Hertfordshire County Council officials have drawn up plans to dispose of farmland in Ickleford, earmarked for future housing development.

The site, which is currently occupied by two agricultural tenants, has been allocated for the development of 150 new homes in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan.

And on Wednesday (January 28), proposals to dispose of the site were presented to the county council's resources and performance cabinet panel.

Director of property Sass Pledger told councillors that the land had been part of the county council's smallholding estate.

But she said that in 2019 the council had taken the decision to "appropriate" the site "for planning purposes, to support growth in Hertfordshire".

She referenced the inclusion of the site in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan, with an allocation of 150 homes.

And she said: "The site is no longer required to deliver council services – and can make a contribution to meeting housing need within the district and also generate a capital receipt for the council."

At the meeting, local Conservative Cllr David Barnard highlighted multiple recent developments – some that were either under construction or at the planning stage – in Ickleford, resulting in several hundred new homes.

And he expressed concerns about the impact the further development would have on sewage facilities and highways.

He highlighted the need to address the "constant gridlock" on the A600.

He said the "inadequate" sewage system was already regularly overloaded – resulting in raw sewage spilling into gardens and entering homes through shower trays and toilets.

And he suggested that the site, which he suggested would "only appreciate in value", should be retained by the county council "to allow for these major problems to be addressed".

He also asked why the portion of the site that had been reserved for a new primary school had been withdrawn – seeking clarification on whether it was the land that had been withdrawn or the requirement for a school.

In response, Ms Pledger acknowledged the importance of drainage capacity, highway congestion and community safety.

But she said that they would all be properly considered as part of the statutory planning process, should an application for housing be submitted to the North Herts District Council, as the local planning authority.

And she suggested that disposal of the land may actually lead to those issues being addressed more quickly.

She said: "Any future development at Ickleford would be required to demonstrate that essential infrastructure can support growth – and that includes utilities, highways capacity, community impact assessments, as part of that process.

"So actually, by bringing the site forward as a proposition for disposal, that may be an opportunity for engagement with these key providers to actually encourage the developer to contribute towards betterment for the area through utilities, through highways works.

"For example, with transport, we would expect the planning application to include proposals for off-site improvements from the highways network, as well.

"And so by bringing it forward for disposal, you are able to then engage with all of these key providers to bring forward betterment for the area, which probably wouldn't happen, I would have thought, without it coming forward for disposal.

"So, by sitting on it, I don't think we are going to get any improvements to those issues."

Nevertheless, Labour Cllr Ian Albert, whose Hitchin North division neighbours Ickleford, also raised concerns.

And he questioned whether, once the site was sold, the council's involvement would cease.

"I am looking for those assurances to what extent we are able, if we dispose of this land, to be able to influence some of these things, in terms of the school, in terms of the infrastructure, the sewage systems.

"Because to some extent, once we have disposed of the land, the danger is we really don't have an influence at that stage – other than directly, clearly, in the school area.

"There is a logic in disposing of this land. But I just don't know to what extent we are going to be able to influence, in the way that we might want to here, in terms of what comes afterwards.

Adding: "The danger is that once it's gone, it's gone – and we are really not involved at that stage."

Financial aspects of the plans to dispose were shared with councillors in a private document.

Following the debate, the proposals to dispose of the site were backed by the meeting of the council's resources and performance cabinet panel.