Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Approval of reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the erection of 140 residential dwellings with associated landscaping, highways, drainage, public open space and ancillary infrastructure pursuant to outline planning permission reference 25/02234/S73 granted 03.12.2025

RESOLVED: That application 25/03149/RM be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

(1) The delegation of powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to (i) resolve any outstanding matters and (ii) update conditions and information with minor amendments as required.

(2) The conditions as set out in the report, with the following amendment to Condition 6 and additional Condition 9:

‘Condition 6

Prior to any above slab level development approved by this application, an Ecological Enhancement Plan (EEP) for the creation of new wildlife features such as the inclusion of integrated bird/bat boxes in buildings/structures and hedgehog highways must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Swift bricks should be used where building heights allow.

Reason: To ensure development is ecologically sensitive and secures biodiversity enhancements in accordance with Policy NE4 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan (2011-2031) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 9

Prior to their installation, details of any solar photovoltaic (PV) panels to be installed as part of the development hereby approved, including their siting, design and appearance, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The PV panels shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that any solar photovoltaic panels are appropriately designed and integrated into the development, in the interests of high-quality design, in accordance with Policy D1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework’

Audio recording – 2 hours 27 minute 23 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer advised that written updates on matters relating to application 25/03149/RM had been published as a supplementary document and highlighted that:

· A summary of consultee comments had been included in the written updates.

· A new condition was proposed to cover the installation of Solar PV panels, and an amendment was proposed to Condition 6.

· There were no remaining pre-commencement conditions to be agreed with the Applicant.

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/03149/RM accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Louise Peace

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

· The site had existing permission for 140 dwellings, which would consist of three character areas, including a village scene and woodland provision.

· The wooded areas were of lower density and located to the north of the site, with the higher density being further south on the site.

· The north-western SUDs would be more permanently filled with water, with the SUDs in the centre of the site being empty. This had been considered and the unfilled SUDs basins would be suitably landscaped.

· The flood assessment submitted previous was not accurate and therefore changes were required to accommodate associated works to adapt to the new assessment.

· Throughout the process workshops had taken place with the Applicant and Officers to deliver a scheme that was deemed acceptable, whilst adhering to the adopted Masterplan for the site.

· This scheme was now more developed and detailed than the Masterplan.

· This Reserve Matter application would not affect Condition 9 on the Outline Permission application.

· There was no shop currently, as it has been offered to the market, but no offers had been received.

· There were no conditions to require delivery of a shop on site and it was not considered a reason for refusal of the Reserve Matters application.

· The shop could still come forward at a later stage.

In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that the mix of housing provision compared to the existing village had been assessed at the Outline Permission stage, where permission was granted. However, Barkway did have a mixed density of housing, with some terraced housing with small garden plots through to large houses with large gardens.

In response to questions, the Local Planning Lawyer advised that the Reserve Matters application was not to consider the density on site.

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

· Condition 9 on the Outline Permission had been included to ensure capacity in the sewage network and waste water plant. However, there were concerns regarding this with evidence of spillage and fowl water run off into nearby chalk streams.

· There was no publicly available information from Thames Water on the phased approach proposed.

· There needed to be consideration and clarity as to how Thames Water was planning to deal with this issue.

· There was no meaningful attempt in the design quality of the development to meet surrounding areas.

· The planting along the northern boundary was not sufficient to provide a barrier to the adjacent stud farm.

· Planting was required along the southern boundary of the development along the existing school field.

· The Parish Council objected to the removal of the shop on site, as this had been included to support the sustainability of the development.

· Mitigation on site was required to manage the existing water stress issues in Barkway.

· The proposed housing would not meet new home standards, with no Solar PV panels proposed.

· In summary, there were concerns over the infrastructure, sustainability and environmental impact of the development and consideration needed to be given to whether the homes met required standards.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

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

· He spoke on behalf of the Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens and they retained concerns of the approach of the Council to the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) at Therfield Heath and ensuring adequate mitigations were in place.

· There were concerns that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the adopted Local Plan, the Developer Contributions SPD and the Therfield Heath SSSI Mitigation Strategy were not being considered.

· The Mitigation Strategy had not been followed and Natural England had not been consulted on this application.

· The report missed a key issue that this development would have an impact on the Therfield Heath SSSI.

· The NPPF outlined that harm to an SSSI must be mitigated or compensated for at some point of the process, and this had been tested at appeal.

· They were not requesting refusal of the application, as the developers had made efforts to deliver a suitable scheme, but the points raised needed to be considered.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair then invited the Applicant, Louise Simmonds, to speak in support of the application. Ms Simmonds thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· Over 18 months, they had worked with Officers and consultees to refine proposals and have incorporated suggestions into the final plans.

· Whilst they did not agree with the Parish Council position, the two parties had worked together with the process and, where possible, suggestions have been incorporated.

· Redrow had a record of delivering characterful, high quality homes and it was believed this could be achieved on this site, in collaboration with the existing surrounding area.

· There was a variety of unit types, materials and planting proposed, all of which were respectful to the area.

· It was identified that the northern boundary planting was important and a 15metre buffer had been provided, with shrub and tree planning, to provide separation between the development and the neighbouring stud.

· This would be a key contribution to housing supply in the district, which was important with increasing house prices in the area and the lack of 5 year housing land supply.

· This was an allocated site with the adopted Local Plan.

· There would be 56 houses provided on site as affordable, which met the 40% requirement, and would help to provide a home to those currently in temporary accommodation within the district.

· They noted the comments received from the Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens and could provided further clarification on this, if required.

· There were no remaining technical objections from any statutory consultees.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Val Bryant, Ms Simmonds advised that:

· There were no planning conditions or obligations to provide a shop on site.

· The shop had been offered to the market in line with permission granted, but three responses had been received to say it was not currently viable. It was expected that the shop would become more viable as the development was built out and lived in.

· The S106 agreement secured a requirement on the developer to continue to market the shop for as long as required.

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

· The points raised regarding the Therfield Heath SSSI and Natural England were not a consideration on this application, as this was for reserved matters.

· Many of the issues raised concerned matters already approved through the Outline Planning application.

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report, including the amendment to Condition 6 and additional Condition 9. This was seconded by Councillor Ian Mantle.

The following Members took part in the debate:

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Ian Mantle

· Councillor Tom Tyson

In response to a question from Councillor Martin Prescott, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the outline application pre-dated the Mitigation Strategy from the Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens.

The following points were raised as part of the debate:

· It was good to have confirmation that Condition 9 from the Outline Permission application would not be impacted.

· It was positive to see that the Applicant had engaged actively with the Parish Council.

· It would be better to see houses more suitably designed to meet existing surrounding properties and which reflected the existing character of the village, rather than a sub-urban design.

· The Committee needed to determine this application, it was not the suitable time to look to redesign the scheme.

· It was disappointing that the Council did not take the opportunity to develop good quality house design on this plot, as this would be a legacy of the Council. The proposal did not provide housing of quality appearance and was not suitable for Barkway.

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

RESOLVED: That application 25/03149/RM be GRANTED subject to: