Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/02885/OP LAND AT MILL LANE, LONDON ROAD, ST IPPOLYTS, HITCHIN, SG4 7NN

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Erection of up to 41 dwellings with associated infrastructure and open space (all matters reserved except means of access) (additional and amended plans received 23/04/26 and 10/06/26).

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 22/00956/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

 

A)        Providing delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to agree the outstanding S106 Heads of Terms related to the sports pavilion, and any other minor changes to conditions and informatives as required; and

 

B)        The completion of the S106 Legal Agreement and any necessary extension of time taken to complete this; and

 

C)        The conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with amendments to Conditions 7, 12 and 20, as follows:

 

‘Condition 7

 

No development shall take place (including ground works or vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) should be informed by the November 2025 Ecological Impact Assessment and include the following:

 

a)         Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.

b)         Identification of "biodiversity protection zones".

c)         Practical measures to avoid or reduce impacts during construction.

d)         The location and timing of sensitive works to harm to biodiversity features.

e)         Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

 

The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

Reason: To protect wildlife and biodiversity. LP Policy NE4.

 

Condition 12

 

Parking / Internal roads / Turning areas:

 

The detailed plans should be submitted in connection with approval of reserved matters application which shall show to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority:

o      The details of all hard surfaced areas within the site. This includes, but is not limited to, all roads, footways, forecourts, driveways, parking and turning areas, and foul and surface water drainage.

o      The level of footway and carriageway visibility from each individual vehicle access, and the level of visibility from and around each main junction within the site, within which there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 600mm and 2m above the carriageway level.

o      That service vehicles, including refuse and emergency vehicles, can safely and conveniently access and route through the site, to include the provision of sufficient turning and operating areas.

o      The provision of sufficient facilities for cycle storage.

All these features shall be provided before first occupation and maintained in perpetuity.

 

Reason: To provide adequate visibility for drivers within the site, to promote alternative modes of travel, and for the overall free and safe flow of all site users.

 

Condition 20

 

No residential development shall be more than two storey in height.

 

Reason: To ensure that the new development is in keeping with local context. LP Policy D1.’

Minutes:

Audio recording – 01 hours 34 minutes 15 seconds

 

The Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 25/02885/OP and advised that:

 

·             The written update published with the supplementary documents to the agenda contained details of contributions sought by Hertfordshire County Council Growth and Infrastructure Team, information on the project that sustainable transport contributions would support, 1 late neighbour representation and minor corrections to the report.

·             A request from St Ippolyts Parish Council had been made for any sports pavilion contributions to be index linked to Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) Q1 2024.

·             49 responses had been received on the application, with 45 in objection and 2 being neutral, which superseded paragraph 3.21 of the report.

·             None of the responses raised matters different to those already detailed in the report except for the response summarised in the written update.

 

The Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) then presented the report in respect of Application 25/02885/OP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·             Councillor Tom Tyson

·             Councillor Claire Winchester

·             Councillor Jon Clayden

·             Councillor Caroline McDonnell

·             Councillor Bryony May

 

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

 

·             All sites in the Green Belt, including this one, were subject to a planning application measured against criteria in paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the ‘Golden Rules’ would need to be met for it to be acceptable.

·             The western half of the site would be protected from future residential development by condition as public open space if permission was granted.

 

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that:

 

·             The western part of the site would remain in the Green Belt as public open space.

·             Details of how Mill Lane would be closed were unknown, but the Highways Authority had insisted that traffic should go through the development to London Road rather than via Mill Lane for highways safety reasons.

·             Land could be classed as Grey Belt if it met the tests related to the purposes of the Green Belt and the additional tests at paragraph 155 of the NPPF.

·             Existing development was on three sides of the eastern part of the site, which meant that it only made a moderate contribution to stopping urban sprawl and the site had been designated as Grey Belt as it had met all the other tests.

·             Landscaping would be a consideration for the reserved matters application, but it also needed to demonstrate suitable mitigations to progress.

·             Different site access options had been considered by the Highways Authority, and the proposal before them was the only option they were willing to support.

·             A planning application for land to the south would need to be considered on its own merits and separate tests.

 

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

 

·             The site was a rich, diverse piece of the Green Belt that residents had cherished for decades.

·             A variety of wildlife and biodiversity were present, and the site had provided a vital amenity in lockdown for residents.

·             The Green Belt was created to protect land such as this for nature and outdoor recreation purposes.

·             The site restricted urban sprawl and prevented neighbouring settlements from merging and did not meet any exceptions at Paragraph 154 of the NPPF to allow development.

·             St Ippolyts Parish Council, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Hitchin Forum, and the Council Green Belt Assessment Review Report all concluded that the site was in the Green Belt. Therefore, the view that the site was Grey Belt was subjective.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Mr White for their presentation and invited the second Public Objector, Mr Lorimer Miller, to speak against the application. Mr Miller thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             Mill Lane was a narrow, unlit access road with no footpath.

·             New developments in the area such as this would change the use of Mill Lane and additional vehicles would conflict with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

·             Mill Lane had come to a standstill when London Road was closed in January.

·             Removing the site access from Mill Lane would significantly improve safety and the current design was the least safe option available.

·             The assessment of the Highways Authority was flawed as it had been based on assumptions that Mill Lane was an access road, had ignored pedestrian movements, lacked real world observation and omitted a road safety audit.

·             There were no mitigations for traffic directly flowing through Mill Lane, and paragraph 115 of the NPPF stated that development should be refused on highways grounds if there was an unacceptable impact.

·             Elderly pedestrians would be put at increased risk, and the application should be refused or deferred until a full safety assessment had been conducted on Mill Lane and mitigations were in place.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Miller for their presentation and invited the third Public Objector, Ms Donna Matthews, to speak against the application. Ms Matthews thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             The site was not in the Local Plan.

·             The LUC Green Belt Assessment concluded that the land made a strong contribution to Purpose A of the Green Belt assessment, but this had been disregarded.

·             Development on three sides of the site was not sufficient justification for its designation as Grey Belt.

·             The site was not on the urban edge of Hitchin as detailed in the report and the application should not have been assessed on this basis.

·             The land made a strong contribution to Purpose A of the Green Belt assessment as it was open countryside with mature trees and would result in a finger of development in the Green Belt buffer separating St Ippolyts from Hitchin.

·             The Pound Farm development had extended Hitchin to the south but there was no justification for approving successive development because of this.

·             23 trees would be removed, including those under a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), and this would impact the character and heritage of the area.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Matthews for their presentation and invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Ralph Muncer, to speak against the application. Councillor Muncer thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             It was clear that this application was inappropriate development on important Green Belt land.

·             This piece of land protected both St Ippolyts and Gosmore from urban sprawl resulting from development in Hitchin.

·             Pressure on infrastructure in St Ippolyts would be increased with little to offset it.

·             Significant congestion on London Road and the Three Moor Hens roundabout would be compounded.

·             Granting permission for this application would set a worrying precedent for all land in the Green Belt.

·             The best way to protect this land and the rural character of the area would be to refuse permission for the application.

·             Nothing would stop a developer from submitting a planning application for the western part of the site in the future if permission was granted.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

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

 

·             Delivery of 41 homes in a sustainable location, including 50% affordable housing would make a significant contribution to the housing shortfall in North Herts.

·             Redirection of traffic through the site away from the Mill Lane-London Road junction would create a safer route and connectivity benefit.

·             Significant public open space areas would be provided.

·             A minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) would enhance the local habitat.

·             There had been no heritage objections to the application, and they agreed with the land designation as Grey Belt and that the ‘Golden Rules’ had been satisfied.

·             The site represented just 3% of the HS7 site and should be considered on its own merits rather than being judged in the context of a larger area.

·             All Category A trees onsite would be retained as the development had been designed around them, and all lower quality trees that needed removing would be replanted.

·             The titled balance was applied to the application as the Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply as detailed in paragraph 11 of the NPPF.

·             Built form had been removed from the western part of the site and that area would form part of the BNG Management Plan for the site.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·             Councillor Jon Clayden

·             Councillor Caroline McDonnell

·             Councillor Claire Winchester

 

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

 

·             It would not be possible to deliver 10% BNG onsite as the baseline was high, and delivering this would compromise benefits such as public access to the western part of the site.

