Plans to demolish buildings on Cuffley Green Belt land and replace them with 14 dwellings have been approved after a rehearing of the application. 

Last month, the Welwyn Hatfield Council development management committee considered the controversial proposal. 

The demolition of existing buildings and erection of 14 dwellings in Wells Farm were being considered. 

It had then been voted by a majority to reject the application. There had been considerable opposition to the plans to build high-end houses on what had been listed as "High Harm" status Green Belt land. 

Soon after, residents were informed that a rehearing would take place on Thursday, October 20. Here, the planning application was approved, with 11 in favour and two against. 

Residents have been left confused by the decision for the rehearing, and along with Northaw & Cuffley Parish Council, have asked WHBC council why the rerun was needed.

Neville Shack, an environmental campaigner whose family has owned Thornton's Farm for more than 50 years, said: “The planning department has only said that there were (unspecified) concerns about the original process, though no one has denied that it was a fair democratic decision."

After the application was approved, Councillor Bob Stubbs for Northaw & Parish Council, who spoke against the planning application, said: “In September the same issue was considered by the same people and the vote was 7 to 6 to refuse consent.

"The council alleges that post the meeting representations were made, and officers' advice was that the decision should be rescinded with a rerun in October.  

“The council has not made public who made representations about what, nor the advice from officers. So much for openness and transparency? The Parish Council is seeking through Freedom of Information requests to access the facts.

“The Conservative administration was elected on a mandate to protect the Green Belt and at the first real test they fail miserably." 

At its next meeting the parish council will consider whether to take more legal advice on the prospects of a Judicial Review succeeding.

A WHBC council spokesman said: “Following the meeting of the Development Management Committee on September 29, detailed concerns were raised as to whether full and proper consideration was given by each member of the committee to the whole of the relevant information which was provided during the course of the meeting.

"These related to concerns that a member of the committee had not paid attention to proceedings during the consideration of the application, which could have led to a potential challenge of the decision taken by the committee.

“Officers gave detailed consideration to these concerns, including taking independent specialist legal advice, and concluded that the matter should be referred to the Development Management Committee for it to be given fresh and full consideration, following the rescission of the previous resolution.

“Whether an application is granted or refused, decisions need to be robust and able to stand up to scrutiny, whether through legal challenge or appeal. The application was reconsidered to ensure this is the case, irrespective of the outcome. 

"We had written to interested parties to notify them of the situation and the new committee date, and the papers were published in accordance with the normal statutory timelines, to ensure maximum transparency.

“We have stated our commitment to protecting the Green Belt on many occasions, but individual planning applications must be considered on their own merits, in accordance with local and national policy.

"The officer’s report sets out the reasoning for the recommendation for this particular application, and all representations were considered, including those submitted on behalf of local residents. This report was provided to the committee, who were the decision-taker in this instance.

“We understand the reaction from some residents given that the application had been to committee in September, but we have a responsibility to ensure that decisions are robust and stand up to scrutiny, both as a principle and in order to try to avoid taxpayer money being spent in defending legal claims.

"The outcome of the committee in September was not a factor in considering whether the matter should be referred to the Development Management Committee for a fresh and full consideration.

"We are also aware of a Freedom of Information request and have already responded to this request ahead of the statutory timeframe.”