well as other updated matters relating to the application and advised that:

 

·             The Lead Local Flood Authority had withdrawn their objection to the application.

·             Wording on the Highways Strand 2 contribution within the S106 table had been corrected and updated.

·             Multiple conditions within the report had been added, amended and combined.

·             Summaries of representations from both nearby residents and Weston Parish Council had been included.

·             A Highways and Transport Addendum had been written in response to recent objections from Great Ashby Community Council, Weston Parish Council and North Herts Councillors representing Great Ashby Ward.

·             A summary of a representation made by a resident detailing an accident outside their home in Graveley had been provided.

·             A further representation from them detailed concerns over road traffic safety from increased traffic on Church Lane/Back Lane and included photos of the accident previously mentioned.

·             Condition 5 in the recommendations section of the report had been amended with the agreement of the Highways Authority which changed the wording from “prior to first use” to “prior to first occupation”.

·             Condition 16 had been amended to include: “The approved Ecological Enhancement Plan shall be implemented on site.”.

·             Condition 18 had been amended to include: “The approved details shall be implemented on site and permanently maintained.”

·             The off-site play space contribution towards Merrick Close Play Area Improvement in the S106 table on page 78 should include: “index linked”.

·             The Applicant wished to either deliver the improvements to Graveley Public Right of Way 010 themselves or offer a contribution and because of this, the Strand 1 section of the S106 table had been amended.

·             The wording of the Right of Way Condition 7 would be amended to include: “Unless the applicant pays the s106 contribution they shall deliver the improvement works.”.

 

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 24/02889/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·             Councillor Dave Winstanley

·             Councillor Clare Billing

·             Councillor Nigel Mason

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Steve Jarvis

·             Councillor Bryony May

·             Councillor Caroline McDonnell

 

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

 

·             For the site to be sustainable, a bus stop needed to be within 400 metres of the site, therefore, a bus route was proposed to pass along Mendip Way.

·             During the construction phase, there would be a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order which would result in yellow lining along Mendip Way.

·             Surveys showed that no mitigations were required to deal with the displacement of vehicles but the monitor and manage system would address this where appropriate.

·             No opportunity was available to modify the details submitted at a later stage in the process, as this was a full application.

·             In terms of design, there had been a detailed workshop process on this and the Urban Design team felt positively about the scheme as it had a simple material palette which was encouraged as more diverse schemes could be mismatched.

·             The new bus route would connect to parts of Stevenage that residents of Great Ashby could not currently access such as the Lister Hospital and secondary schools.

·             Most future mitigations were predicted to be implemented outside of the development site.

·             The purpose of the monitor and manage scheme was to avoid works being carried out when they were not required. Its operation would involve the Applicant monitoring potential problems and the Highways Authority carrying out works where they thought problems needed to be addressed. 

·             Evidence of road accidents in the area would have been submitted with the application to the Highways Authority.

 

In response to questions, the Senior Transport Policy Officer advised that:

 

·             An overnight parking survey had been conducted by the Applicant which established that there would be sufficient parking elsewhere for displaced cars resulting from the bus route implementation. 

·             However, it was unknown how many spaces would be available in parking courts for displaced cars to use, therefore, the monitor and manage system would track parking through the buildout of the development and if additional mitigations were required, more parking spaces would be created.

·             To mitigate increased traffic along Back Lane, they would increase the road capacity by formalising several informal passing places and adding new ones. 

·             Traffic calming measures would be applied if speeding became an issue, however, the proposed speed limit for Back Lane was 20mph where it would run through the development.

·             The road through the development would be wider than Back Lane with more opportunities to pull into side roads, thus agricultural vehicles would cause less congestion than they did currently, but it was recognised that these vehicles were few and it had not been necessary to design the road specifically to accommodate them. 

·             Discretion was with the Highways Authority when determining whether evidence showed that mitigations were required, and a bond of £400,000 would be held to cover the cost of any necessary mitigations.

·             The Applicant would provide the data in accordance with a plan that would be agreed by condition and the baseline for the data would be established through monitoring before construction started.

·             Due to uncertainty over the level of impact that displaced cars and the country lane style road would have, they felt it was better for the monitor and manage approach to address any issues as they arose rather than assuming a worst-case scenario by implementing mitigation measures before first occupation.

·             Any unused funding from the £400,000 after the monitoring period would be returned to the Applicant.

