| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham (Chairman), Councillor T.W. Hone (Vice-Chairman), Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Julian Cunningham, Councillor Tony Hunter, Councillor David Levett and Councillor Bernard Lovewell. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Chief Executive, Strategic Director of Finance, Policy & Governance, Head of Development & Building Control, Strategic Planning & Projects Manager, Principal Strategic Planning Officer, Senior Planning Officer (DH), Senior Planning Officer (CS), Principal Transport Policy Officer, Corporate Legal Manager and Monitoring Officer, Property & Planning Lawyer, Democratic Services Manager and Committee & Member Services Manager. |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Councillors John Booth, Paul Clark, Fiona Hill, Steve Jarvis, Ian Mantle and Michael Weeks. 28 members of the public. |
| Meeting attachments |
Agenda Front Sheet Audio Recording of Meeting |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 46 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Jane Gray. |
Noted | ||
| 47 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 26 July 2016 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 48 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no notification of other business. |
Noted | ||
| 49 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) The Chairman announced that Members of the public and the press may use their devices to film/photograph, or do a sound recording of the meeting, but she asked them to not use flash and to disable any beeps or other sound notifications that emitted from their devices. In addition, the Chairman had arranged for the sound at this particular meeting to be recorded; (2) The Chairman asked that, for the benefit of any members of the public present at the meeting, Executive Members and Officers announce their name and their designation to the meeting when invited to speak; and (3) The Chairman reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question. The Monitoring Officer advised on Members' interests. He reminded Members that prior to the Council meeting on 20 July 2016, he had read an explanation of the enquiries he had made of all Councillors with regard to their potential interests and approach to the Local Plan. Those enquiries related to the three issues that Members need to consider on any report a committee received, namely:- 1. Whether they hade a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, as defined by the regulations. 2. Whether they had a Declarable Interest, as defined by the Council's Members Code of Conduct. 3. Whether they had committed themselves to a particular course of action in relation to the Local Plan decision they were being asked to take and were therefore not able to approach the decision with a sufficiently open mind. Those enquiries had shown that sixteen Councillors had identified some form of potential interest, of which four were Executive Members. This clearly had potential implications for the ability of residents to be represented in this process and therefore the Monitoring Officer concluded in all the circumstances, including it being in the interests of persons living in the area, it was appropriate to grant a dispensation to those Councillors listed in the minutes of the 20 July 2016 meeting. A dispensation, if granted, was a permission for the Member concerned to take part in the debate and vote, notwithstanding the potential interest. The grounds for giving dispensations were set out in section 33 of the Localism Act and in section 8 of this Council's Code of Conduct for Members. Council delegated to the Monitoring Officer the authority to grant requests for dispensations, where it was considered appropriate. The Monitoring Officer had contacted all the Executive Members and asked them to confirm that their interests had not changed since the enquiries made ahead of the 20 July 2016 Council meeting. On the basis of the responses received, he confirmed that the dispensation previously granted had been extended to cover tonight's and tomorrow night's meeting of Cabinet for the following Councillors: Councillor Jane Gray (who was not present) - Interest: North Herts Homes Councillor Terry Hone - Interests: Hertfordshire County Council and Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Councillor Tony Hunter - Interest: Hertfordshire County Council Councillor Lynda Needham - Interest: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation The Monitoring Officer also confirmed that Councillors Hill and Mantle, who were not Members of Cabinet but who were in attendance tonight, had received dispensations for the Council meeting and their dispensations were also extended. For the avoidance of doubt, a vote tonight on the District Wide Local Plan would not restrict Members' role in respect of determination of any subsequent planning applications for an allocated site which was submitted to the authority. A vote in favour tonight would not prevent a Councillor speaking against, or voting against, a planning application in due course. The reverse of course also applied. |
Noted | ||
| 50 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Council was addressed by the following members of the public in respect of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031: (i) Mr David Switzer (Letchworth Garden City resident) re: Radburn Way site Mr Switzer referred Members to site LG6 of the Local Plan, which was land between Radburn Way and Baldock Road, Letchworth Garden City, with the BP petrol garage to the east and Freeman House to the west. Mr Switzer commented that six years ago he had appraised the Cabinet as to the reasons why this land could not be developed. He was of the view that there was an agreement made when the Jackman's Estate was first proposed. Objections were raised at that time and the development was only allowed to proceed when it was agreed that a "buffer strip" (ie. LG6) would be incorporated, in perpetuity. A further restriction was that the land could only be used for agricultural purposes. Mr Switzer stated that, at the NHDC Council meeting held on 25 February 1997, the Council agreed not to proceed with the development of this land for the reasons set out above. He was of the opinion that nothing had changed in respect of site LG6. Notwithstanding the fact that both councillors and officers were in a difficult situation in relation to meeting the required number of houses, Mr Switzer felt nonetheless it was inconceivable that this land featured again in the current proposal. After the Council meeting in 1997, he was advised by a councillor that, although plans to develop the land would not go through in the foreseeable future, it would be likely that at some time in the future it would be re-submitted, as the officers were furious that the Council had not agreed to the development of this land. Mr Switzer commented that so it had proved. Over the past 20 years, NHDC officers had been provided with a potted history of events, along with details which prevented development. Notwithstanding this, officers continually included this land for development and had done so under various guises since 1997, namely LE051 Hertfordshire County Structure Plan 2001-2016; L/r2 Strategic Housing Land Available; 4030 Halcrow report; Hertfordshire Structure Plan Amendments; and Site 13 in NHDC correspondence dated 1 October 2013. Mr Switzer stated that NHDC had admitted on more than one occasion that there were restrictions on developing this land (NHDC letters dated 10 September 1966, 7 April 2003 and 23 September 2003). However, a letter from NHDC dated 4 March 2004 had advised that legal opinion suggested that the land could be developed. On investigation, Mr Switzer was advised that this was an internal opinion. On seeking an independent opinion, he provided relevant documentation a Queen's Counsel and received an "off the record" assessment that the residents had an overwhelming case that would prevent development. Mr Switzer appreciated that Council officers wished to maximise building opportunities, and thus had included site LG6. To him, it appeared that this was a rather naïve approach in view of the evidence and his concern was that if NHDC did not take a pragmatic view, the matter would only be resolved by a court of law. This would be expensive to both parties and the costs would fall on all or some of the Council Tax payers. Mr Switzer considered that there was an opportunity to turn this green space into a benefit for the community as a whole, and he urged the Cabinet to remove site LG6 from the current plan and re-consider a more practical use for it in line with the legal requirements attached to it. He had documentation on the matter going back to 1954, but re-iterated that approval to develop the Jackmans Estate was only given on condition that the "buffer strip" (LG6) be agreed and, in perpetuity, the land could only be used for agricultural purposes. (ii) Parish Councillor Phil Beavis (St. Pauls Walden Parish Council) re: Whitwell site Parish Councillor Beavis advised that the draft Local Plan contained a site to the west of Whitwell, identified as SP2. The Parish Council was asking the Cabinet to remove this site from the Plan before public consultation commenced. SP2 was added to the draft Plan at a very late stage, at the Council meeting held on 20 July 2016. Parish Councillor Beavis explained that, since that meeting, the Council had refused a planning application for 41 homes, due to the unacceptable visual impact of the required flood risk mitigation. The site was a beautiful sloping agricultural valley, which was highly visible from the Chiltern Way and other cycleways and footpaths in the area. The flood risk was so great that huge drainage basins were required on the site, equivalent to the size of more than one and a half Olympic swimming pools. Parish Councillor Beavis stated that the NHDC Decision Notice stated that no solution could be found and that "in the Council's view the proposal is unacceptable in principle and the fundamental objections cannot be overcome". He considered that if the Cabinet agreed to the draft allocation of this site, the Members would be openly contradicting the decision of the Planning Control Committee. The Cabinet would be indicating that a solution to the flood mitigation could be found and that the scheme would not have a significant visual impact. This contradiction would leave the Council vulnerable to an award of costs against them if an appeal was made. Alternatively, the Local Plan Inspector may find that the whole Local Plan was unsound because you are relying on a site that could not be delivered. Parish Councillor Beavis advised that real engagement with communities was a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which stated: "Local Plans are the key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the visions and aspirations of local communities; and Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration, with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses, is essential". Parish Councillor Beavis advised that the Parish Council did not understand why the Council Policy Officers attached so little weight to the views of the people of Whitwell, the Parish Council and the elected Planning Control Committee Members. The Parish Council fully supported the proposed allocation of the site as Green belt in the last draft Plan, but this had been disregarded. The inclusion of SP2 at such a late stage in the process ignored all of the advice in the NPPF about collective vision and the need for local people to shape their surroundings. Parish Councillor Beavis concluded by asking that any reference to SP2 be removed from the Plan before public consultation for the following four reasons: 1. The NHDC Planning Control Committee refused planning permission for 41 homes on the site, finding that there were significant and demonstrable visual impacts arising form the required flood mitigation needed. The Decision Notice confirmed that the proposal was unacceptable in principle, the fundamental objection could not be overcome, and that no solution could be found. 2. The allocation of this large site was contrary to the Council's own Landscape Character review, which stated that development of this scale (over 5 hectares) would be inappropriate. Visual impacts would be high and affect the existing rural lanes, which could erode the character of the landscape. 3. The site was located in an area of significant flood risk, having experienced a flooding event in 2014. The NPPF specified that development should not occur on sites at risk of flooding where other sites were available. 4. The people of Whitwell and the Parish Council were fully engaged in the planning process, but it felt like the Policy officers were not listening to them. They asked Cabinet Members to listen to Whitwell residents and the findings of the Council's own Planning Control Committee. (iii) Christine Watson (Save Rural Baldock Group) Christine Watson began by stating that her Group was under no illusions that they would be able to sway the Cabinet's opinion, but she nonetheless wished to make a few final comments on behalf of those who were against the Local Plan. Christine Watson spoke unapologetically for the town of Baldock, as it was a well loved historical market town and was, more than anywhere else in the county, under threat from the Local Plan. She considered that the current Plan threatened irreversible negative consequences to the character of Baldock and its rural environs. Creation of new homes should be an investment, but many fear that the Plan would be the death knell for what was currently a thriving asset for Hertfordshire. Christine Watson commented that huge housing estates of generic homes did not add aesthetically to the towns they were tacked on to, and this proposal would be no different. The infrastructure required to create the development was massive, but the Council was loathe to specify details and she felt that they knew that developers would not foot the bill to provide what was crucial to a development if this size. Christine Watson advised that no new evidence had been made available concerning real traffic predictions for Baldock, and the link roads suggested by the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise would do nothing to alleviate the situation. Only purpose built ring roads could approach a solution to this problem. It was still the case that a massive development in Baldock would be a win-win situation for Hertfordshire County Council, which she felt coloured their judgement. Facilities such as schools, health centres and transport would be overcrowded and become degraded. In short, she feared that Baldock as she knew it and the town that many had sought as a good place to live, would be no more. This need not happen if development was to be shared out more equitably around the county. Christine Watson referred to the fact that the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise had stated that maybe it was Baldock's turn to suffer a huge development, but he ignored the extensive increase in housing borne by the town in the 1970s and 1980s when the Clothall Common Estate was built. That increase of just over 20%, which was larger than any other town in North Hertfordshire was being forced to accept now, had created its own problems in the town. That Baldock was now being required to accommodate an increase of around 80% of population was laughable and would cause considerable disquiet in the community, in addition to the physical and mechanical consequences of the development. Christine Watson and her Group felt that NHDC's attitude was quite patronising. It was as if the Council had given up and were just passing on the decision to inspectors. The Council was setting an increasingly unrealistic timetable for fear of losing the New Homes Bonus, and she considered that Members were reacting to external pressure and were in panic mode. Christine Watson and her Group would be urging everyone in the county, and especially in Baldock, to take part in the consultation and to send the inspector their informed views. If they had done this previously it was still imperative that they did so again in the hope that an unbiased judgement would be made. (iv) James Buxton (Pigeon Investment Management Ltd.) re: Whitwell site Mr Buxton advised that, as Members were aware, the Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan included an allocation for around 41 new homes at Bendish Lane, Whitwell. The site had already been the subject of a detailed planning application and the detailed level of scrutiny applied to the site during the application process had shown the allocation to be both sustainable and deliverable. In the opinion of both County Council and District Council officers the detailed scheme met all the criteria set out in draft Policy SP2, in particular relating to surface water drainage, landscaping and design. Mr Buxton stated that, at the NHDC Planning Control Committee meeting held on 18 August 2016, the planning application had been refused, contrary to an officer's recommendation for approval, because the extent of landscape and earthwork changes necessary to facilitate the proposed flood risk mitigation scheme would fail to maintain the existing character and visual quality of the countryside. Mr Buxton commented that, since this refusal, a meeting had taken place with Hertfordshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) to agree alternative flood risk mitigation options for the allocation site. The LLFA had agreed in principle to these options and correspondence confirming this had been provided to the Council. One of the agreed options incorporated a below ground infiltration tank system, which would have no impact on the landscape, but would ensure that not only the new houses, but also existing houses, would no longer be at risk of flooding. Mr Buxton considered that the above approach would fully address the concerns raised by some Members at the recent Planning Control Committee meeting, thus enabling the site to be delivered in accordance with the criteria set out in draft Policy SP2. Mr Buxton appreciated the time and commitment that County Council and District Council officers had given to supporting this sustainable site and he respectfully asked that Members continued to support its allocation in the Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan. (v) Keith Hutchinson re: Ickleford site Mr Hutchinson advised that he was a planning consultant instructed by a group of local residents who were directly affected by the proposed housing allocation IC2 at Burford Grange, Ickleford. Mr Hutchinson had already made representations on behalf of these residents at the Preferred Options consultation stage of the new Local Plan. Mr Hutchinson stated that, bearing in mind the strong objections raised, he and the residents were surprised and disappointed that the Council continued to include this allocation. At that stage, they emphasised the unsuitability of the site for development, taking into account its Green Belt status and the essential need to resist further erosion of the fragile gap between Ickleford and Hitchin if the separate identity of those settlements was to be retained. Mr Hutchinson and the residents were particularly concerned that the summary of representations in respect of this proposed allocation presented to Members contained no reference to their fundamental objection regarding urban sprawl and coalescence, although a general acknowledgement of these issues was referred to at the beginning of the section dealing with Ickleford. The summary of comments specifically relating to the IC" Burford Grange allocation referred only to £traffic and access issues", putting at risk pedestrian safety and a perception that "the site could accommodate more housing than the allocated 48". He considered this to be extremely misleading for Members. Mr Hutchinson explained that Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirmed "the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open" and, in his opinion, this was particularly important in respect of the IC2 allocation, which would only continue the urban sprawl of Hitchin northwards and result in development within the fragile gap between Hitchin and Ickleford and the complete coalescence of the two settlements. Mr Hutchinson and the residents were also very concerned that the recently published Green Belt Review provided an inconsistent approach to assessing the importance of the Green belt in respect of the land between Hitchin and Ickleford. This assessment acknowledged that the Green belt in this locality made a "significant contribution in preventing sprawl northward of Hitchin", but then concluded that in overall terms its contribution was only "moderate". Mr Hutchinson commented that a more detailed evaluation on a sector by sector basis indicated that the area of land to the west of the A600, including the proposed allocation IC2 (Sector 12a), made a significant contribution to the Green belt in overall terms, bearing in mind its importance in preventing expansion of Hitchin northwards and the need to safeguard the countryside for its own sake. The assessment indicated that this sector "plays no role in preventing merger of neighbouring towns", but the assessment of Sector 13c to the east of the A600 indicated that it made a significant contribution to the Green Belt as it "separates the settlements of Ickleford and Hitchin". Mr Hutchinson and the residents considered that the land to the east and west of the A600 made a significant contribution to the Green Belt, both in terms of its prevention of the urban sprawl of Hitchin in a northerly direction and the coalescence of Hitchin and Ickleford. They wrote to the Planning Department at the beginning of August 2016 outlining the above concerns and requesting that the allocation be withdrawn, and received a brief reply at the end of August indicating that "the most appropriate way to comment upon these proposals is through the consultation process and should relate directly to the submission document and associated evidence base". However, taking into account the errors in reporting previous representations and the clear anomalies in the assessment of the suitability of this site for allocation, the residents now requested that the Cabinet considered deleting the allocation at this stage before the Local Plan was submitted. Deletion would have little impact on the overall strategic housing requirement, particularly as the objectively assessed need for housing had been reduced recently. However, it would have a marked impact in ensuring that the separate identity of Ickleford was retained and the Green Belt objectives were maintained. (vi) Parish Councillor Rev. Sonia Falaschi-Ray (Barkway Parish Council) Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray advised that Barkway was an historic village, largely comprising houses from the 15th century to the present, set out in a linear arrangement along the High Street. Proposed site BK3 was for a "mushroom cloud" of new dwellings at the top of the village. Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray explained that the village currently comprised 329 houses, to which it was proposed to allocate a further 204, an increase of 62%. The existing residents were happy to have some development in the village (65 houses, a 25% increase, many of which had already been built0. However, site BK, which had previously been rejected as being outside the village settlement boundary, wand was Grade 2 agricultural land, was now proposed in the draft Local Plan and planning applications were commencing. Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray stated that Barkway had very few amenities (pub, filling station, First School, hairdresser and pitiful bus service). BK3 would not contribute towards local employment, as occupiers would all need cars. However, Newsells Stud (which adjoined the site) had yearlings grazing nearby, who would all be at risk adjacent to a new housing estate. Cars would also be required to access facilities in Royston and Buntingford, and the existing busy roads would also be congested, thereby breaching NHDC's own Sustainable Transport Policy. Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray commented that advice from a consultant had indicated that a new sewage works would also be required. However, Anglian Water had advised that Barkway's current water pressure was at the legal minimum and so an upgraded fresh water supply would be needed. Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray considered that the size of the "mushroom cloud" of development was disproportionate. It was an unfair allocation and appeared to breach a number of NHDC's existing strategies, including the North Hertfordshire and Stevenage Landscape Character Assessment, especially as it was a 7.7 hectare site (in excess of the 5 hectare maximum guideline for extensions to settlements). Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray stated that an analysis of Ermine Ward voting figures implied that the majority of Barkway residents voted Conservative. They would feel alienated from that Party if a Conservative-controlled Council was seen to be sacrificing their village on the altar of house building expediency. She urged Members to re-consider the inclusion of site BK3 in the Plan, which she considered would be wholly detrimental to Barkway. (vii) Graham Lee (Claybush Road Action Group, Ashwell) Mr Lee advised that Ashwell parish Council and the village as a whole was not against development that met a proven local need, and on a site that was appropriate to that need. The village had engaged in the Localism process by forming a Neighbourhood Planning Group, and the preparation of the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan was at an advanced stage. Mr Lee stated that the Parish Council and Neighbourhood Planning Group were collectively against the development of Site AS1 (Claybush Road, Ashwell) for a number of reasons. Firstly, the land was located in a prominent position on rising ground to the south of Ashwell. This area was within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands and was referenced in NHDC Planning Policies 6 and 7, which required that the development sites should lie within the main area of the village (AS1 was outside the permitted development boundary); the proposal should be in line with policy aims for visual landscape character (which AS1 was not); and the proposal should maintain or enhance the character or visual quality of the village or the surrounding area (which AS1 did not). Mr Lee explained that NHDC had considered planning applications from the owner of Site As1 on several occasions, dating back to 1980 and as recently as 1995. On each occasion, the application was found to be unsuitable. On one of those occasions, a Government Inspector dismissed an appeal on the basis that any building on the proposed land would consolidate the ribbon of fringe development into a more dense intrusive form; would be an unsightly incursion into the attractive open land; and would impose on the privacy of occupants of buildings that abutted the land. Mr Lee advised that NHDC had also commissioned a heritage assessment of the site, which had concluded in July 2016 that development of any scale within the site was likely to impact on views north towards Ashwell Church tower, from the Claybush Hill slope, and from the Bronze Age hill fort known as Arbury Banks. Mr Lee stated that, at the time of the Local Plan Preferred Options in 2014, a public meeting took place in Ashwell, which unanimously rejected development on Site AS1. Over 135 specific objections were made at this time and sent to NHDC, and only 1 representation in favour. Subsequently, representatives of the Neighbourhood Planning Group had met with NHDC Planning Officers in December 2015 and had provided details of 3 alternative sites that were considered to be more suitable than Site AS1 for inclusion in the Local Plan. The draft emerging Neighbourhood Plan was supplied to NHDC in May 2016, which provided further information on the 3 alternative sites. This was within the timetable supplied to the Neighbourhood Planning Group for registering alternative options to be considered by NHDC. In conclusion, Mr Lee re-iterated that residents were not against the building of further housing in Ashwell. The village had sought to co-operate with NHDC, and MR Lee asked members to re-consider Site AS1 and replace it in the Local Plan with the far more suitable alternative options already provided. The Chairman thanked all the speakers for their presentations. |
Noted | ||
| 51 |
NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE LOCAL PLAN 2011-2031 Report Appendix 1 - Council Report - 20 July 2016 Appendix 2 - Schedule of Changes Appendix 3 - Final Proposed Submission Local Plan Appendix 4.1 - Map Appendix 4.2 Map Appendix 4.3 - Map Appendix 4.4 - Map Appendix 4.5 - Map Appendix 5 - SASEA Report of Proposed Submission Local Plan September 2016 Appendix 6 - Consultation Report Sept 2016 Appendix 7 - List of supporting Evidence documents The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise presented a report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise in respect of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix 1 - Report to Full Council - 20 July 2016 (excluding appendices); Appendix 2 - Table of Amendments to the Strategic Policies and Communities Sections of the Local Plan and the Proposals Map as endorsed by Full Council on 20 July 2016; Appendix 3 - Proposed Submission Draft North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031; Appendix 4 - Draft Policies Map; Appendix 5 - Sustainability Appraisal; Appendix 6 - Statement of Consultation; and Appendix 7 - List of Supporting Evidence Documents. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise began by reminding those present that the purpose of the meeting was to debate Recommendations 2.1 to 2.4 of the report. In summary, the report sought authority to carry out public consultation on the proposed Submission Draft of the new North Hertfordshire Local Plan. This was the final stage of consultation before the Plan was submitted to the Government for independent examination. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise stated that the purpose of the report was not to consider the merits or otherwise of specific policies, or to approved sites, or to make changes to the Submission draft of the Local Plan. The time and place to make representations would be during the consultation process, and it would then be up to the Government Inspector to decide if those representations would be considered during the Examination in Public (EIP) following the submission of the Plan. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise explained that any site specific representations on planning applications were a matter for the NHDC Planning Control Committee. The Local Plan was a strategic policy document affecting the whole of North Hertfordshire. It was important to realise that, following approval of the document, the Council had no powers to make substantive changes or amendments. Any responses to the consultation would be for the attention of the Inspector that was appointed to conduct the EIP. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise advised that the EIP would be the appropriate place for the Council to explain and defend any proposals in the Plan, together with the associated evidence base. It was therefore not proposed to hold specific public meetings, workshops, or drop-in sessions for this consultation. The Council would, however, provide guidance on how to make representations as part of the consultation process. To this end, briefings would be arranged for NHDC Members, Parish Councils and registered groups on 19 and 20 October 2016. These would be facilitated by an independent planning advisory service, who would advise on good practice for the submission of representations. Turning to the report recommendations, the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise stated that Recommendation 2.1 proposed that the steps taken since July 2016, including the findings of the recently completed evidence studies, be noted. These were all detailed, in full, in Section 8 of the report. The main content of the Strategic Policies and Communities Sections of the Plan were set out in the July 2016 Council report and endorsed at that meeting. Some minor modifications had subsequently been made to these Sections of the Plan (these modifications were listed in Appendix 2 to the report). On the subject of sites, the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise explained that some of these may be the subject of recent or past planning applications. Should any of these be refused, the applicant had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. When the Council was considering the continued inclusion of such sites within the Local Plan, the right of appeal and any grounds for refusal, either by the Local Planning Authority or Planning Inspectorate, must be taken into account along with the context in which these decisions were made. The consideration for continuing to include these allocations would include whether that context had changed and/or whether there was a reasonable prospect of any alternative technical solutions to overcome any reasons for refusal within the lifetime of the Plan. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise summarised the evidence base updates. The Traffic Model testing had been finalised and now included a greater level of detail. It continued to conclude that, with the implementation of mitigation schemes identified in the report, the proposed Local Plan strategy could be supported in Highways terms. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan identified a number of specific projects that would be required to support new development over the Plan period. The Local Plan Viability Assessment update concluded that there was a relatively strong picture relating to development viability in North Hertfordshire. The general mix of policies and proposals in the draft Plan could therefore be supported in viability terms. The testing supported the approach to affordable housing and other requirements in the draft Plan. The review indicated that the strategic sites could support a reasonable level of affordable housing, along with other infrastructure requirements. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise explained that one area which had changed was in respect of the Objectively Assessed Need. The most substantive changes arose from an update to the overall Housing Needs paper. Following the July 2016 Council meeting, the Inspector appointed to examine Stevenage Borough Council's Local Plan had specifically requested that further work be undertaken to ensure their Local Plan was based on the most up to date Government housing and population statistics. Due to previous joint working between NHDC and Stevenage Borough Council on this matter, it was necessary for this update to cover both Authorities. There was now a need for the North Hertfordshire Local Plan to acknowledge that the Objectively Assessed Need was now considered to be 13,800 dwellings, rather than the 14,400 reported in July 2016. It was also considered necessary to revise the targets in Policy SP8 accordingly. A revised housing target for North Hertfordshire of 14,000 homes (ie. the 13,800 + 200) had therefore been included in the final version of the draft Plan. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise commented that the Plan and evidence base endorsed in July 2016 had acknowledged that it was necessary to include a buffer of additional sites over and above the target to ensure efficient flexibility. At the time of the July 2016 report, this buffer stood at approximately 3%. It was considered from reviews of other EIPs that this was the lowest level that might be considered acceptable by the Planning Inspectorate. The Plan now contained a buffer of approximately 7%, which should reduce the risk of further allocations to the Plan at Examination Stage, such as a potential request by the Inspector to re-visit the housing target and/or review additional sites or, indeed, to remove any sites. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise stated that sections of the Plan now presented which were not included in the July 2016 report were: Introduction and Context; Detailed Development Management Policies (Economy and Town Centres; Countryside and the Green Belt; Transport; Housing Strategy; Design; Healthy Communities; Natural Environment; and Historic Environment); and Monitoring and Review. In respect of Recommendation 2.2, the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise advised that this recommended that the proposed submission draft Local Plan, attached as Appendix 3, and associated documents, attached as Appendices 4 to 6 to this report and as additionally listed in Appendix 7, (known collectively as the proposed submission documents) be approved for public consultation. He advised that consultation was proposed to commence on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 for a statutory period of 6 weeks. Consultation activities would be guided by the Council's Statement of Community Involvement. The consultation would be available on the Council's Website; and copies of the Plan and Proposals Map would be provided to each Parish council and made available at Baldock, Hitchin, Knebworth, Letchworth Garden City and Royston Libraries. Copies would also be placed at central libraries in Luton and Stevenage. In order to facilitate Recommendation 2.3, the Cabinet noted that recommendation 2.3 asked that delegated authority be given to the Head of Development and Building Control in conjunction with the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise to finalise the proposed submission documents (including non material amendments to the Plan), undertake public consultation upon them and prepare the Local Plan for submission. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise explained that Recommendation 2.4 required that, subject to the approval of Recommendations 2.1 to 2.3, officers be instructed to report on the consultation and proposed next steps by March 2017. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise commented that, following expiry of the consultation period, officers would process and analyse all valid representations submitted. Subject to the consultation not raising any substantive new issues, the Council would be asked to submit the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for Public Examination early in 2017. The Cabinet debated the Local Plan, and comments made by the Executive Member for Policy, Transport and Green Issues included the following: - The Government required the Council to produce a Sustainable Local Plan, taking account of social, economic and environmental factors; - The Plan would put into place means to ensure, so far as possible, that development took place in a sustainable manner to enable subsequent generations to inherit the best features of the District; - The new settlement option had not immediately been pursued, as the minimum timeframe for this form of substantial development would be 15 to 25 years. However, there remained the possibility of this form of development in the post 2031 version of the Plan; - The Plan needed to be taken in its totality and the Council was not in a position to debate the merits or otherwise of each site allocation within it; - Development in the Green Belt would be inevitable in order to achieve anything like the number of new homes required; - It was important that proper infrastructure development was delivered to support the increased amount of housing; - The Sustainable Transport Policies and Minimum Parking Standards at New Developments contained in the Plan were welcomed; - The Affordable Housing Policies were also welcomed, and it was noted that although there was an overall target of 33%, it was pleasing to acknowledge that 40% may be viable on some sites; - The employment policies were important, although it was considered that the appointment of an NHDC Economic Development Officer to drive the approved Economic development Strategy would assist in the implementation of these policies; and - The Town Centre Strategies may need to be looked at again once the Plan was agreed. In response to a Member's question, the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise advised that the consequences of not approving the Plan would be that the Council would have to re-commence the whole process from scratch. The Cabinet supported the recommendations to progress to the next stage in development of the Plan. In some cases, this did not mean that Members agreed to a number of the site allocations contained in the document, but the Cabinet recognised that the Council needed to work within Government guidelines. It should not be overlooked that there were a number of excellent policies in the Plan which were not site-specific. RESOLVED: (1) That the steps taken since July 2016, including the findings of the recently completed evidence studies, be noted; (2) That the proposed submission draft North Hertfordshire Local Plan, attached as Appendix 3 to the report, and associated documents, attached as Appendices 4 to 6 to the report and as additionally listed in Appendix 7, (known collectively as the proposed submission documents) be approved for public consultation; (3) That delegated authority be given to the Head of Development and Building Control, in conjunction with the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise, to finalise the proposed submission documents (including non- material amendments to the Plan), undertake public consultation upon them and prepare the Local Plan for submission; and (4) That, subject to the above recommendations, officers be instructed to report on the consultation and proposed next steps by March 2017. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that North Hertfordshire can meet the Government's deadline to produce a Local Plan that it considers to be legally compliant and ‘sound'. |
Agreed | ||