News

We have recently responded to a planning application to build a 4-bedroom house on green belt land at the end of Molewood Road next to the former mill stream.

The proposed development site falls within the boundary of the Bengeo Neighbourhood Area Plan and we have submitted an objection to these proposals as we consider them to conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan’s commitment to protecting natural habitats. This is demonstrated in the
Plan, as follows: –

• Vision Statement: ‘natural areas and biodiversity will be enhanced and protected’
• Objective B: `maintain protect and increase natural habitats, wildlife, and local biodiversity’
• Policy HBH4: which supports development on brownfield sites.

It’s recognised that the Planning Inspectorate determined (on appeal for application 3/24/0239/FUL) that the proposed development site met the NPPF criterion for grey belt. We consider, nonetheless, that development on this site would represent further encroachment on the natural areas alongside Footpath 93, with the attendant risk that nearby Green Belt areas could, subsequently, be classified as grey belt, with the consequent negative impact on natural habitats. North Road Meadow (designated as a Local Green Space in the Neighbourhood Plan), and less than 100 metres away, is also adjacent to Footpath 93 (part of the Hertfordshire Way). In the Neighbourhood Plan, the area is described as ‘a wildlife haven’.

We note that one of the reasons given by the Planning Inspector for dismissing the applicant’s appeal on application 3/24/0239/FUL was that the scheme conflicted with District Plan policies seeking to achieve ‘no net loss of existing landscape features of amenity or biodiversity value’, and ‘a net gain in biodiversity’. Having seen the site, in its natural setting, we consider that mitigation measures, during and post development, are unlikely to adequately compensate for disturbances and damage to natural habitats during the process of constructing site access, parking spaces, and a dwelling.

We have submitted the following comments to East Herts Council following a planning application for redevelopment at 2A Church Road.

Paragraph 4.2.1 of the Arboricultural Impacts Assessment says that the proposed development necessitates the removal of the Leyland cypress T4 and T5, and that T3 is to be removed for arboricultural reasons and to allow for new planting. Whilst the trees scheduled for removal are listed as C/U grade, we recommend their replacement as per Neighbourhood Plan Policy HBN3: Nature Conservation, which says: ‘replacement of trees with native trees, in suitable locations, will be encouraged where the development results in the unavoidable loss of trees on the site’.

It’s noted that incursion into tree root protection areas, associated with this proposed development, would be below the generally recognised British Standard 20% threshold, and that, as stated in the Arboricultural Impacts Statement, an arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan will be required.

We have recently submitted our response to proposals to build a new 5-bed house on land adjacent to 29 Farquhar Street.

The new house would occupy a triangular plot of land to the southwest of the property that is currently part of the garden . The new house would be accessed through an existing vehicle entrance in the street.

Having evaluated the July 2025 Design and Access Statement, and the Arboricultural Impacts Assessment (AIA) dated 16/05/25, we have submitted an objection to this planning application for the reasons given below.

1. Paragraph 4.2.3 of the AIA states ‘construction activity associated with the proposed building works will be significant and potentially represents the greatest source of harmful impact on trees since RPAs encroach substantially into the site and into areas where building activities may occur. This potentially applies to all the trees identified in the report and is of particular relevance to the belt of sycamore trees along the western boundary that grow on a steep incline. Loss of structural integrity of roots from these trees that are present within the site may lead to instability and possible tree failure’. The Design and Access Statement does not provide detail on how the on-site trees will be protected during construction activity, particularly on how unacceptable levels of incursion into root-protection area will be avoided.
2. Bengeo Neighbourhood Area Plan Policy HBH2: Design and Development requires that residential development proposals should aim to protect the amenity and privacy of existing and future residents. The amenity of residents in Archers Close, living below the line of trees on the steep bank of the proposed development site, could fail to be protected if construction
   activity compromises the belt of sycamore trees on the western boundary.
3. After appropriate review by the committee, it is concluded that this proposed development is not consistent with the Bengeo Neighbourhood Area Plan.

An earlier planning application for a new house on the site was refused by East Herts Council in March for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, due to its bulk, scale and footprint, would appear out of keeping with the grain of development or be sympathetic to the site and would fail to reflect the character and appearance of the locality.
2. In the absence of sufficient information in regard to soft landscaping on the site and the protection of existing trees in line with BS5837 (5.3.4).
3. The Small Sites Biodiversity Metric and a Biodiversity Assessment submitted with the application show that a biodiversity net gain in area-based habitat units has not been achieved. As such, it cannot be demonstrated that ecology and biodiversity would be protected and enhanced.