Ten additional golf holes at Centurion Club, Leverstock Green, Hemel Hempstead

The site

The site is a woodland plantation south of Hemel Hempstead Road and north of Bedmond Lane, beside the existing golf course.

“The site is located to the south of Hemel Hempstead Road and immediately to the north of Bedmond Lane. The site is an existing woodland plantation and is positioned to the south and west of the existing Centurion Golf Club site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended referral to the Secretary of State and conditional permission, considering the proposal acceptable in the Green Belt and its impacts capable of mitigation.

“RECOMMENDATION A. That the application be referred to the Secretary of State as a Departure from the Development Plan (Green Belt development). B. That, subject to the Secretary of State not calling in the application, that Conditional Permission is granted.”

Officer report

What people said

There were 466 objections and 261 supporting representations, with objections focusing on woodland, biodiversity, wildlife, public access, traffic and water.

“Summary of representations in objection to application: • Loss of biodiversity • Significant loss of trees • Impact on Green Belt • Significant impact on wildlife • Site has been used by walkers for a long time – loss of leisure facility • Loss of wildlife habitats • Lack of notice of application • Tree officer comments inadequate • Impacts cannot be undone or mitigated • Existing fencing around site prevents wildlife access • Loss of woodland and impact on air…”

“Summary of representations in support of the application: • Boost to local economy, creating jobs • Supports a local business • Will enhance the existing Club • Will enhance wildlife on site • Mainly commercial woodland of poor quality to be removed • Plans allow for planting of 26,000 indigenous trees and plants • Club has been working with environmental consultants for several years • Already shown significant ecological enhancements on the golf course •…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker opposed the application, another supported it, and two district ward councillors spoke on the application.

Committee concerns

Members questioned whether the evidence and conditions adequately protected the White Admiral butterfly, wildlife and mature trees, and whether local benefits justified the harm.

“The Committee spoke about their concerns regarding the ecology officer’s report, specifically, they believed that the ecological report did not provide suitable evidence or clarity on how the condition(s) could properly protect the White Admiral Butterfly which is classed as a protected species, and the habitat for the wildlife. That the mitigation and benefits would not fully outweigh the harm.”

“There were concerns also regarding the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) of the site and the disparity between the assessment proposing a 50% uplift whereas the Herts Ecology officer did not support the level of uplift. Policy NEB6 would have required a 10% uplift in BNG. Officers explained that the application was exempt from BNG conditions as the application was submitted before the Government BNG provision came into force, however a BNG assessment had been completed.”

Minutes

The votes

The committee first rejected a motion to approve, then carried a motion to refuse by eight votes to none, with two abstentions.

“It was moved by the Chair that the application be GRANTED approval subject to conditions as set out in the officer’s report and with the above additional amendment. It was NOT CARRIED.”

“The Committee were then asked for further comments and whether the Committee had a proposal to refuse the application.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because harm to the White Admiral butterfly and tree loss would not be sufficiently outweighed by the proposed mitigation.

“That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:”

“The proposed development will result in harm to the white admiral butterfly and result in a loss of trees. The mitigation identified is not sufficient to outweigh that harm. The development is therefore contrary to Policies 74 (Landscaping and Tree Preservation) and 106 (Nature Conservation) of the St.”

Minutes