Agenda item

To consider any motions, due notice of which have been given in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12.

There were three motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12.

 

(A)  ‘Grey Belt’ Land and Planning Applications in North Herts

 

RESOLVED: That the Executive Member for Place:

 

(1)   Writes to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to express concern about the rise of speculative development in the countryside in North Herts.

 

(2)   Responds to the consultation on proposed changes to the NPPF by 10 March 2026, including the following points:

 

•        Green belt assessment should include villages.

•        Ensure grey belt developments occur only on previously developed land.

•        Ensure high-quality farmland and important wildlife habitats are protected from development.

•        Set ambitious and legally binding targets for genuinely affordable and socially rented homes in all new developments, with developers held to account if they are not delivered.

 

(B)  HertsLynx Expansion

 

RESOLVED: That Council:

 

(1)   Instruct the Leader of the Council to write to the Executive Member for Environment, Transport and Growth at Hertfordshire County Council, urging them, once funding is available, to expand the HertsLynx service to the communities within the Southern Rural area who don’t currently enjoy the benefits of this innovative service, as well as to welcome the planned enhancements to the service currently experienced by those living elsewhere in North Herts.

 

(2)   Instruct Officers to work with Hertfordshire County Council in order to identify the best way North Hertfordshire District Council can encourage and support any proposals for the expansion and service enhancement of the HertsLynx, including investigating any potential financial support from S106 contributions that this Council could offer in order to deliver these ambitions.

 

(C)  Action on Fly-tipping

 

RESOLVED: That Council:

 

(1)   Use its powers given under the Environmental Protection Act (1990) to issue Fixes Penalty Notices for minor fly tipping offences. In line with the 2023 amendment increasing the maximum fine to £1000, higher penalties will be applied where appropriate.

 

(2)   Instruct Officers to work on a public information campaign to increase awareness of the SCRAP code, as well as the steps members of public should take to report fly-tipping to the Council.

 

(3)   Continue to work with the police to tackle the crime of fly-tipping by unauthorised commercial operators and pursue the objective of prosecuting all serious offenders.

Audio recording – 56 minutes 35 seconds

 

There were three motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12.

 

N.B. Councillors Claire Strong, Martin Prescott and Daniel Allen declared an interest in this item due to their position as Members and substitutes of the Planning Control Committee and left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

 

N.B. Councillor Emma Rowe declared an interest in this item due to her employment and left the Chamber for the duration of the item.

 

N.B. Councillors Nigel Mason and Emma Fernandes declared an interest in this item due to their positions as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Control Committee and advised they would not take part in the debate or vote on the motion but would remain in the Chamber.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Val Bryant, the Monitoring Officer explained that the motion related to planning policy at a high level, and it did not prevent Members of the Planning Control Committee from taking part, however, they should be careful when expressing views and have an open mind when considering applications at Committee.

 

(A)  ‘Grey Belt’ Land and Planning Applications in North Herts

 

Councillor Louise Peace proposed the motions as follows:

 

‘Changes to the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) in December 2024 introduced a new concept in planning: grey belt. “For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the green belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143.”

 

Villages in North Herts now find that surrounding ‘green belt’ land can be considered as ‘grey belt’ as (a), (b) and (d) in paragraph 143 of the 2024 NPPF made no reference to villages – only that neighbouring towns should not merge into one another and it should ‘…preserve the setting and special character of historic towns’. Proposed revisions to the NPPF, currently at consultation stage, go further than this with (a) and (b) clearly stating that villages should not be included in these considerations. Provided that certain ‘golden rules’ are followed such as the provision of 50% 'affordable' housing, applications can now be made on green belt land that would previously have been untenable.

 

The result of this in Ickleford, in my ward of Cadwell, is that some 350 homes are currently under consideration or at pre-application stage on undeveloped edge of village green field sites with another approximately 50 homes on the border of neighbouring Bearton ward. North Hertfordshire needs new homes, but it needs to be able to build these homes where there is infrastructure available to support residents. Residents deserve readily available NHS services, good public transport options including safe walking and cycling access to employment and homes where the sewerage network isn't already at capacity. Large developments on edge of village locations result in communities reliant on cars, using roads that are already at a standstill at peak periods.

 

In December 2025, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) reported that of 1,250 homes submitted as part of applications on 'grey belt' land, 88% will be built on previously undeveloped countryside. When the policy was introduced, the government gave ‘disused petrol stations’ and ‘abandoned car parks’ as examples of sites in the green belt that could be considered ‘grey belt’ and released for development. Instead, the NPPF is allowing development on unspoilt rural landscapes. The requirement for local authorities to demonstrate a five-year land supply (also introduced in the 2024 NPPF) further reduces the protection for green field habitat as the 'tilted balance' in favour of development significantly raises the bar to demonstrate harms.

 

The Institute for Public Policy Research published research in 2025 that showed up to 1.4 million homes have been granted planning permission, but left unbuilt by developers since 20072, and commented "This is not about pitting NIMBYs against YIMBYs, it is about ensuring the government achieves its ambitious targets whilst also maintaining local support and high quality." That is also the purpose of this motion.

