Raised community open space at Garden Walk, Royston

What was proposed

The application sought revised plans allowing higher ground levels in the community open space using excess earth from elsewhere on the development site.

“The application seeks to increase the height of the land compared to the approved plans. This is a result of depositing of excess earth from elsewhere across this development site for housing onto the area to be retained as Community Open Space.”

“It should be noted that the alternative of approving this proposal (or implication of a refusal of planning permission) is that the excess earth which has been deposited will need to be removed from the site, which the applicant states would require 6,200 lorry movements through the now nearly complete housing development.”

Officer report

The site

Phase one includes 83 homes, greenspace and community open space east of Royston, with access from a new roundabout and a perimeter footpath.

“The site relates to phase 1 of the wider development located to the east of Royston, enclosed by the A505 to the east; Newmarket Road to the south; and Hawthorn Way/Garden Walk. Phase 1 comprises the far north-eastern portion of 83 homes out of 330 across the whole site together with greenspace and the ‘community open space’ to the south.”

“The application relates to the ‘community open space’ at the southern end of the site. It comprises land of a higher topography compared to the rest of the site and in a broadly triangular shape. Its former use was arable land, but through the outline permission its purpose was for chalk grassland and public amenity. There is a perimeter footpath linking around the whole of the site. Also secured through reserved matters ref.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Outline permission allowed up to 330 homes, while phase one permission covered 83 homes and was later amended through a further application.

“Outline permission ref. 14/02485/1 relates to residential development for up to 330 units and community open space with access onto the A505. The site relates to site allocation RY2. Reserved matters for phase 1 were approved ref. 17/02627/1 for 83 units and included landscaping, layout, scale, access and appearance, which was amended by 21/02194/S73 relating to a change to a road layout near the drainage basin.”

“This application relates to variation of condition 1 to planning permission ref. 21/02194/S73 referring to the list of approved plan numbers. This S73 application supersedes the application for reserved matters for phase 1 ref. 17/02627/1.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the landscape impact was not a significant reason for refusal and the ecological proposals were supported.

“Place Services (Landscape) provided advice to Officers on the impact of the proposals on the landscape. Following the receipt of a landscape assessment from the applicant, the plans were amended to reduce the highest levels originally proposed. Place Services commented that the amended scheme was preferable but still had concern about the increased levels in principle.”

“Officers note that while the deposit of inert material on the site is not ideal in terms of its impact on either the wider landscape or locally, there is not a significant landscape reason to refuse the application. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with the NPPF 2024 and NHLP Policies NE1 and NE2.”

Officer report

Land levels and open space

The raised land would remain chalk grassland, but its steepness would limit extensive use and support its ecological purpose.

“The amended LEMP submitted with this application continues to propose that the site would remain as chalk grassland, which compliments the provision at Therfield Heath, and would improve the quality of the land, which was previously in arable rotation. While the levels and form of the site would change as a result of this application, the purpose, of using the land for natural grassland is supported.”

“Further request from Officers resulted in the submission of a ground stability assessment, to ensure that the increased levels is safe and has been undertaken in accordance with regulations. The report states that the work has been done over and above requirements for depositing inert material.”

Officer report

Neighbour views

Four hundred and forty-three neighbours were notified, and no representations were received during either public consultation.

“A total of 443 neighbours had been notified of this application and subsequent amendments. No neighbour representations have been received to either public consultation.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent supported the proposal, describing the open space, ecology, slope, access and site delivery.

The vote

A member proposed approval, another member seconded it, and the committee then voted to grant permission.

“Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, and this was seconded by Councillor Ruth Brown.”

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

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted subject to a satisfactory deed of variation, any required extension, delegated updates and conditions from the earlier permission.

“RESOLVED: That application 24/02656/S73 be GRANTED planning permission subject to:”

“A) The completion of a satisfactory deed of variation to the original s106 agreement or similar legal mechanism to ensure delivery of the agreed Heads of Terms; and…”

Minutes

Legal and planning conditions

The deed of variation was to secure agreed obligations, including arrangements for the community open space and its restoration funding.

“A requirement of the S106 to the outline planning permission required the applicant to transfer the land identified as ‘community open space’ to North Hertfordshire Council before the occupation of any dwelling on site. The applicant is currently in breach of the legal agreement as the majority of the site is complete and occupied and the land has not yet been transferred.”

“Officers have therefore reviewed the obligations in the original s106 agreement and suggest the following new heads of terms that will need to be agreed in a deed of variation:”

Officer report