Up to 30 homes at Land On The South Side Of Cowards Lane, Codicote

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 30 homes, including affordable housing, with access, landscaping, drainage, parking and associated works.

“Outline application with means of access for residential development of up to 30 dwellings (including affordable housing); following demolition of all existing structures; associated landscaping, drainage, car parking; infrastructure and all ancillary and enabling works (all matters reserved except means of access)”

Officer report

Earlier consideration

The application had been deferred so members could visit the site and receive further investigation of the tilted balance.

“A decision on this application was deferred by the Planning Control Committee at the meeting on 4 June 2026 to allow for a site visit to take place and for further investigation into the tilted balance to take place.”

“The scope of this report is limited to the reasons for deferral of the application which were to allow Members to visit the application site and to allow further investigation into the tilted balance. Therefore, this report provides more information relating to the tilted balance to assist Members in the determination of this application.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers said the council had a 2.6-year housing supply, so the tilted balance applied and the sustainable development should be approved.

“The so-called “tilted balance" applies where a local authority does not have a five- year housing land supply or the Housing Delivery Test shows that the local area delivered less than 75% of its housing requirement or the area’s development plan is significantly out of date.”

“The Council can only demonstrate a 2.6-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Appendix A sets out why there are no policies in the NPPF that provide a strong reason for refusing the proposal. As the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply the tilted balance applies.”

Officer report

What people said

A resident raised concerns about foul-water surcharging and flooding, while the applicant’s agent said Thames Water had raised no objection and surface water would use drainage systems.

“A further objection was received from a resident of the Riddy concerning foul water capacity and historic surcharging, and this was published on the Council’s website as a public comment. • The objection stated the foul sewer has a history of surcharging, causing sewage to escape into The Riddy and neighbouring bungalows. And the objector wished to know where the assessment was demonstrating sufficient hydraulic capacity for pumped foul flows from 30 dwellings.”

“The applicant’s agent stated Thames Water did respond to consultation on23 July and raised no objection to wastewater or treatment capacity, correcting the objector’s claim of no response. • The applicant’s agent highlighted that Thames Water recommended an informative requiring a groundwater risk management permit, and that any discharge without such a permit would be deemed illegal and result in prosecution under the Water Industry Act.”

Minutes

Who spoke

Three public objectors, a member advocate, a public supporter and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members debated pedestrian safety, infrastructure, biodiversity loss, compensation, the site’s wildlife value, affordable homes and the effect of the site visit.

“Councillor Nigel Mason, as Chair, proposed to grant permission with an amendment to read that permission should be granted subject to The completion of a satisfactory legal agreement that delivers the obligations set out in the agreed Heads of Terms at Table 1 and secure appropriate mitigation measures in respect of impacts on the Local Wildlife site, and where it is demonstrated that residual harm cannot be adequately mitigated, secure the provision of a compensation scheme…”

“The site visit was highly influential, helping Members understand the likely pedestrian routes and the physical context. • Cowards Lane was considered unlikely to be the preferred route for school children, though some Members felt it remained the most direct path. • The site was described as not resembling the lush meadow implied by its Local Wildlife Site designation, though others felt it could recover naturally if grazing ceased.”

Minutes

What the committee decided

Following a vote, the committee granted permission subject to a legal agreement, mitigation and possible compensation for impacts on the Local Wildlife Site.

“RESOLVED: That application 25/01776/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:”

“A) The completion of a satisfactory legal agreement that delivers the obligations set out in the agreed Heads of Terms at Table 1 and secure appropriate mitigation measures in respect of impacts on the Local Wildlife site, and where it is demonstrated that residual harm cannot be adequately mitigated, secure the provision of a compensation scheme as a measure of last resort.”

Minutes