·             The design of the monitor and manage programme would be agreed post resolution, however, it would not be constrained to the site boundaries as there would be an impact on the wider road network.

·             Monitoring of the development would end within a few years of full occupation.

·             £400,000 would be enough to cover the costs of potential mitigations such as the creation of passing places or a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to modify speed limits as these were not major measures and a significant number could be bought.

·             The Applicant had not assumed that the site would generate a higher level of sustainable transport than the rest of Great Ashby.

·             The Council had strongly encouraged the Applicant to make active travel and public transport more attractive and directing the new bus route up to the roundabout on Haybluff Drive would make it accessible to those living on the new development as well as existing Great Ashby residents who did not have a bus service within easy walking distance.

·             Improvements had been made along Orwell Avenue and Calder Way to link the cycle network into Stevenage. 

·             The Transport Assessment detailed that within the most recent 5-year period, no personal injury accidents had occurred along Back Lane where the road bordered the proposed development.

·             Incidents observed around the site had been classed as “slight” and no accidents resulting from equine use on Back Lane had been recorded on CrashMap.

·             The mechanism of monitoring was yet to be agreed, but the encouraged method would be to use cameras to record vehicle types and observe their routes. If this was done in conjunction with GA2, traffic could be disaggregated from the two sites and their impact on the wider road networks could be assessed individually.

 

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

 

·             They were speaking on behalf of Weston and Graveley Parish Councils.

·             Back Lane was used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and they were concerned about its safety as they believed that more accidents had occurred on the road than the figures showed.

·             They were grateful to the developer for amending the plans to account for the comments that were made in the early part of the consultation phase.

·             There should be a barrier to prevent access onto Back Lane from Haybluff Drive which could only be bypassed by emergency vehicles.

·             A Construction Traffic Management Plan was needed and should be open to consultation as the development would be completed in phases which would affect existing flows of traffic between Great Ashby and Weston.

·             Residents were concerned about the monitor and manage scheme as it was certain that more traffic would run through the three main roads in Weston as a result of the site. These roads lacked pavements in stretches and it was essential that mitigations were instated before the first occupancy.

·             Unallocated visitor parking needed altering as 86% of the spaces only served 33% of the dwellings with the remaining 14% serving 67%.

·             The Council should defer a decision on this until the issues described had been investigated and resolved.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Moody for their presentation and invited the second Public Objector, Great Ashby Community Councillor Beryl Brown to speak against the application. Councillor Brown thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             Great Ashby Community Council strongly objected to the application in its current state, particularly on its access and infrastructure.

·             They were concerned about traffic that would flow through Calder Way as this was a residential street with existing problems and there had been accidents and near misses on this stretch of road.

·             Residents of Calder Way had also received abuse and were unable to access their homes if their turn was used as a passing place by oncoming vehicles.

·             No vehicle traffic study had been undertaken on Calder Way and there was no evidence to suggest that this road would be able to handle the extra traffic that would result from this development. 

·             The monitor and manage scheme would not be sufficient as issues already needed resolving before the development had been constructed.

·             On-street parking was already an issue and no plans had been provided to demonstrate where the displaced vehicles would park and if the road width around Great Ashby was adequate for wide construction vehicles.

·             They would be grateful if the plans for construction and monitor and manage were shared with consultees before a decision on the application was made.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Community Councillor Brown for their verbal presentation and invited the third Public Objector, Ms Emma Hogg to speak against the application. Ms Hogg thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             They were a resident of Graveley and lived on Back Lane.

·             Back Lane was a narrow single track which had high banks and no pavements and had at least seven blind bends between Graveley and Chesfield.

·             The road was also unlit and would be unsuited to an increase in traffic flow.

·             At peak times, the road was often congested and could be dangerous.

·             There were signs as traffic entered Church Lane from Back Lane detailing that the road was unsuitable for HGVs and large vehicles. These were largely ignored and created a tremendous inconvenience to road users when they were unable to turn around or reroute.

·             There had been numerous accidents and none of the recent ones had been logged on CrashMap.

·             A tractor and a family vehicle had collided on a blind bend on Back Lane and there had been another head on collision on a straight section of the road.

·             Back Lane was used by walkers, cyclists, Duke of Edinburgh participants, the disabled, and residents and staff of Halcyon Days Care Home homes. Under the current proposals, there were no provisions for these groups.

·             The British Horse Society stated that there had been 7 horse rider incidents in the last 3 years on Back Lane.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Hogg for their verbal presentation and invited the Member Advocate Objectors, Councillor Laura Williams and Councillor Vijaiya Poopalasingham to speak against the application. Councillors Williams and Poopalasingham thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             They were speaking on behalf of Great Ashby residents who would be the group most affected by the application before them.

·             Residents of Great Ashby understood the need for new homes as they had moved into the area only 20 years prior so their concerns were valid.

·             There were no credible answers for where the existing on-street parked cars would be displaced to.

·             Traffic access to the site was a foreseeable crisis waiting to happen and the monitor and manage approach would allow problems from this to surface.

·             There was no infrastructure in terms of health facilities to accompany the homes on the proposed development.

·             Residents felt betrayed by the developer whose proposal would erode their quality of life rather than enrich it.

·             Roads such as Mendip Way and Haybluff Drive had not been built to accommodate future growth.

·             On 21 November 2024, the Applicant informed Great Ashby Community Council that the early monitoring of the existing estate had been incorrect which had led to the existing parking and traffic problems.

·             The existing development only allocated one space for the majority of dwellings and all the spaces within the directly impacted area were allocated.

·             They felt that the monitor and manage approach was a green light for the developers to do nothing. 

·             The land parcelling of GA1 and GA2 was felt to ignore the needs of a thriving community.

·             Residents were tired of Great Ashby being used as an example of bad traffic planning and this proposal would only compound the problem.

·             There were three material grounds for objection to the application, access and transport, lack of supporting infrastructure and community impact.

·             Mendip Way and Calder Way were not fit for the increased traffic that the proposed development would bring with the former already serving six hundred homes and suffering from chronic congestion and lack of parking capacity.

·             No clear traffic or parking management plans had been provided.

·             The monitor and manage approach was damage control rather than planning.

·             At paragraphs 2.5 – 2.7 of the Technical Note, the Applicant admitted that a TRO would be needed to clear vehicles and displace them to nearby roads without evidencing their capacity.

·             Parking capacity at paragraph 2.1 of the Technical Note was measured using Great Ashby Way rather than streets near Mendip Way.

·             The Highways Authority had refused to meet them to discuss the issues raised. 

·             Calder Way was a single track, four-metre-wide road at best, acknowledged by the Applicant to be constrained and congested but still suggested as sufficient.

·             The data to support this was outdated as it had been gathered in 2022 during the quiet period after the COVID pandemic and ignored the cumulative impact of GA1 and GA2 combined contrary to paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·             The described modal shift from driving to other forms of transport in response to this development was aspirational rather than data supported as Great Ashby was a commuter community where vehicles were relied upon to access basic amenities.

·             The NHS Integrated Care Board (ICB) for the area had made clear that both north and south primary care networks were at capacity, therefore on-site provision would be needed but currently, a new healthcare facility was proposed for Graveley, not Great Ashby.

·             They felt that the proposal played on legal technicalities to avoid addressing cumulative impacts that would be felt by this development and GA2.

·             Concerns raised were based on 20 years of enduring poor planning decisions that would be made worse by this development.

·             Weston Parish Council, Graveley Parish Council, Great Ashby Community Council, nearly all 250 resident responses and the two district councillors representing Great Ashby were united in objection on the same material points.

·             To avoid another generation of Great Ashby residents having to suffer because of poor planning, the application should be rejected.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Councillors Williams and Poopalasingham for their verbal presentations and invited the Applicant Representatives, Mr Paul Derry, Mr Richard Kelly and Mr Julian Clarke 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:

 

·             The Applicant, Croudace Homes Ltd. was a family-owned house builder with its regional office located in Letchworth.

·             112 of the 281 proposed dwellings were classed as affordable, equating to 40%.

·             While the site had capacity was for 330 homes, recent works on ecology and biodiversity showed that larger buffers to the adjoining woodland were needed and so the agreed number of 281 would meet the housing need of the district while supporting on-site open space.

·             The previous application on the site had been withdrawn due to concerns over its layout, relation to the woodland and possible rat running on the nearby lanes.

·             Since its withdrawal, extensive engagement had taken place with District and County Council officers as well as key stakeholders which had culminated in this application that had received support from all statutory consultees.

·             The public objections were acknowledged, and their report showed how the application was acceptable despite those.

·             The site was allocated for residential development in the adopted Local Plan as site GA1.

·             The application was submitted in full and contained full details of each house type, internal road details and landscaped plans that were supported by technical reports. 