 

Therefore, Council resolves:

 

That the Executive Member for Place:

 

(1)   Writes to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to express concern about the rise of speculative development in the countryside in North Herts.

 

(2)   Responds to the consultation on proposed changes to the NPPF by 10 March 2026, including the following points:

 

•       Green belt assessment should include villages.

•       Ensure grey belt developments occur only on previously developed land

•       Ensure high-quality farmland and important wildlife habitats are protected from development.

•       Set ambitious and legally binding targets for genuinely affordable and socially rented homes in all new developments, with developers held to account if they are not delivered.

 

Councillor Ruth Brown seconded the motion.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

•       Councillor Caroline McDonnell

•       Councillor Donna Wright

•       Councillor David Barnard

•       Councillor Ruth Brown

•       Councillor Joe Graziano

•       Councillor Daniel Wright Mason

•       Councillor Steve Jarvis

•       Councillor Ralph Muncer

•       Councillor Paul Ward

•       Councillor Sam Collins

 

Points raised during the debate included:

 

·       This motion highlighted the risk to the green belt as villages were being overdeveloped.

·       The Council needed to find more brown sites for housing development.

·       The introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had created challenges to planning.

·       Ickleford was a small community which was suffering from over development.

·       The Council needed to remain cautious with directing housing growth.

·       If the Council did not build on grey belt, it would not meet housing requirements.

·       The Council should apply to the government for extra funding for housing.

·       Local villages were being overdeveloped leading to urban sprawl.

·       The right infrastructure needed to be in place before any housing development could happen.

·       The Council did need to provide affordable housing for young people within the district, but this must be in the right places.

·       Further clarity was need on the definition of the grey belt.

·       Residents have accepted that the major sites in the Local Plan would be built.

·       The Council did not have enough land supply to limit grey belt development.

·       Villages were in risk of becoming towns and needed to keep their rural character.

·       There was a lack of concern for the countryside and local wildlife habitats. 

 

Councillor Louise Peace replied to the debate and made the following points:

 

·       She was very pleased that Members supported this motion.

·       Members were all in agreement that the Council needed to control housing development levels in the district.

·       The green belt had been put in place to prevent urban sprawl.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, the motion was CARRIED.

 

N.B. Councillor Cathy Brownjohn left the Chamber at 20:26 and returned at 20:28.

N.B. Councillor Mick Debenham left the Chamber at 20:33 and returned at 20:36.

 

N.B. Following this motion there was a break in proceedings and the meeting commenced again at 21:15, at which point Councillors Daniel Allen, Claire Strong and Emma Rowe returned to the Chamber.

 

N.B. During the break Councillors Rhona Cameron and Martin Prescott left the meeting and did not return.

 

(B)  HertsLynx Expansion

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer proposed the motion as follows, having accepted the proposed amendments by Councillors Jon Clayden and Tim Johnson published as a supplementary document:

 

‘The HertsLynx was first launched in North and East Herts in September 2021 by the previous Conservative Administration at Hertfordshire County Council in conjunction with North Herts Council, offering residents the opportunity to access more flexible and reliable journeys by bus, as well as enhancing connections and making it easier for people who live in rural communities to access employment, education and healthcare located within key hub towns including Hitchin, Letchworth and Stevenage.

 

However, despite the service going from strength to strength in recent years with over 5,000 passenger journeys being taken every month and the service having been expanded to Dacorum in December 2023, the rural communities within the Southern Rural area have not yet been able to experience the benefits of this service due to the operating zone not having been expanded to cover them.

 

It notes that the Liberal Democrat led Hertfordshire County Council has recently successfully obtained funding from the Labour government to support work towards introducing franchised bus services in North Herts, East Herts and Stevenage which could in future result in funding to expand the HertsLynx service to the remainder of the district.’

 

Therefore, Council resolves:

 

(1)   To instruct the Leader of the Council to write to the Executive Member for Environment, Transport and Growth at Hertfordshire County Council, urging them, once funding is available, to expand the HertsLynx service to the communities within the Southern Rural area who don’t currently enjoy the benefits of this innovative service, as well as to welcome the planned enhancements to the service currently experienced by those living elsewhere in North Herts.

 

(2)   To instruct Officers to work with Hertfordshire County Council in order to identify the best way North Hertfordshire District Council can encourage and support any proposals for the expansion and service enhancement of the HertsLynx, including investigating any potential financial support from S106 contributions that this Council could offer in order to deliver these ambitions.

 

Councillor Joe Graziano seconded the amended motion.

 

Published as a supplementary document to the agenda was a further amendment proposed by Councillor Vijaiya Poopalasingham, which was withdrawn on the basis that the amendments proposed by the Liberal Democrat group had been incorporated into the motion.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·       Councillor Vijaiya Poopalasingham

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Sam Collins

·       Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·       Councillor Ian Albert

·       Councillor Matt Barnes

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

 

Points raised during the debate included:

 

·       Hertfordshire County Council was looking to expand bus services to rural areas.

·       The original concept for HertsLynx originated from North Herts Council.

·       The Council should seek to provide a reliable regular bus service across the whole district to connect communities.

·       Although there had been some improvements made to the bus services to villages, there was much more to be achieved.

·       The bus service in Royston was very popular and was used in many of the surrounding villages.

·       Hertfordshire County Council should seek to improve bus services in North Herts using some of the funds it received from government.

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer replied to the debate and made the following points:

 

·       He was very pleased to receive support from Members for this motion.

·       Although there were some Hertfordshire County Councillors in the Chamber, it should be made clear that this request was being made from North Herts District Council.

 

Having been proposed as amended, and seconded and, following a vote, the substantive motion was CARRIED.

 

(C)  Action on Fly-tipping

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer proposed the motion as follows:

 

‘Fly-tipping is a blight on our towns and villages which causes damage and pollution to the local environment, endangers public health and results in the perception of an area shifting from one that is looked after and protected to one of neglect and decline.

 

It’s a crime which incurs significant cost to the taxpayer, with the Hertfordshire Waste Partnership estimating Councils across the county are required to over £1 million every year to clean-up and investigate illegally dumped waste.

 

Rural communities are also disproportionally impacted by this crime with farmers, who already face increased hardship, often being required to pay thousands of pounds to remove fly-tipped waste from their land, and recently the National Farmers Union estimated the cost of rural crime in Hertfordshire, including fly-tipping, increased to £1.23 million.’

 

Therefore, Council resolves:

 

(1)   To use the powers given to local authorities by the previous Conservative Government to increase fixed penalty notices issued by North Hertfordshire District Council for fly-tipping to £1000 as opposed to the current £400 fine.

 

(2)   To instruct Officers to work on a public information campaign to increase awareness of the SCRAP code, as well as the steps members of public should take to report fly-tipping to the Council.

 

(3)   To adopt a policy to name offenders who are convicted of fly-tipping in Council Press Releases.’

 

Councillor Michael Muir seconded the motion.

 

The Chair advised that there had been two amendments to the motion published in supplementary documents. One proposed by Councillor Mick Debenham and seconded by Councillor Vijaya Poopalasingham and one proposed by Councillor Tom Tyson and seconded by Councillor Caroline McDonnell.

 

Councillor Mick Debenham advised that he would be happy to accept the amendments proposed by the Liberal Democrat Group, within the amended motion he proposed.

 

Therefore, Councillor Mick Debenham proposed the amendment as follows:

 

‘Fly-tipping is a blight on our towns and villages which causes damage and pollution to the local environment, endangers public health and results in the perception of an area shifting from one that is looked after and protected to one of neglect and decline.

 

It’s a crime which incurs significant cost to the taxpayer, with the Hertfordshire Waste Partnership estimating Councils across the county are required to over £1 million every year to clean-up and investigate illegally dumped waste.

 

Rural communities are also disproportionally impacted by this crime with farmers, who already face increased hardship, often being required to pay thousands of pounds to remove fly-tipped waste from their land, and recently the National Farmers Union estimated the cost of rural crime in Hertfordshire, including fly-tipping, increased to £1.23 million.

 

Therefore, Council resolves:

 

(1)   To use its powers given under the Environmental Protection Act (1990) to issue Fixes Penalty Notices for minor fly tipping offences. In line with the 2023 amendment increasing the maximum fine to £1000, higher penalties will be applied where appropriate.

 

(2)   To instruct Officers to work on a public information campaign to increase awareness of the SCRAP code, as well as the steps members of public should take to report fly-tipping to the Council.

 

(3)   To continue to work with the police to tackle the crime of fly-tipping by unauthorised commercial operators and pursue the objective of prosecuting all serious offenders.’

 

Councillor Vijaya Poopalasingham seconded the amendment to the motion.

 

The following Members took part in the debate on the amendment:

 

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Ralph Muncer

·       Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·       Councillor David Barnard

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Sam Collins

·       Councillor Joe Graziano

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

 

Points raised during the debate included:

 

·       The Council did currently name fly-tipping offenders on the website and in some of the press releases.

·       The fine for should be raised to the maximum £1k to stop fly-tipping offenders.

·       Sometimes people could be unaware that the rubbish they had paid to be disposed of could end up being fly tipped.

·       Increasing fines to £1k would not stop fly-tipping and more work needed to be done with partners to put an end to fly tipping.

·       Environmental Enforcement Officers were currently overworked with so many cases of fly-tipping.

·       People should ask to see a refuge disposal licence and obtain a receipt when they paid someone to dispose of their rubbish, otherwise they could face being prosecuted.

·       Details of the SCRAP code could be found on the Council website.

·       Farmers were victims of fly-tipping and the National Farmers Union were having to clear up fly tipping out of their own expenses.

·       The current fine of £400 for fly-tipping was less than the price of hiring a skip.

·       In addition to promoting the SCRAP code, the Council should be promoting the bulky waste collection service.

 

In response to points raised in the debate on the amendment, Councillor Ralph Muncer thanked Members for their support for this motion. 

 

Having been proposed and seconded, and following a vote, the amendment was CARRIED.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, the substantive motion, as amended, was CARRIED.