84 homes with open space at Land Opposite Heath Farm, Briary Lane, Royston

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 84 homes, public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage after demolishing No. 24 Echo Hill.

“Erection of up to 84 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) following demolition of No. Echo Hill with all matters reserved save for access.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site comprises two grassed fields on Royston’s southern edge, beside homes, public bridleways and Therfield Heath SSSI.

“The application site is situated on the southern edge of the town of Royston. The site comprises two grassed fields, bound to the north and east by existing residential development (Echo Hill, Layston Park, and Royse Grove). To the west of the site is Briary Lane, a public bridleway (Royston 013) that links Royston to Therfield. Along the southern boundary of the site there is another public bridleway (Royston 014) that links Briary Lane to London Road.”

“The application site is situated within the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt. To the west of the site is Therfield Heath Nature Reserve, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Therfield Heath also contains Scheduled Ancient Monuments.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the identified harms significantly and demonstrably outweighed the market and affordable housing benefits.

“In addition to the 50 market homes, the development would deliver 34 affordable homes. Given the shortfall of affordable home provision within the district and the consistent under delivery year on year, the provision of affordable homes are given very significant weight in favour of the proposed development.”

“In conclusion of the above, while the need for market and affordable housing within the district is demonstrable, and significant weigh is attributed to the benefits that would arise from the delivery of market housing, with very significant weight to the delivery of affordable housing, the identified harm that would arise from the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Planning permission should be refused.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, flood, ecology, landscape, the town council, CPRE and Therfield Heath representatives objected, while other consultees raised no objection subject to mitigation or contributions.

“Conservators Therfield Heath – Application would have a negative impact on Therfield Heath.”

“HCC Growth & Infrastructure – No objection subject to S106 financial contributions.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Most public comments opposed the proposal because of its location, landscape, traffic, access, flooding, ecology, neighbour impacts, services and infrastructure.

“- Previous reasons for refusal still apply to the current application by reason of the similarity of the proposal. - Unsustainable due to poor access to services and reliance on private vehicles. - Unsafe due to access design and steep gradients. - Non-compliant with planning and transport policies. - Development would increase traffic and congestion to nearby streets during and after construction.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A public objector spoke against the application, representing more than 250 households and residents who had objected.

Members’ debate

Members considered the objections, policy changes, the tilted balance and the evidence that the harms outweighed the benefits.

“There were more objections on this application than the last application considered in 2021, despite policy changes since then. Therefore, the recommendation to refuse permission should be supported. • Despite the tilted balance, there was a comprehensive report which evidenced why the application should be refused permission.”

“After due consideration on the harms and benefits, the application should be refused permission. • It was clear from the consultee responses that the application should be refused permission, and it was sad to see the time that had been spent by those that had considered this application.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed refusal, Councillor Martin Prescott seconded it, and the committee then voted.

“Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to refuse permission and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott.”

“Councillor Ruth Brown • Councillor Martin Prescott • Councillor Val Bryant • Councillor Louise Peace…”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused planning permission for the reasons set out in the officer report.

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

“RESOLVED: That application 25/01708/OP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation manager.”

Minutes