·             They had not yet agreed where biodiversity credits would be purchased, but this would be up to the Council and the landowner on the proximity of these.

·             A viability report had not been carried out on the 50% affordable housing, but the Heads of Terms and financial contributions had been set out.

·             Heritage impacts had prevented them from putting site access further south.

 

In response to points of clarification, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that it would not be possible for the developer to put forward a viability case to reduce the 50% affordable housing as it was neither a brownfield nor a complex or multi-phased site.

 

In response to points of clarification, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that negative onsite BNG could not be used as a reason to refuse the application as conditions required the 10% BNG to be met either on or offsite, including a Habitat Monitoring and Management Plan as detailed by Condition 1 in the report.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Emma Fernandes.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Claire Winchester

·             Councillor Jon Clayden

·             Councillor Val Bryant

·             Councillor Caroline McDonnell

·             Councillor Clare Billing

·             Councillor Emma Fernandes

·             Councillor Nigel Mason

·             Councillor Ian Mantle

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·             The land was part of the Green Belt as detailed by the LCU Green Belt Assessment and its value had been highlighted by residents.

·             The designation of part of the land as Grey Belt was subjective.

·             4 trees had recently been put under a TPO, and they should not be destroyed for the sake of housing delivery.

·             Favour was given to development at the right place and time, but the benefits from this development were too marginal to lose the valuable, natural landscape.

·             This application was inconsistent with the climate and biodiversity emergencies declared by the Council as it was only viable through the demolition of 23 trees.

·             The site provided vital housing delivery with 50% of that being affordable, but the loss of trees and valuable landscape preventing urban sprawl was too great to grant permission.

·             The Grey Belt tests had been met, so the designation was not subjective.

·             Development volume in the rural setting of Mill Lane was concerning.

·             This land was important as it provided a buffer between Hitchin and St Ippolyts and was valuable when considering other development in the area. 

·             The land made up just 3% of the HS7 site and was surrounded by development on three sides.

·             The western part of the site would safeguard open space from further development.

·             While there were harms from the regrettable loss of trees, this did not substantially outweigh the benefit delivered by 41 homes.

·             There had been evidence of traffic problems when Mill Lane had been used as an alternative route to London Road and it would be difficult to mitigate increased numbers of cyclists or pedestrians on Mill Lane without changing its character.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 22/00956/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

 

A)          Providing delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to agree the outstanding S106 Heads of Terms related to the sports pavilion, and any other minor changes to conditions and informatives as required; and

 

B)          The completion of the S106 Legal Agreement and any necessary extension of time taken to complete this; and

 

C)          The conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with amendments to Conditions 7, 12 and 20, as follows:

 

‘Condition 7

 

No development shall take place (including ground works or vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) should be informed by the November 2025 Ecological Impact Assessment and include the following:

 

a)           Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.

b)           Identification of "biodiversity protection zones".

c)           Practical measures to avoid or reduce impacts during construction.

d)           The location and timing of sensitive works to harm to biodiversity features.

e)           Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

 

The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

Reason: To protect wildlife and biodiversity. LP Policy NE4.

 

Condition 12

 

Parking / Internal roads / Turning areas:

 

The detailed plans should be submitted in connection with approval of reserved matters application which shall show to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority:

o      The details of all hard surfaced areas within the site. This includes, but is not limited to, all roads, footways, forecourts, driveways, parking and turning areas, and foul and surface water drainage.

o      The level of footway and carriageway visibility from each individual vehicle access, and the level of visibility from and around each main junction within the site, within which there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 600mm and 2m above the carriageway level.

o      That service vehicles, including refuse and emergency vehicles, can safely and conveniently access and route through the site, to include the provision of sufficient turning and operating areas.

o      The provision of sufficient facilities for cycle storage.

All these features shall be provided before first occupation and maintained in perpetuity.

 

Reason: To provide adequate visibility for drivers within the site, to promote alternative modes of travel, and for the overall free and safe flow of all site users.

 

Condition 20

 

No residential development shall be more than two storey in height.

 

Reason: To ensure that the new development is in keeping with local context. LP Policy D1.’

Supporting documents: