Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 25/01094/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the removal of Conditions 22 and 23 and a new Condition 22 as follows:

 

‘Condition 22

 

No development shall commence until a strategic foul water strategy, or any other solution, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority, in consultation with Anglian Water. This strategy will identify a sustainable point of connection to the public foul network, or any other solution. Prior to occupation, the foul water drainage works must have been carried out in complete accordance with the approved scheme. 

 

Reason: To protect water quality, prevent pollution and secure sustainable development having regard to paragraphs 7/8 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.’

 

Audio recording – 4 minutes 46 seconds

 

N.B. At the commencement of this Item, Councillor Louise Peace advised that she would be speaking as Member Advocate on both applications on the Agenda. She withdrew from the Committee and moved to the public gallery to speak at Member Advocate Objector.

 

The Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to application 25/01094/FP and advised that:

 

·         The Conservation Officer had provided a response and confirmed it was not considered unacceptable in heritage terms.

·         Herts Archaeology had provided a response and confirm that the conditions proposed could be removed.

·         Updated plans, referenced as 01, 02 and 03, had been provided which detailed the location of the bin storage area and heat pumps.

·         The Environment Agency had made a representation, which was available online, and had confirmed they had no objection. They confirmed that the sequential test could apply to this site, but having checked with Planning Policy team, this was applied during the allocation of the site within the adopted Local Plan.

·         The applicant was in negotiations with Anglian Water to agree a solution, either on site or through any other connection possible.

·         A resident had raised a concern with regards to the contents of their objection and how this would be covered by the Committee report. The matter raised were regarding issues already covered within the report and would not have changed the recommendation to grant.

 

The Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of application 25/01094/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Jon Clayden

·         Councillor Dave Winstanley

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

·         Councillor Ian Mantle

 

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that:

 

·         The Environment Agency had not recommended any conditions for inclusion.

·         There was an error at 4.3.19 of the report, and references to the impacts of plot size, loss of light and dominance should be ‘are considered to be acceptable’.

·         The swale was controlled by the landowner.

·         There were two conditions requiring a Construction Management Plan, one from Highways to address the deliveries and access routes to the site and one from Environmental Health to address mitigations to construction nuisance.

·         The Ecologist had noted that there would be a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) shortage on site of 1.57, which was to be secured through off site credits and this was secured through the standards BNG condition.

 

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

 

·         Conditions which required works to be completed would not be brought back to the Committee to consider, as details reserved by condition were delegated to Officers to determine.

·         The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had provided conditions for inclusion, therefore they do not believe further information was required at this stage to determine the application.

·         When details on these conditions were submitted, the LLFA would be consulted again and, subject to their approval of the details, these would be approved.

·         If the LLFA objected to the details provided, then these would be refused.

·         Some details regarding surface water drainage were submitted with the application, but this was not always sufficient detail for the LLFA to approve without conditions.

·         BNG was required to be provided as close as possible to the site

 

The Chair invited the first Public Objector, Mr Rowan Skinner to speak against the application. Mr Skinner thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·         No consultation had taken place with neighbours prior to the application being submitted.

·         Concerns had been raised regarding parking, the felling of existing trees on site, the impact of construction and the flood risk.

·         There were major concerns regarding road safety of the site, with access proposed from Duncott’s Close, which was a 30MPH residential road with no footpath. The access would be on an existing turning head and therefore would create a blind spot.

·         These issues had been identified by the Highways Authority in 2025.

·         The increased traffic from this development would increase the probability of issues, with further development expected to the north of the site in the future.

·         Safer access routes should be considered, such as access through the property owned by the applicant.

·         The proposals for waste water do not consider the impact on the local community.

·         Whilst there was capacity at the sewage works, there was not capacity within the pipe network and there was existing evidence of discharge from the sewers during periods of flooding.

·         Without a robust strategy to address this, there would be health impacts on existing residents.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Skinner for their presentation and invited the second Public Objector, Parish Councillor Phillip Crowe to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Crowe thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·         The sites in Ickleford included in the Local Plan were only agreed after a decision by the government Inspector. Since approval of the Plan, circumstances had changes and windfall sites had been identified which meant not all allocations in the Local Plan were required.

·         Ickleford was served by a Victorian sewage system which cannot deal with flood water runoff.

·         This proposal had not considered water runoff adequately and proposals to use the River Hiz for runoff would increase risk of contamination.

·         Whilst residents on Duncott’s Close currently entered at a sensible speed, it would not be appropriate to increase use of this road, but this was the proposed access both during and after construction.

·         The houses provided would be aimed at wealthier buyers and would not be readily available for local people.

·         The Parish Council requested that all development around Ickleford, not just this application, be deferred until a suitable resolution to the sewage issue could be identified.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Crowe for their presentation and Councillor Louise Peace to speak against the application, as Member Advocate. Councillor Peace thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·         There were three main reasons to refuse this application, which were sewage and drainage concerns, loss of biodiversity and overdevelopment.

·         In relation to sewage issues, there had been an objection previously raised by Anglian Water. The existing system was old and needed investment, with evidence of sewage overflowing into gardens.

·         The applicant suggested that infiltration would not be possible and would be required to be directed to the River Purwell, but proposals were to go into the River Hiz, which was an important chalk stream.

·         The Ickleford Neighbourhood Plan policy was that developments should enhance the existing surroundings, which this development would not.

·         A veteran poplar tree had already been felled on the site prior to the application. The North Herts Ecologist noted that this poplar could return if given sufficient space, not just the 1metre proposed.

·         There would be a biodiversity loss of 31.13, which would not be beneficial to the community and was contrary to the Ickleford Neighbourhood Plan. BNG credit should not be purchased off site, when it could be delivered on site.

·         The Local Plan outlines that applicants should assume for 60% larger homes and 40% smaller. However, this proposal was for 78% larger dwellings, with just 22% smaller.

·         This proposal does not provide sufficient 1, 2 or 3 bedroom houses which was the most needed property, as supported by the Local Plan. This application had 4 dwellings with 4 or more rooms.

·         The site had 23.7 dwellings per hectare, above the 20 dwellings per hectare outlined in the Design Code.

·         Due to these reasons, the application should be rejected.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Peace for their presentation and invited the Agent to the Applicant, Paul Watson to speak in support of the application. Mr Watson thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·         This application would provide 9 family homes on a site allocated for development within the adopted Local Plan.

·         The applicant had twice engaged with Planning Officers, in 2023 and 2024, and the proposal had been developed with their advice.

·         The Officer report outlined that the appearance of the dwellings was suitable and took into account the requirements in the Ickleford Neighbourhood Plan.

·         Access via Duncott’s Close had been proposed in the adopted Local Plan and the Highways Authority had raised no objections.

·         A sustainable drainage scheme had been submitted and mitigated for 1 in 100-year weather events, plus an additional 40% capacity. There would be SUDs provided on site, which would control run off, and there would be no increase in water runoff from the site than already existed. This had been assessed by the LLFA who had raised no objections, subject to conditions.

·         Discussions were ongoing with Anglian Water regarding sewer connections, and it was considered that a suitable solution could be found. A connection could be provided, at cost to the applicant, south of Duncott’s Close, if a solution on site could not be identified.

·         No further work had been required following assessment by Herts Archaeology and the Conservation Officer.

·         BNG would be delivered on site, where possible, as this was the cheapest and best way of delivery. However, on smaller sites achieving the required BNG was not always possible on site and therefore the conditions had been included to require this to be delivered off site.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·         Councillor Jon Clayden

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

·         Councillor Martin Prescott

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr Watson advised that:

 

·         Delivery of BNG onsite had been included following discussions with the Ecology Officer. However, some credits would need to be purchased to deliver the full BNG requirements. These credits had to be for a specific scheme, and this would be identified and outlined to Officers who would consider the appropriateness of this.

·         The ongoing maintenance of the swale would be conducted by their clients, subject to planning permission being granted.

·         It was likely that a connection to the Anglian Water sewage system would be possible from south of Duncott’s Close. However, if this was not possible, an on site solution could be delivered, but this would be agreed with Officers.

·         The fallback scheme if a mains sewer connection could not be achieved was a cargester for the site. However, this has not yet been investigated in detail.

 

In response to points raised during the public presentations, the Planning Officer advised that:

 

·         A condition had been proposed by Anglian Water, and agreed with the agent, which would be included in the final resolution.

·         The third condition included by the LLFA was regarding the maintenance of the SUDs structures for the duration of the development.

·         In discussions with the Environment Agency, it had been noted that it was the River Hiz, not the River Purwell.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Martin Prescott

·         Councillor Jon Clayden

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

 

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that:

 

·         The condition proposed by Anglian Water was an additional condition.

·         A pre-commencement condition meant that the plans had to be submitted prior to works starting. A pre-occupancy condition meant it had to be delivered in line with these details.

·         Details provided in response to conditions would be provided with the experts and consultees, and would only be approved and implemented with their agreement.

·         The additional condition, relating to a foul water solution, specifically referenced the need to consult on plans with Anglian Water prior to approval of the condition.

 

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

 

·         The Local Planning Authority should consider whether an unsuitable application could be made suitable through conditions.

·         In this application, all consultees had confirmed that conditions could be applied to make it suitable. If Officers queried these conditions, it would be contrary to the comments of the consultees and, after 19 February 2026, the applicant could appeal for non-determination.

·         It was not clear that the development was unacceptable with the conditions applied.

·         The condition included for the Anglian Water connection provided for an on site solution, as well as consideration, if this was not possible, for ‘any other solution’. To remove the ‘any other solution’ from the condition, Members would need to identify that this would cause demonstrable harm.

·         Subject to the inclusion of the conditions outlined, with the additional condition, it was felt that the application addressed the requirements of the Local Plan to provide a suitable water plan.

 

In response to questions, the Local Planning Lawyer advised that:

 

·         Officers had outlined that the development could be made acceptable with the inclusion of conditions, with details on these to be provided for Officer consideration, as outlined under the delegation of authority.

·         A delegation to consult with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee could be included.

·         The details provided in response to conditions would be discussed with the relevant consultees, including the LLFA.

·         Concerns relating to a different connection point to the Anglian Water system could only be assessed once the plans were received.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission subject to the Conditions included in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the removal of Conditions 22 and 23, and new, additional Condition 22 as outlined by the Planning Officer. This was seconded by Councillor Ian Mantle.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·         Councillor Jon Clayden

·         Councillor Ian Mantle

·         Councillor Dave Winstanley

·         Councillor Val Bryant

·         Councillor Clare Billing

·         Councillor Tina Bhartwas

·         Councillor Martin Prescott

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

 

The following points were raised as part of the debate:

 

·         Issues around the sewer connection to the site did not feel satisfactorily resolved.

·         Members needed to trust the experts and the discussion did not advance the situation.

·         This was an allocated site within the adopted Local Plan and Members would need a strong reason to oppose the scheme.

·         The remained concerns about the biodiversity loss, the housing mix and the density of housing, but conditions were included and it was important to trust the experts in these matters.

·         This was a delicate site, and a more sensitive approach could have been taken in order to mitigate potential issues with the development.

·         There remained concerns regarding the chalk stream in the vicinity of the site and the drainage solution proposed.

·         It was not about finding the ideal solution, as it was an allocated site within the Local Plan, but there were issues remaining with density, housing mix and the foul water solution.

·         Members needed to consider the application being presented, not the potential for other applications which may come in the area.

·         Overall, it was hard to find arguments against the site and the benefits outweighed the negatives. Details would need to be provided and would have to meet policy and legal requirements.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 25/01094/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the removal of Conditions 22 and 23 and a new Condition 22 as follows:

 

‘Condition 22

 

No development shall commence until a strategic foul water strategy, or any other solution, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority, in consultation with Anglian Water. This strategy will identify a sustainable point of connection to the public foul network, or any other solution. Prior to occupation, the foul water drainage works must have been carried out in complete accordance with the approved scheme. 

 

Reason: To protect water quality, prevent pollution and secure sustainable development having regard to paragraphs 7/8 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.’

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings from 20.25 and the meeting reconvened at 20.32.