Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors V Burt and J Dunlop. It was noted that Councillor V Smith was substituting for Councillor J Dunlop.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the Officers. He reminded Members and Officers to use their microphones as the meeting was being webcast.

The full webcast of the meeting can be viewed here: Development Management Committee – 11 February 2026.

To receive any Members' declarations of interest.

Councillor Joe Thomas declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in planning application 3/24/0284/OUT, on the grounds that he worked for the Passenger Transport Unit at Hertfordshire County Council, who had made a request for Section 106 monies. He left the room whilst this application was being considered.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 13 October 2025.

Councillor Devonshire proposed and Councillor Stowe seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2025 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chair.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2025, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Recommended for Approval.

The Director for Place recommended that in respect of application 3/24/0284/OUT, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

The Principal Planning Officer summarised the late representations that had been received and set out the designation of High Cross as a group two village. Members were advised that the application had been reassessed under policy GBR2, and it was of note that the site was not within the village boundary. A number of amendments to the report were summarised by the Principal Planning Officer.

The Principal Planning Officer summarised the application for outline planning permission with all matters reserved apart from access. She presented a series of parameter plans and slides that covered the location of the site in the context of the surrounding area. Members were advised of the main planning issues that were pertinent to the application. Of particular note was that the site was rural land beyond the green belt and there were no landscape designations on the site.

Members were shown an indicative masterplan for the site and a plan showing the bridleways and public rights of way that were referenced in the landscape and visual impact assessment. The heritage context of the site was also set out for the committee.

Members were reminded that landscape, layout, appearance and scale were not for consideration at this stage. The committee were able to consider the access to the site as well as the pedestrian access to the school.

Jacqueline Veater addressed the committee in objection to the application. She was asked a number of questions by the Development Management Committee.

Thaddaeus Jackson-Browne and David Baker-Brook addressed the committee in support of the application.

Councillor Andrews addressed the committee as the local ward Member. He was asked questions by the Development Management Committee.

Questions were asked regarding whether the site had been submitted to the call for sites, and also in relation to the identified local need and whether the housing was for local needs and also whether lower end of substantial harm meant substantial.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the situation was ever changing in respect of the call for sites. She said that in terms of local need the need was across the district as a whole and there was no request specifically that this site be reserved for local needs. Members were advised that the harm was less than substantial harm otherwise the scheme would more likely have been recommended for refusal.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the site was not part and parcel of the listed buildings, and the expanded comments of the conservation officer were helpful in that regard. The site was in the wider locality of the village church and the school but was not part of what made the character of those buildings special.

Members were advised that the open space and the proposed SUDS provisions to the south of the site would now provide a very large gap between a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 331.

The Director for Place recommended that in respect of application 3/25/0917/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

The Principal Planning Officer set out the context of the application and the application site in the wider area in and around Stocking Pelham. He said that the application had been accompanied by a landscape and visual impact assessment.  The Principal Planning Officer summarised in detail the proposed development.

Members were presented a series of visuals, elevation drawings and photos that showed the views and location of the site. The Principal Planning Officer explained that some trees and hedgerows would need to be cut back and managed to facilitate access and visibility splays.

The Principal Planning Officer set out the intending routing for construction vehicles and said that there would no vehicles heading westwards through Stocking Pelham. He drew members attention to the risk management plan and the outline battery safety management plan. He also commented on the assessment of the application against the national fire chief council guidance on fire safety.

Members were updated in respect of the drainage strategy for the site, and the strategy had been reviewed by the LLFA, and they were no satisfied subject to conditions in the report. The Principal Planning Officer summarised the late representations that had been received and Members were updated on a number of amendments to the heads of terms in respect of the Section 106 legal agreement.

Ian DeBurgh-Marsh addressed the committee in objection to the application.

Jonathan Cooper addressed the committee in support of the application. He was asked questions by the Development Management Committee.

Councillor Colin Berthoud and Dani Fuimicelli addressed the committee on behalf of Stocking Pelham Parish Council. They were asked questions by the Members of the Development Management Committee.

Councillor Geoffrey Williamson addressed the committee as the local ward Member.

In reply to a question regarding the Crabbs Lane (Crabbs Green) site by Officers, where an application for a BESS had been refused in 2025, the Principal Planning Officer set out the main planning considerations as to why that planning application had been refused by officers.

Members asked a number of questions regarding noise, heritage impact, the route to be taken by HGVs involved in the implementation of these proposals, fire safety and the shutting down of equipment in the event of fire and contaminated water and the cumulative impact of five BESS schemes in this area.

The Principal Planning Officer said that this application was different in that Environmental Health had not objected to the application at Dellows and application site at Crabbs Green was closer to more residential properties in Stocking Pelham and Crabbs Green. Members were advised that Dellows was further from residential receptors and there were less of them.

Members were advised that the noise mitigations at Crabbs Green had been a lot more substantial to achieve worst result than would be the case at Dellows. The planning balance on this application was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 332.

To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration and is not likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information.

There was no urgent business.

If Part II business is notified and the procedures set out in the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 have been complied with, the Chairman will move: - That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the discussion of item XX on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph XX of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

There was no urgent part two business.