·             Highway access had been discussed thoroughly with officers from both District and County Councils.

·             To overcome the risk of rat running identified on the previous application, the site layout had been split into two areas with approximately two thirds accessing the site from Haybluff Drive to the east and the remainder from Back Lane.

·             There was no vehicle linkage between these areas except for emergency vehicle access.

·             The access had been modelled to respect the existing road network and sought to reduce rat running through neighbouring villages.

·             Sustainable links through the site were provided to reduce reliance on car use and provide safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists to the south-east corner of the site where provision would be made for a new bus service, as well as car sharing and cycle hire schemes. 

·             The Highways Authority were content with the Transport Assessment within the application after imposing mitigations and planning conditions relating to the monitor and manage scheme, construction traffic and parking.  

·             The proposal met credentials within the Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document and achieved Silver for its passive design, promotion of fabric performance and biodiversity.

·             At a minimum, 25% of the dwellings would be fitted with solar panels which was a further benefit beyond the already submitted sustainability reports. 

·             The site would deliver a 17.8% increase in habitat units and 14.3% increase in hedge row units ensuring the 10% statutory biodiversity net gain would be achieved on-site.

·             Provision of a play-on-the-way feature and direct linkage to the Hertfordshire Way would be ensured by the development. 

·             S106 contributions would support off-site infrastructure in education and healthcare.

·             They hoped that the Committee would be happy with the recommendation to grant permission after working with all parties to progress the application to its current state.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Steve Jarvis

 

In response to points of clarification, the Applicant Representatives advised that:

 

·             It was found that 25% of dwellings would maximise the benefit of solar panels, and this would act as a floor for the percentage of dwellings that would be fitted with them, with the potential for more to be added to this percentage under the technical approvals in the building regulations, but this was not guaranteed.

·             Traffic modelling had been focused on highway junctions rather than linear lengths of road.

·             The primary access to the site would be from Haybluff Drive which would serve two thirds of the traffic but it was accepted that there would be low volumes of traffic rerouting from Haybluff Drive via Back Lane.

·             A comparison of traffic volume along Calder Way during and after a closure of North Road in Stevenage showed that more traffic was attracted to Calder Way during the closure and reduced significantly after North Road was reopened. However, the traffic volume along Calder Way once the development was built would only be a fraction of that which used the road during the closure.

·             The Highways Authority sought no more representative analysis of the modelling that was submitted with the application.

·             Using their traffic analysis and census information, they estimated that one vehicle would access Calder Way from Back Lane every two minutes in the morning peak hour compared to one vehicle per minute during the closure of North Road, therefore the Highways Authority were content that more sophisticated analysis was not needed.

·             The Applicant was agreeable to undertake mitigations before first occupancy as preferred by members of the public, however, the Highways Authority advised that it would go against Local Transport Note 1/20 and their Transport Plan and therefore objected to this. Consequently, after further discussion with officers, monitor and manage had been identified as an appropriate system as Highways did not perceive the development to cause any issues, but this would address any that arose in the future.

·             Detailed schemes for using the funding were not specified, therefore, the Highways Authority had flexibility to claim funding from the monitor and manage scheme for a variety of issues.

·             They had tried their utmost to structure the monitor and manage approach to satisfy all parties.

 

In response to verbal presentations, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·             The Highways Authority anticipated that the development would not cause significant harm in terms of congestion or shortage of parking thus they had submitted no conditions on these and consequently, the monitor and manage approach had been opted for instead.

·             It would be unreasonable to ask the Applicant to create a Construction Traffic Management Plan before permission on the application was granted and this should be created at an optimal point.

·             Emergency access had been covered in the Addendum to the report.

·             The number of visitor spaces was slightly below the amount needed but this would be offset by some dwellings having more spaces allocated to them than required. 

·             The Applicant was only required to mitigate the impacts of their development, not preexisting issues.

·             The NHS ICB had looked strategically in the wider Stevenage area and recommended that S106 contributions should be made to a medical facility on the NS1 site. There was the hope that this facility would take pressure away from existing facilities in the area.

 

In response to verbal presentations, the Senior Transport Policy Officer advised that:

 

·             The speed limit on Back Lane and Calder Way was currently 30mph and a consultation had already been taken with the public to reduce speed limits to 20mph in the Stevenage and Great Ashby area, however, this did not receive sufficient support to proceed. 

·             However, the Highways Authority could propose to reduce the speed limit on Back Lane or Calder Way if they felt that it was needed and this would go through the usual consultation process.

·             While the Applicant had modelled the cumulative impact of GA1 and GA2 on the wider road network and the Highways Authority did not feel the need to add any mitigations on this, it would be the responsibility of the GA2 developer to carry out any mitigations resulting from the joint impact of the sites.

·             The Highways Authority had not objected to the proposal, therefore, it would not defend the refusal of the application if it was appealed by the Applicant.

 

In response to verbal presentations, the Team Leader Major Sites advised that:

 

·             The Highways Authority had indicated that no mitigation measures were required at this stage and had not raised an objection to the application. 

·             If the Council made a decision on the application contrary to the recommendations of the Highways Authority, they could refuse to sign off any alternative uses for the S106 contributions as they were an S106 signatory.

·             There was an extension on the statutory consultation period of this application until 31 July 2025 and deferral could risk an appeal from the Applicant on the grounds of non-determination. 

 

The following Members asked additional questions:

 

·             Councillor Steve Jarvis

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

 

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

 

·             Construction management plans were available on the Planning Portal if members of the public wanted to comment on them, however, it was not normal for them to carry out consultations on them as applications required the Council to make a decision on them within eight weeks. Instead, they relied on the Highways Authority to carry out consultation on this.

·             The Environmental Health team would be consulted on the noise generation aspect of the Construction Traffic Management Plan.

·             One advantage to the monitor and manage approach was that Hertfordshire County Council could consult on the mitigation measures before they were implemented through their formal consultation process which would take into account the differing views of stakeholders.

 

In response to additional questions, the Team Leader Major Sites advised that:

 

·             The monitor and manage approach was a condition that had been recommended by the Highways Authority, therefore, reaching out to members of the public for comments on this could potentially cause frustration if the Highways Authority chose to uphold their recommendation.

·             Members of the public were welcome to register on the Planning Portal to comment on applications through the consultation process and receive notifications on existing applications and new applications.

 

In response to additional questions, the Senior Transport Policy Officer advised that:

 

·             The County Council were not keen to implement mitigations prematurely as it could exacerbate problems such as rat running.

·             The monitor and manage approach would optimise the timing of mitigations by meeting needs where they arose rather than creating additional capacity for use by the wrong parties.

·             There were different types of mitigations and putting footways in Weston would not mitigate the impacts of this development but Strand 2 Highways Contributions from this site could potentially be spent on improving these.

·             The monitor and manage scheme did not have full details as the mitigations had not yet been implemented and it would require flexibility in its modelling. 

 

Councillor Ian Mantle proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Mick Debenham.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·             Councillor Steve Jarvis

·             Councillor Dave Winstanley

·             Councillor Clare Billing

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Nigel Mason

·             Councillor Ian Mantle

 

The following points were raised as part of the debate:

 

·             Aside from the access issues, the development was deemed as good.

·             The monitor and manage approach would not deliver a satisfactory result for Great Ashby and Graveley residents, therefore, a better system should be devised before granting permission. 

·             The monitor and manage system was a concern as there were lots of preexisting problems in Great Ashby and the development would only compound these.

·             The Highways Authority did not see any issues to object to the application, but just in case issues did arise, they would be addressed with the monitor and manage approach.

·             The development was acceptable and it was noted by the public objectors that the developer had worked hard to provide solutions to several issues that had been identified. However, there was concern over the access to the development and more detail would be needed on the monitor and manage approach before permission was granted as it would not adequately address the access issues.

·             Due to the Council being unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply in the district, the adverse impacts would have to significantly outweigh the benefits for the Committee to defer or refuse it.

·             Despite the statutory deadline of 31 July, they could defer a decision on the application and receive information regarding the monitor and manage scheme long before any appeal for non-determination was heard. 

·             The Committee were speculating on what they did not know would happen.

·             A consultation that did not account for the views of those that took part in it was not a consultation.

 

In response to points in the debate, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that

deferral was only appropriate when it served a clear purpose and would need planning reasoning to support the decision.

 

Councillor Martin Prescott felt that the Committee was not clear on the monitor and manage programme as it had not been designed yet.

 

The Chair clarified that they were debating on a motion to grant permission rather than defer the application.

 

In response to points raised in the debate, the Team Leader Major Sites advised that the monitor and manage scheme was described in further detail in a Technical Note to the application, therefore, the Committee would need to expand on what the scheme would need if the application was deferred or rejected.

 

In response to points raised in the debate, the Senior Transport Policy Officer advised that:

 

·             The Technical Note was a 20-page document was uploaded to the Planning Portal in May 2025.

·             It detailed framework for how the monitor and manage scheme would work and the potential mitigations that could be used as well as the mechanisms proposed by the Applicant.

·             The programme had not yet been agreed, however, there was a planning condition in the application that once discharged, would become a formal agreement that the Highways Authority would support.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 24/02889/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the removal of clause (A), the addition of Conditions 50 to 53 and related Informative,  the amendments to Conditions 3 to 5, Condition 16, Condition 18, Condition 23, Condition 25, Condition 35, Condition 36, and the combining of Conditions 27 and 49, as follows:

 

‘Condition 50

 

All development shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted and approved Flood Risk Assessment (dated 6 December 2024), this includes all new residential dwellings to have a finished floor level raised a minimum of 300mm above any flood level and 150mm above the surrounding proposed ground level unless otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the flood risk is adequately addressed and not increased in accordance with NPPF and Policies of North Herts Council.

 

Condition 51

 

Prior to the commencement of development, construction drawings of the surface water drainage network, associated sustainable drainage components and flow control mechanisms and a construction method statement shall be submitted and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall then be constructed as per the agreed drawings, method statement, Flood Risk Assessment (dated 6 December 2024) and Technical Memorandum (dated 23 May 2025) and remaining in perpetuity for the lifetime of the development unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No alteration to the Page 3 Agenda Item 5 agreed drainage scheme shall occur without prior written approval from the Local Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development achieves a high standard of sustainability and to comply with NPPF Policies of North Herts Council.

 

Condition 52

 

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until details of the maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details in perpetuity. The Local Planning Authority shall be granted access to inspect the sustainable drainage scheme for the lifetime of the development. The details of the scheme to be submitted for approval shall include: I. a timetable for its implementation II. details of SuDS feature and connecting drainage structures and maintenance requirement for each aspect including a drawing showing where they are located. III. a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. This will include the name and contact details of any appointed management company.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development achieves a high standard of sustainability and ensure the flood risk is adequately addressed for each new dwelling and not increased in accordance with NPPF and Policies of North Herts Council.

 

Condition 53

 

Upon completion of the surface water drainage system, including any SuDS features, and prior to the first use of the development; a survey and verification report from an independent surveyor shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The survey and report shall demonstrate that the surface water drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the details approved pursuant to condition 51. Where necessary, details of corrective works to be carried out along with a timetable for their completion, shall be included for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any corrective works required shall be carried out in accordance with the approved timetable and subsequently re-surveyed with the findings submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the flood risk is adequately addressed, not increased and users remain safe for the lifetime of the development in accordance with NPPF and Policies of North Herts Council.

 

Informative

 

“For further advice on what we expect to be contained within the FRA and/ or a Drainage Strategy to support a planning application, please refer to the Validation List and Profroma on our surface water drainage webpage https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/recycling-waste-and-environment/water/surface-water-drainage/surface-water-drainage.aspx this link also includes HCC’s Flood Risk Management policies on SuDS in Hertfordshire. We do expect the Validation List to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and LLFA to show you have provided all information and the Proforma to the LLFA to summarise the details of the proposed development.

 

Both FEH13 and FEH22 are currently accepted to support drainage modelling calculations. For the avoidance of doubt the use of FSR and FEH1999 data has been superseded and therefore, use in rainfall simulations are not accepted.”

 

Condition 3

 

“Highways

 

No development shall commence until full details (in the form of scaled plans and / or written specifications) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to illustrate the following:

 

     i.        Roads, footways.

    ii.        Cycleways.

  iii.        Foul and surface water drainage.

  iv.        Visibility splays

   v.        Access arrangements

  vi.        Parking provision in accordance with parking locations plan DES-716-110 Rev 3

 vii.        Loading areas.

viii.        Turning areas.

 

Reason: To ensure suitable, safe and satisfactory planning and development of the site in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018). Page 5 Specified that parking provision shall be in accordance with the parking locations plan, which is in accordance with the Local Plan standards.”

 

Condition 4

 

“Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular and active travel accesses shall be completed and thereafter retained as shown on Transport Assessment drawing numbers (PL101 Rev - , PL102 Rev - & PL103 Rev ) in accordance with details/specifications to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the highway authority. Prior to use appropriate arrangements shall be made for surface water to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.

 

Reason: To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material or surface water from or onto the highway in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).”

 

Condition 5 

 

“Surface Water

 

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, arrangement shall be made for surface water from the proposed development to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge onto the highway carriageway. Reason: To avoid the carriage of extraneous material or surface water from or onto the highway in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).

 

Reason: To avoid the carriage of extraneous material or surface water from or onto the highway in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).”

 

Condition 16

 

“Ecological Enhancements

 

No development shall take place until an Ecological Enhancement Plan (EEP) for the creation of new wildlife features such as hibernacula, the inclusion of integrated bird/bat and bee bricks, at a rate equivalent to one per unit, in buildings/structures and hedgehog holes in fences, as informed by the December 2024 Ecological Impact Assessment, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved Ecological Enhancement Plan shall be implemented on site.

 

Reason: To conserve and enhance biodiversity in accordance with Policy NE4 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan 2011-2031.”

 

Condition 18

 

“Fencing

 

Fencing Notwithstanding the approved plans, details of the proposed fencing along the western boundary (adjacent to the woodland) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented on site and permanently maintained.

 

Reason: In the interests of ecology and visual impact in accordance with Policies D1 and NE4 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan.”

 

Condition 23

 

“Land contamination

 

Prior to any permitted dwelling being occupied a validation report shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate the effectiveness of any agreed Remediation Strategy (agreed under condition 22). Any such validation shall include responses to any unexpected contamination discovered during works.

 

Reason: To protect human health and to ensure that no future investigation is required under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.”

 

Condition 25

 

“Noise

 

The development shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted plans including the noise mitigation scheme as set out in the submitted MEC Ltd noise assessment report dated March 2025 (25521-ENV-0402 Rev B).

 

Reason: In the interests of protecting living conditions of future occupiers in accordance with Policy D3 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan 2011- 2031.”

 

Condition 35

 

“EV charging points plan

 

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved details of siting, number and design of the Electric Vehicle Charging Points shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall thereafter be installed prior to the occupation of each dwelling and permanently retained thereafter. Each of the proposed new dwellings shall have an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging point. Proposals should also be made for the provision of EV charging within other public parking areas of the proposed development.

 

Reason: To avoid obstruction of the footpaths and in the interests of good urban design/visual impact in accordance with Policy D1 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan 2011-2031.”

 

Condition 36

 

“Cycle parking

 

No development shall commence until details of the cycle parking in accordance with DES-716-265-0 (Bins and Cycle Storage Plans and Elevations) and DES-716-110-3 Parking Location Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking provision shown shall accord with the guidance in LTN 1/20 on Cycle Infrastructure Design as a minimum unless local cycle parking standards are greater. The development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, shall not be occupied until the cycle parking has been constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be kept free of obstruction and permanently available for the parking of cycles only.

 

Reason: To ensure the provision of cycle parking that meets the needs of occupiers of and visitors to the proposed development in compliance with the guidance in the Hertfordshire Place & Movement Planning and Design Guide and LTN1/20 on Cycle Infrastructure Design as a minimum, and in the interests of encouraging the use of sustainable modes of transport in accordance with Policies 1, 5 and 8 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018) and in the interests of good urban design/visual impact in accordance with Policy D1 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan 2011-2031.”

 

Condition 27

 

“Landscape Management Plan

 

No development above ground level shall take place until a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management Page 7 responsibilities and maintenance schedules and periods for all soft landscape areas (other than privately owned domestic gardens) together with a timetable for the implementation of the landscape management plan, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape management plan shall cover the management and maintenance of all areas of open space (to include parks, greenways, play areas, informal open space, seminatural green space). Details to be submitted shall include:

 

a)           Management organisation;

b)           Details of landscape management and maintenance plans;

c)           Details of planting, grass cutting, weeding and pruning;

d)           Management of sustainable urban drainage features;

e)           Inspection, repair and maintenance of all hard landscaping and structures;

f)            Management, monitoring and operational restrictions; and

g)           Maintenance and planting replacement programme for the establishment period of landscaping.

 

The landscape management plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. The open spaces provided shall be retained for their intended purpose and in accordance with the approved management plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the longevity of the landscaping scheme and protect the visual amenity and character of the area, in accordance with Policies SP12, NE6 and GA1 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan 2011-2031.’

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings at 21.58 and the meeting reconvened at 22.08.