Skip to main content

All online waste forms are currently unavailable.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and are working to restore the forms as soon as possible.

Agenda item

26/01416/S73 Land West Of Tuthill House, Kelshall Tops, Therfield, Hertfordshire, SG8 9PT

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Variation of condition 2 (revised plans) of planning permission 24/02606/FP granted 31.07.2025 for erection of three detached dwellings (1 x 3-bed,1 x 4-bed and 1 x 5-bed) and with associated infrastructure and landscaping

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 26/01416/S73 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 04 minutes 54 seconds

 

The Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 26/01416/S73 and advised that:

 

·        A late letter had been received from neighbour Mrs Bogie, which suggested the application was not legally valid due to Land Registry ownership and company status. However, Officers said this would not be a determining factor when the agent signed a declaration in good faith.

·        Notice had been correctly served on Hertfordshire Highways, considered the owner of the land to the north.

·        A Section 73 application was a full planning application in its own right. The description referred to Condition 2, allowing amended plans to be submitted.

·        The proposal for three detached dwellings remained within the description of the development, allowing all conditions to be varied where appropriate.

·        There was legal precedent which confirmed a Section 73 application cannot alter the original description of development, but conditions may be amended if they did not conflict with the operational part of the development.

·        The proposed change to Condition 9 did not conflict with the description and was detailed in paragraph 4.6.1 of the report.

·        Objections regarding lack of consultation on the amended plan were addressed, as the change was considered minor and non-material, therefore did not require public consultation.

·        The amended plan was sent to Highways on 13 July; Highways responded with no objection on 17 August. The plan was sent to Highways to correct an earlier consultation error relating to Biodiversity Net Gain.

 

The Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) then presented the report in respect of application 26/01416/S73 accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Ruth Brown, the Chair advised that:

 

·        Supplementary documents received after 4pm the day before the meeting cannot be circulated. Instead, a verbal update was provided at the meeting.

·        The document was uploaded to the portal but not emailed due to timing.

 

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

 

·        The neighbouring landowner had refused consent to remove hedgerow to create the link to a public footpath, an amended plan was sought and provided.

·        The link was not a policy requirement, the alternative route was short, and Highways had raised no safety concerns.

 

The Chair invited the Representative to the Applicant, Mr Richard Parry, to speak in support of the application. Mr Parry thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·        Confirmed he had reserved the right to speak in case objectors attended.

·        As no objectors were present, he had no further comments.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

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

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·        Councillor Ruth Brown

·        Councillor Martin Prescott

·        Councillor Emma Fernandes

·        Councillor Val Bryant

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·        Given the report, there were no reasons for this application to be refused.

·        Parish Council have no objections to this application.

·        Thought original application was an improvement on what was there at the moment and nothing contentious about this application.

·        Minor tweaks were good, huge improvement on what was there and increased Biodiversity Net Gain.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 26/01416/S73 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Supporting documents: