Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/00886/FP REED HOUSE, JACKSONS LANE, REED, ROYSTON, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG8 8AB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of 14 dwellings and associated infrastructure (Amended plans received 22/12/25 and 13/05/26).

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 25/00886/FP be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 02 hours 09 minutes 11 seconds

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that there were no updated matters to report on since the publication of the agenda.

 

The Principal Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/00886/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Ruth Brown

·                Councillor Martin Prescott

 

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

 

·                The titled balance has been disengaged as the land was within a conservation area, which was one of the protected areas that could provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposal as detailed at paragraph 11D of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·                The Council had to account for the opinion of the Highways Authority as a statutory consultee and could not provide reasons as to why they had raised no objection.

 

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

 

·                They were here to speak on behalf of Reed Parish Council, who opposed the application and had listened to concerns from residents.

·                The site was outside the Local Plan settlement boundary and faced away from the village.

·                Minor adjustments and rebuttal statements had failed to overcome the fundamental location problem or the issues highlighted in the report of the Principal Planning Officer.

·                Site access would be via The Joint, which was a narrow, restricted country road that would fail to integrate it with the rest of the settlement in a meaningful degree and disrupt the settlement pattern, which would make it contrary to policies in the Local Plan.

·                The site would also be in the conservation area, contrary to the Local Plan.

·                21 homes proposed on an allocated site elsewhere in Reed, which had been through consultation, showed how sustainable development should be carried out.

·                The Parish Council acknowledged the pressures of the lack of a five-year housing land supply and wanted to be an ally, not an obstacle when addressing this.

·                However, the lack of a five-year supply did not justify dismissing the Local Plan in favour of speculative development such as this.

·                This application would open the door to further speculative development in Reed such as a proposed application for 30-40 dwellings next to The Joint, which would urbanise and degrade the valued landscape of the area.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Aries for their presentation and invited the Agent to the Applicant, Rosanna Metcalfe, to speak in support of the application. Ms Metcalfe thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·                This site was previously developed land as confirmed by legal advice that had been shared with the Council.

·                The NPPF required local authorities to give substantial weight to housing developments on brownfield sites unless substantial harm would be caused.

·                The Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and sites outside of settlement boundaries would need to be developed to meet the shortfall.

·                A Transport Statement accompanying the application detailed that the site was within a 10-minute walk of most village amenities and other facilities such as hospitals, railway stations and supermarkets were only a 30-minute bus journey.

·                The nearest bus stops were 350 and 500 metres from the site, with regular weekday and Saturday services, in addition to the 7-day service provided by Hertslynx.

·                Unlike previous applications, a footway and cycle path connection onto Jacksons Lane had been provided, as well as a proposed footway to the primary school.

·                No objection had been raised by the Highways Authority on sustainability or accessibility.

·                Previous Appeal Inspectors had concluded no harm would come to the heritage assets of Reed or its conservation area through development on this site, and their Heritage Consultant had concluded the same on this application.

·                The site was not within the conservation area and only visible from Reed House, making it well screened.

·                Neither the Heritage Officer nor any other planning officer had visited the site and aside from their objection, there were no other technical objections to the application.

·                The proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the village or the surrounding landscape.

·                Appeal Inspectors for similar schemes determined that they would not harm the character or appearance of the site or its landscape setting, and the only objections raised by them had been on the lack of S106 contributions and the reliance on car use, which had been addressed by this application.

·                The Applicant was willing to enter a S106 agreement and had agreed Heads of Terms for contributions to the primary school and Reed Village Hall.

·                Much needed affordable housing would be delivered.

·                Members were urged to visit the site and see that the benefits of the proposal outweighed the perceived harms.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·                Councillor Martin Prescott

·                Councillor Louise Peace

·                Councillor Val Bryant

 

In response to points of clarification, Ms Metcalfe advised that:

 

·                The site had been garden land in the past, which was classed as previously developed land in the NPPF.

·                35% of the housing delivered would be affordable, which was policy compliant.

 

The following Members asked additional questions:

 

·                Councillor Claire Winchester

·                Councillor Tom Tyson

 

In response to additional questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·                Affordable housing should be tenure blind although this was not always achieved.

·                For maintenance and management reasons, affordable housing would usually be located in one area in small schemes.

 

In response to additional questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the part of the site was in the conservation area and the pedestrian link ran through it.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to refuse permission, and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor Ruth Brown

·                Councillor Caroline McDonnell

·                Councillor Val Bryant

·                Councillor Martin Prescott

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·                Refusal should be supported for the reasons set out by the Principal Planning Officer in their report.

·                A shielded development like this did not integrate well with the surrounding area.

·                The development felt wrong for the reasons described in the report.

·                The report had been well written and understood the local strains on the community, in addition to relevant planning considerations.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 25/00886/FP be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Supporting documents: