| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | The Main Hall, North Herts Leisure Centre, Baldock Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor Tricia Cowley (Chairman), Councillor R.L. Shakespeare - Smith (Vice-Chairman), Councillor Mrs A.G. Ashley, Councillor D.J. Barnard, Councillor Clare Billing, Councillor Judi Billing, Councillor John Booth, Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Paul Clark, Councillor Julian Cunningham, Councillor Bill Davidson, Councillor Faye S Frost, Councillor Jane Gray, Councillor Jean Green, Councillor John Harris, Councillor Simon Harwood, Councillor Steve Hemingway, Councillor Fiona Hill, Councillor T.W. Hone, Councillor Tony Hunter (from 7.50pm), Councillor S.K. Jarvis, Councillor Sal Jarvis, Councillor David Kearns, Councillor Lorna Kercher, Councillor Joan Kirby, Councillor David Leal - Bennett, Councillor David Levett, Councillor Ben Lewis, Councillor Bernard Lovewell, Councillor Ian Mantle, Councillor Jim McNally, Councillor Alan Millard, Councillor Gerald Morris, Councillor M.R.M. Muir, Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, Councillor Frank Radcliffe, Councillor Deepak Sangha, Councillor Deborah Segalini, Councillor Adrian Smith (from 7.35pm), Councillor Mrs C.P.A. Strong, Councillor R.A.C. Thake and Councillor M.E. Weeks. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Chief Executive, Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, Strategic Director of Customer Services, Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management, Head of Development and Building Control, Strategic Planning & Projects Manager, Principal Strategic Planning Officer, Senior Planning Officer, Acting Development & Conservation Manager, Acting Corporate Legal Manager, Democratic Services Manager and Committee and Member Services Manager. |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Alderman F.J. Smith Rebecca Powell and Dominic Morris (Eversheds Solicitors) 3 members of the Independent Remuneration Panel 321 members of the public. |
| Meeting attachment |
Agenda Front Pages |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 42 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A. Bardett, John Bishop, Gary Grindal, Cathryn Henry, Sandra Lunn, Mike Rice and A.D. Young. |
Noted | ||
| 43 |
MINUTES Minutes It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, seconded by Councillor T.W. Hone, and RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 4 September 2014 be approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 44 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS No additional business was presented for consideration by the Council. |
Noted | ||
| 45 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) Long Service Awards Sheila Spendelow The Chairman advised that Sheila joined the Council in 1989 and was recruited as part of the expanding Team required to administer the Community Charge. This was a complete career change for Sheila, having previously worked in Care Homes. However, it quickly became apparent that her calmness in dealing with customers and her ability to learn quickly made her well suited to her new role. Sheila played an integral part in preparing the Council for Community Charge, and she continued to do so with Council Tax and the many legislative changes that had to been introduced in the interim Sheila had developed over the years into a highly professional officer, especially in assisting customers and taking a pragmatic approach to problem solving. She was a popular and well respected member of the Team. Kevin Conheeney The Chairman announced that Kevin joined the Council as an Administrative Assistant on 6 November 1989. Prior to that, Kevin was a Registry Clerk, based at RAF Henlow. Kevin was based at Town Lodge for 22 years, before relocating to the Council Offices in Gernon Road. Over the years, Kevin had seen many changes at NHDC. He was now part of the Management Support Team, and was a friendly member of staff, always willing to go out of his way to help others. At weekends, Kevin DJ'd for all kinds of events and private parties. He was also a captain of two pub dart teams and had been a Fulham football supporter from the age of 6. He enjoyed listing to all types of music and watching live bands perform. Vic Godfrey The Chairman advised that Vic came to the Council having spent ten years in the Army. He started as the Computer Operations Manager in the days when the Council operated a mainframe computer, which filled a room around the size of Committee Room 1. As technology changed, Vic also adapted and in 1995 became the Technical Support Manager and finally, in May 2001, he was further promoted to become the Council's IT Manager. Vic had been at the forefront of all the technological advances that the Council had made in the last decade, most notably: - Migration from mainframe to individual network servers; - Installation of a Novel Network and the roll out of PC's to all staff; - Service@North-Herts and all the technical changes required to deliver that project; - IT provision at Archers Fitness Club; - Virtualisation of the Council's server estate; - IT provision to support the move from Town Lodge to the DCO; - And many more. Vic was a dedicated Officer who was very approachable, would always go the extra mile to assist colleagues, and who would always try to find a solution to any IT problems presented to him. The Council was fortunate to have Vic as it moved into a new era of technological challenges coming up in the near future. It was moved by the Chairman, seconded by Councillor T.W. Hone, and RESOLVED: That the Council places on record its sincere thanks to Sheila Spendelow, Kevin Conheeney and Vic Godfrey for their long and valuable service to local government in North Hertfordshire. The Chairman announced that Sheila and Kevin had been unable to attend the meeting, but that she would ensure that their awards were passed to them in the near future. Vic was present at the meeting, and the Chairman was pleased to present him with his award. (2) Declarations of Interest 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 Chairman announced that the Monitoring Officer (Acting Corporate Legal Manager) would be making some remarks on Declarations of Interest immediately prior to Item 8 on the agenda - North Hertfordshire Local Plan - Preferred Options (see Minute 49 below). (3) Civic Reception 2015 The Chairman reminded Members that the Civic Reception would take place on Friday, 27 February 2015 at North Hertfordshire College, Hitchin. |
Noted | ||
| 46 |
MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES SCHEME 2015-16 Report and Appendix A Appendix B The Council considered the report of the Chief Executive in respect of a proposed Members' Allowances Scheme for 2015/16. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - The advice of the Independent Remuneration Panel and Proposed Members' Allowances Scheme for 2015/16; and Appendix B - Table of comparative data. The Leader of the Council (Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham) invited the Chairman of the Independent Remuneration Panel (Mr Stephen Cooke) to introduce the Panel's report. Mr Cooke advised that he had nothing to add to the report. The Leader of the Council summarised the main recommendations contained in the Panels' report as: - That the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for the Chairmen of Area Committees be amended to £2,205; the SRA for the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be amended to £3,420; and the SRA for the Chairman of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee be amended to £2,700; - That no change be made to the existing arrangements for the payment of mileage allowances; - That an additional allowance of 5p per passenger per car mile be paid when a Member takes other Members whilst carrying out approved duties; - That the omission of a cycle allowance from the travelling allowances section of the scheme be rectified, and that the rate be at the current level of 20p per mile; - That subsistence allowances continue to be paid at the rate set and from time to time amended by the National Joint Council; - That claims for childcare be increased to an amount of up to £6.50 per hour to equate with the National Minimum Wage Rate for an employee aged over 21; and thereafter be linked and made equivalent to the prevailing National Minimum Wage Rate as set from time to time by Parliament; and - That no change be made to the existing arrangements for the care of a dependence relative, where such care was necessary to enable a Member to perform authorised duties. It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, and seconded by Councillor T.W. Hone, that the proposed Members Allowances Scheme for 2015/16, as recommended by the Independent Remuneration Panel and attached as Appendix A to the report, be approved. Following debate, and upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried. It was therefore RESOLVED: That the proposed Members Allowances Scheme for 2015/16, as recommended by the Independent Remuneration Panel and attached as Appendix A to the report, be approved. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Council meets statutory requirements to approved a Members' Allowances Scheme. |
Agreed | ||
| 47 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM FINANCE, AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE: 18 SEPTEMBER 2014 - FINANCE, AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2013-14 Referral The Chairman of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee (Councillor Michael Weeks) presented a referral from the meeting of that Committee held on 18 September 2014, seeking endorsement of its Annual Report for 2013/14. It was moved by Councillor Michael Weeks, seconded by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, and following debate, was RESOLVED: That the Annual Report of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee for 2013/14, as presented to the Council, be endorsed. REASON FOR DECISION: To comply with Section 6.3.1(b) of the Council's Constitution. |
Noted | ||
| 48 |
CHURCHGATE AND SURROUNDING AREA, HITCHIN - LEGAL ADVICE Report Appendix A The Council considered the report of the Project executive for the Churchgate project Board in respect of the legal advice obtained from Eversheds regarding the development of Churchgate and the Surrounding Area, Hitchin. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Eversheds Legal advice to NHDC - Development at Churchgate, Hitchin: dated 7 November 2014. The Leader of the Council (Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham) introduced the report and drew attention to its concluding comments in that the approach on Churchgate followed by the Council over the last fourteen years had been met with difficulties and with external changes beyond its control. In the light of the factors (outlined in Section 9 of the report), it was entirely reasonable for the Council to reconsider its approach to the Churchgate Project, including whether the current approach remained the correct one. Once the Council had confirmed its aspiration, further work would need to be done to explore that option, taking into consideration the Council's financial duties and ensuring that it achieved best consideration and compliance with State Aid rules. Other factors to consider would include Hitchin Market, the operation and management of the car parks, the extent the Council wanted to specify its requirements, how to dispose of the land and the impact on further aspirations for the wider site in the long term (if a smaller scheme was taken forward in the short to medium term). The Leader of the Council stressed that it was important to note that any approach taken would not be without risk and potential further cost to the Council in the event of legal challenge. In addition, further funding would need to be sought for investigatory work required to assess any proposal. The Council would continue with the progression of the Local Plan for which funding had been agreed. Once the Plan had been through examination and adopted, it would set the Council's overall retail strategy. This would then enable the Council to start reviewing its town centre strategies and identifying potential sites for development that it considered to be deliverable within the Plan period. The strategies may also set a series of guiding principles for potential sites that would be taken into consideration by the Local Planning Authority when assessing any future planning application. As previously advised in earlier reports to Full Council, the Council could wait until the adoption of the Local Plan and then instruct officers to commence work on reviewing the town centre strategies. This would be in two to three years time, i.e. 2017/18, and would also ensure that the options for the site would remain unrestricted for future considerations. It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, and seconded by Councillor T.W. Hone: "(1) That the legal advice set out at Appendix A to the report be noted; (2) That, having considered its aspirations for the future of the Churchgate site and its surrounding area, the Council discontinues the current approach based on the Churchgate Planning Brief and considers alternative approaches for a smaller scheme in the short term; and (3) That Officers be instructed to investigate the Council's preferred approach, as agreed in (2) above, and report back to Council setting out the options and points for consideration to progress the project." During debate, a desire was expressed by a number of Members that, if possible, the matter be reported back to Council at its meeting on 12 February 2015. A Member also hoped that appropriate funding be put aside to obtain some external expertise to help drive forward the project. Following further debate, and upon the motion being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED: (1) That the legal advice set out at Appendix A to the report be noted; (2) That, having considered its aspirations for the future of the Churchgate site and its surrounding area, the Council discontinues the current approach based on the Churchgate Planning Brief and considers alternative approaches for a smaller scheme in the short term; and (3) That Officers be instructed to investigate the Council's preferred approach, as agreed in (2) above, and report back to Council setting out the options and points for consideration to progress the project. REASON FOR DECISION: To allow the Council to clearly state its current aspirations for the Churchgate area of Hitchin in the light of the history of the project to date and provide clarity on its preferred approach going forward. |
Agreed | ||
| 49 |
NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE LOCAL PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The Monitoring Officer advised that, every year, the Council nominated a large number of Councillors to serve on outside organisations. The current list was available on the Council's website and was set out in the minutes of the Annual Council meeting held on 5 June 2014. These outside organisations included housing associations, town centre partnerships, conservation boards, the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation and various other organisations. The Monitoring Officer stated that, under the Council's Code of Conduct, a Councillor had a Declarable Interest in an item of business of the Council where it related to or was likely to affect any body of which they were a member, which they were appointed or nominated to by the Council. A number of the outside organisations would meet the "likely to affect" test, including those he had mentioned. The Monitoring Officer explained that the effect of having a Declarable Interest on participation at meetings was also set out in the Code of Conduct. The test was whether the Councillor could reasonably be regarded as having an interest so significant that it was likely to prejudice their judgement. As the decision on Local Plan did not concern the adoption of the Plan, but simply whether to consult on the preferred options (and as the Preferred Options decision was looking at the District as a whole, rather than site by site), his advice to Councillors had been that the test was not met and therefore that councillors could play a full part in the debate and vote (after declaring their interest). The Monitoring Officer commented that some District Councillors were also County Councillors and therefore had a Declarable Interest by virtue of their role at the County Council, but his advice was that unless they had had a particular involvement at County level that prejudiced their judgement, they were able to take part. The Monitoring Officer advised that all councillors had been advised that in their dealings with other organisations they should not do anything which might create a perception of having already decided their approach on the Local Plan. All Councillors had also been advised to consider whether they had a relevant Disclosable Pecuniary Interest or other interest not covered in these remarks and seek the Monitoring Officer's advice. By making a declaration of interest, each Councillor confirmed that their interest did not prejudice their judgement and would not affect their consideration of the merits of the decision. If they felt that it did, they should not take part in the decision on the Local Plan. Members made the following declarable interests: (i) Councillor Ian Mantle - Governor of Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation; (ii) Councillor Clare Billing - employee of Aldwyck Housing Association; (iii) Councillor Lorna Kercher - Hertfordshire County Councillor; (iv) Councillor Judi Billing - Hertfordshire County Councillor; (v) Councillor David Levett - NHDC nominee to the Letchworth Town Centre Partnership and Letchworth BID Board; (vi) Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham - NHDC nominee to the Board of Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation; (vii) Councillor T.W. Hone - made a Declarable Interest, in that since June 2013, he had been the nominated representative on the Board of Trustees of the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation (LGCHF) for Hertfordshire County Council (HCC). During that period, the Board took a decision to make land north of the Grange available to NHDC as being for inclusion as land available for development. At this and any debate at LGCHF on this subject, he declared an interest, listened to the Governor's deliberations, and left the room prior to any vote being taken to recommend to the Board to make the site available. Similarly, when the Board took the final decision, he declared an interest, listened to the Board's deliberations, and left the room prior to any decision being taken. As Deputy Executive Member at HCC, Councillor Hone was involved in the process to make the north of Baldock site available for NHDC to consider - but which sites across the District were ultimately brought forward was a decision for NHDC alone, based on the criteria applied by its Planning Team. He retained an open mind as to the approach NHDC should take and would listen to the consultation responses received. HCC officers had been acting under delegated authority, following this consultation with the executive Member, and would probably continue to do so for some time. Assuming it survived the consultation and enquiry process, it may be some time before any firm decisions were required by HCC Members, particularly as HCC may be looking at other mechanisms for development other than a straight sale. Councillor Hone stated that he was party to the officer briefing and expressed support for the plan to make the land available; (viii) Councillor Tony Hunter - Hertfordshire County Councillor; (ix) Councillor D.J. Barnard - Hertfordshire County Councillor, Board Member of the Chilterns Conservation Board, and NHDC nominee on the Board of North Hertfordshire Homes; (x) Councillor M.R.M. Muir - Hertfordshire County Councillor; (xi) Councillor Bill Davidson - NHDC nominee on the Board of North Hertfordshire Homes; (xii) Councillor Fiona Hill - Hertfordshire County Councillor; and (xiii) Councillor R.A.C. Thake - Hertfordshire County Councillor. |
Noted | ||
| 50 |
NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE LOCAL PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Council was addressed by the following members of the public in respect of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan - Preferred Options. (i) Mr Chris Gomm (Baldock Society) Mr Gomm stated that the Baldock Society was formed in the 1970s as a Civic Society, and had been in regular correspondence with NHDC for over 40 years. It was not a newly formed Group, and yet it was the first time that it had felt it necessary to address a Council meeting, such was the strength of feeling within the Society. Mr Gomm advised that the Society thought that the Local Plan proposals were seriously flawed and wrong, not just for Baldock, but for the whole District. The Society would respond fully should the proposals go out to consultation, but felt that there were strong reasons why the Council should not be issuing the proposals in their current form: - Firstly, there was nothing in the papers before Members that assessed the feasibility of the major sites at Baldock - or indeed elsewhere - in transport terms. The Society felt that just stating that a transport assessment was required, as most of the site assessments did, was not good enough. The Society did not think that the proposals for Baldock would be workable in transport terms, even with a second railway crossing. The draft Plan itself acknowledged that a second crossing would take only some of the traffic from this new development away from Station Road and the historic centre. - Secondly, because the Society considered that the right work had not been done, the papers failed to show that the proposals would be deliverable over the life of the Plan. This was considered to be a serious failing and meant that the proposals would not stand up at examination; - Thirdly, the Society questioned the justification for the spatial choices that had been made and, in particular, the omission of Stevenage West as a housing site. Most of the District was part of one housing market area - as NHDC's own evidence showed - and so the Council needed to get away from the false distinction between the needs of North Hertfordshire and Stevenage. Development on the scale proposed at Baldock would not be in a central location to meet those needs. The future of Baldock should not be sacrificed simply to delay development around Stevenage; - Finally, it went without saying that the proposals would be hugely damaging to the character of Baldock, in terms of traffic, landscape and heritage impacts, and the social fabric of the town. For example, there had always been a single secondary school in Baldock, which had served the town and surrounding villages over the last 75 years. It had acted as a unifying force, especially after the construction of the Clothall Common Estate, when the single school helped to assimilate this new development into the life of the town. A new school serving a major urban extension on the edge of Baldock would change that dynamic considerably, and make nit harder to integrate such large-scale growth in the same way. Mr Gomm stated that, overall, the Society's view was that the proposals were not simply unjust, but unjustified, and hence the Society objected to them in the strongest possible terms. He added that the Society was not opposed to new development, but that it did object to proposals that it considered to be poorly though through, which lacked any sense of vision, and on which the Council had failed to engage effectively with local people. Despite the thousands of pages of supporting material, it was considered that the Council did not have the evidence to show that the proposals were the right solution for the District, or even deliverable. The Society considered that they did not provide the basis for a sound Plan, and respectfully asked that Members did not approve the proposals for consultation. Mr Gomm concluded by reading out the support of the Baldock History Society to the views expressed by the Baldock Society. The Chairman thanked Mr Gomm for his presentation. (ii) Mrs Adrienne Waterfield (Save Rural Baldock) Mrs Waterfield stated that Save Rural Baldock (SRB) was fully aware that Members had an important job in considering the Local Plan. The pressure was on to produce a housing plan for North Hertfordshire that was going to work. Mrs Waterfield commented that, on 24 November 2014, the NHDC Cabinet had recommended to Council that the Preferred Options go out to public consultation, because the public needed to have their say. But by passing it on to the public, it could be viewed that councillors were saying that they believe this to be the best Plan that the Council could come up with, and would therefore be committing it to a long, formal, expensive process. Was this really the best Plan for the whole of North Hertfordshire, including Baldock? In respect of the Plan, Mrs Waterfield considered that there were two very concerning constraints that had governed the choices that had been made: - Firstly, in order to be able to demonstrate that the Plan was financially viable, options had been chosen that would work now, providing profits for local land owners, developers and supporting services. But this was to the detriment of longer term sustainability considerations. - And secondly, long term plans were being made on very large, potentially inaccurate population estimates that, for purposes of this plan, had been set in stone, but which may well change next year, before the Council reached the end of the process. Mrs Waterfield asked the Council to be very careful going forward with the Plan. She cited Great Ashby as an example, and considered this to be a disaster, in that the infrastructure that was promised had not all materialised. Where were the Doctors' surgeries and schools? Children were having to travel to Baldock to school every day. It was understood that the turnover of housing stock was 25% - a far cry from the more normal 7 or 8%. People were moving out. The SRB Group did not wish to see that happening in Baldock. Mrs Waterfield considered that the planning process itself was a slippery slope. The SRB fully understood that agreeing to put this proposal to public consultation was not approving the Local Plan, or granting development rights and that the Council was not building the houses. However, it was starting to showcase possibilities which were blatantly unfair, not properly thought out and harder to change. The SRB had hoped for a better starting point. Mrs Waterfield commented that the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise (Councillor David Levett) had stated that by having a preferred options stage and putting the plans forward for public consultation, he was supporting the right for local residents to have their say - and yet the public have only been given 7 weeks in which to submit comments and objections, starting just one week before Christmas. Whilst legally this was all that was necessary, it was not very long and the timing could not be worse. This was all the more surprising given the emphasis that was currently being placed on this public consultation. At the very least, the SRB hoped that the Council would hold a public meeting before or during the consultation period. Or even better, hold some public forums where key issues could be properly debated and ideas shared. Mrs Waterfield stated that there had already been many constructive suggestions made to the Council, (which she understood would be disguarded), and that Members had witnessed the strength of feeling that there was against these plans, not just from Baldock but also from the wider community, who could see the long term problems that these proposals could cause. Mrs Waterfield explained that Councillor Levett had said that, during the consultation period, he and the rest of the planning team would listen to and act on what they were told. The SRB asked him to reconsider the use of brownfield sites. There may not be enough brownfield sites to meet all the housing needs, but the question was had NHDC and the neighbouring areas that they were co-operating with, used all the ones that did exist? Mrs Waterfield concluded by stating that if the only way for Members of the Council to be able to consider local residents' suggestions was to approve this preferred options paper, then so be it. But the Council should not need to have a public consultation, in order to work out that this Plan was badly flawed and unfair. The Chairman thanked Mrs Waterfield for her presentation. (iii) Mr Bob Dunn (Baldock resident) Mr Dunn advised that he was a Baldock resident of 23 years standing. He commented that the Local Plan recommended the building of 3,600 homes within Baldock, a small market town with currently approximately 4,500 dwellings. The proposed new build represented a staggering uplift of around 80% on current Baldock housing numbers. Mr Dunn appealed to the councillors of Hitchin, in that if the same 80% uplift was applied, in voting for this Plan they would be recommending more than 11,000 new homes within their town instead of the 1,350 currently planned. Could they sleep at night? A yes vote would be imposing this same level of new build on Baldock, and so he urged them to vote no to this Plan. Similarly, he appealed to the councillors of Letchworth, a similar size town to Hitchin. If they would be unhappy recommending an additional 11,000 homes in their town instead of the proposed 2,000, then likewise they should vote no. He also appealed to the councillors of Royston. If they would be unhappy recommending an additional 5,300 homes within their town, instead of the proposed 1,500, then they should also vote no to this Plan Mr Dunn considered that the disparity in apportioning housing proposals across the District, which resulted in 3,500 new homes to be built on Green Belt around Baldock was there for one reason only. He felt that the reason was clear, in that Hertfordshire County Council owned all of this land and selling it in this way would bring in upwards of £50 million. Mr Dunn stated that the Plan was ill-conceived, it was not fit for purpose, and he felt that Members should reject it now. He commented that the SRB Group had a line of communication with Eric Pickles, who had gone on record as saying that housing requirement numbers should not be met at the expense of Green Belt. The SRB Group was also in touch with the National Press and, in the event of a yes vote, would use all of these connections to publicise and expose what they considered to be a shambles of a Plan. The Chairman thanked Mr Dunn for his presentation. (iv) Mrs Ellen Barnes (Letchworth Garden City Society) Mrs Barnes advised that the Letchworth Garden City Society was formed in 1978 "to promote the study, conservation and development of the aims and ideals of the founders". The Society was represented on various local groups and forums and consulted by NHDC and the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation's nominated Governor for Heritage was one of the Society's members. Society members were interested in the buildings, architecture and social history of the town, as well as the principles on which it was founded. Mrs Barnes explained that the Society opposed the proposals on two main grounds, the first the principle of building on Letchworth's Green Belt. Letchworth, the world's first garden city, was designed with a green/agricultural belt, to allow residents easy access to the countryside and keep Letchworth separate from the nearby towns and villages. The proposal put forward by the Heritage Foundation, and now included in the Preferred Options document, to build 1,000 new homes on the Green Belt, would leave just one field between the new development and Stotfold. One field was not an adequate green belt. Mrs Barnes commented that Ebenezer Howard's concept for the development of Letchworth Garden City was a town of 32,000, where industry would flourish and with housing for workers. The housing was to provide for a healthy life with gardens and there would be a green/agricultural belt to allow easy access to the countryside. Howard was adamant that the green belt should not be built on, stating: "Shall it build on the zone of agricultural land which is around it, and thus forever destroy its right to be called a "Garden City"? Surely not. This disastrous result would indeed take place if the land around the town were, as is the land around our present cities, owned by private individuals anxious to make a profit out of it. For then as the town filled up, the agricultural land would become ripe for building purposes and the beauty and healthfulness of the town would be quickly destroyed. But the land around the Garden City is, fortunately, not in the hands of private individuals: it is in the hands of the people: and is to be administered, not in the supposed interests of the few, but in the real interests of the whole community." Mrs Barnes stated that the First Garden City Ltd (a predecessor body to the Heritage Foundation) said in 1931: "Surrounding the whole town is a belt of open land, which has been reserved for all time for its present use. This acts as protection against overgrowth from without or within, and ensures that the countryside shall always be within walking distance of the town centre." Mrs Barnes gave the Council an up to date quote from the Government's Department for Communities and Local Government prospectus for "Locally Led Garden Cities", issued in April 2014, which stated in its list of principles for garden cities that they should have a "surrounding belt of countryside to prevent sprawl." Mrs Barnes advised that the argument had been used that the green belt had already been built upon when the Grange, Jackmans and Manor Park estates were built. But these developments were intended to complete the town by bringing the population to the planned limit intended by Ebeneezer Howard (ie. approx. 32,000). The green belt had come into its own now and everyone should be vigilant in protecting it. It was not simply a land bank to be dipped into whenever there was more demand for housing. It remained a fundamental part of the design concept for the town, an element that residents prized and used, and part of the garden city concept that was proposed widely today by politicians. Mrs Barnes stated that the Society also opposed the proposal because it did not think it would solve the housing problems in this area. The Plan's objective of 35% affordable housing may well not be met, and recent appeals by developers had resulted in the percentage requirement for many sites being reduced if the profit margin was too low. More new housing was being bought as Buy to Let by investors, and these houses were then let to who was able to pay the highest rent. So not only did this proposal risk not addressing local housing needs, it also risked undermining and permanently damaging a fundamental element of the design of Letchworth. Letchworth's green belt was a designed element of the town - it was not there by chance and the loss of this part of it, by re-designation as land for development, would be an act of vandalism. Mrs Barnes commented that the Society wished to see new garden cities built to solve the housing crisis. The national housing crisis was a complex problem and the garden city offered a unique model for addressing it in a planned, sustainable way. The Government has recognised this in the prospectus referred to earlier, entitled, "Locally led Garden Cities", which encouraged local authorities to apply for funding to explore the development of new garden cities within their area. The Society urged the Council to explore, with the MP and Government, the possibility of designating a site for a new garden city - with Letchworth within NHDC, what better area of the country in which to site one. Mrs Barnes concluded by stating that NHDC Members were the custodians of the world's first garden city, through their planning policy decisions and planning application decisions. Letchworth's significance as a heritage asset included all of its design elements, including its green belt and its setting. The Society expected to see Members taking these responsibilities on board when deciding on the sites to be included in the consultation on Preferred Options for the Local Plan. The Chairman thanked Mrs Barnes for her presentation. (v) Mrs Marianne Sibborn (Letchworth Garden City resident) Mrs Sibborn considered that the Local Plan Preferred Options document was inadequate. She asked what measures had been put in place to cope with the extra estimated 3,000 vehicles movements per day affecting the Grange, Norton Road, the A1 etc.? She felt that the Grange was already choked with parked vehicles at night and all the roads would effectively become one way, also causing possible problems for emergency vehicles. The Chairman thanked Mrs Sibborn for her presentation. (vi) Mr Chris Jones (Letchworth Garden City resident) Mr Jones stated that the Local Plan proposals appeared to project transport trends. They relied heavily on road transport, with a number of new relief roads. There was much emphasis on egress from Letchworth. Mr Jones advised that, in 2009, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) collected studies on Oil Depletion - Peak Oil. That would be the point where global oil production no longer expanded, but started reducing. It now looked like it would be much sooner than originally anticipated. Mr Jones considered that the sustainability argument missed out something important, namely limits on resources. Removing the potential farmland around Letchworth made it even more dependent on transportation and imported goods. There would be less land to potentially turn to food production in the future. Mr Jones called on the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation to details its Draft Sustainability Statement with some analysis of the energy and resources flowing into and out of Letchworth; he further called upon NHDC to introduce a policy to follow up the DECC's research into a prospective slow down in global oil production, and build that into its planning assumptions; and he also called on NHDC to question the Government's housing estimates, which pursued further overdevelopment of the South East because, in his view, the medium to long term global oil depletion made it unsustainable. He felt that communities elsewhere in the country may well prove to be better prepared for this liquid fuels crisis than those in Hertfordshire. The Chairman thanked Mr Jones for his presentation. (vii) Mr Anthony Burrows ("Save the World's First Garden City" Group) Mr Burrows, Acting Chairman of the "Save the World's First Garden City" Group, stated that he would making some comments relating to Letchworth Garden City, and then more broadly about North Hertfordshire as a whole. Mr Burrows drew attention to Page 111 of the Preferred Options paper, referring to Letchworth Garden City. He felt that Paragraph 12.130 on that page was misleading, in that the Garden City was intended to be expanded up to roughly 32,000 population so that the so called "original masterplan" of the Garden City was only of its central part. Thus, Jackmans, Lordship Farm, Manor Farm and Grange estates were simply bringing the population up to the originally designed level. In fact, the four estates were intended as an inviolable rounding off of the North and South of Letchworth. The East and West were, of course, considered inviolable to avoid merging with Baldock and Hitchin. There was no suggestion that those four estates were to be built upon official Green Belt. Turning to North Hertfordshire as a whole, Mr Burrows stated that one of the Group's concerns was that the report to Members mentioned at Paragraph 8.6 "a new paragraph" added to the Planning Practice Guidance, when there were actually two added. Another concern was that the report did not state what the new paragraphs actually said, so the Group had placed this on the chairs in the room. The Group had also been given permission to place on the chairs its three aims, with details as to how Letchworthians could join it. Residents might also choose to support the Letchworth Garden City Society, who were campaigning with the Group. Mr Burrows advised that two new paragraphs (44 and 45) of the Guidance, which were launched recently with a fanfare, obviously needed to be read together. These clearly invited Councils not to build on their Green Belts just in order to meet needs assessments. He felt that these should change Members' decision-making. He considered that it would be ridiculous to suggest that this meant no change, as any judge would laugh that out of court. He felt that Members, having got so far down the track, had been unable to take into account that quite startling increase of protection of the Green Belt at this very late stage. He hoped that they would be able to do so as a result of the consultation. Mr Burrows considered that the greatly increased protection for the Green Belt had come about because a General Election was approaching in May 2015. The two paragraphs referred to earlier were an open invitation to protect the Green Belt, but he thought it likely that the invitation would be closed following the General Election. He thus felt that it was important that the Council took the invitation as soon as possible following consultation and before the General Election. Mr Burrows acknowledged that councillors could be surrounded by fears. An Inspector could might make a decision which councillors did not like - but what worse decision could an Inspector make than that proposed for Baldock and Letchworth Garden City. He asked Members to not dally until it was too late, and whilst other Councils might be seizing opportunities. Mr Burrows concluded by stating that he though of the Leader of the Council (Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham) as a local "Iron Lady". He hoped that she would lead the Council and the electorate through a door to keep the Green Belt before it was slammed in their faces. The Chairman thanked Mr Burrows for his presentation. (viii) Mr Stephen Paffett (Letchworth Garden City resident) Mr Paffett stated that Letchworth Garden City, the world's first Garden City, had already been expanded over the years to exceed the vision of its creator. He felt that it was already surprisingly short of appreciable Green Belt. Letchworth was visited by representatives of many overseas countries who wished to use it as a model for new development, and was promoted as such by the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation. Mr Paffett considered that building on the last clear expanse of Green Belt was against Garden City principles. This was prime and well farmed agricultural land. The Deputy Prime Minister spoke regularly of his wish to create new Garden Cities. So how with a clear conscience could the first one be destroyed. Mr Paffett advised that the Secretary of State had recently intervened in Somerset and had stooped building proceeding where the Green Belt was not the only alternative. Furthermore, he had recently announced that Green Belt should only be used when absolutely necessary. Its very purpose was to: (a) check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (b) prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; (c) assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and (d) preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Mr Paffett explained that Letchworth had very little to offer in terms of Green Belt on three sides, the north west being the last exception. He felt that Letchworth's infrastructure was totally inadequate, its roads were already congested, and over 1,000 extra homes would certainly come with 1,500 extra vehicles. Queues now for the A1 could stretch back to St. John's Church, and Norton Road, Green Lane, Cowslip Hill and Norton Way South had huge congestion issues. There was nowhere near enough parking, schools or doctors. Mr Paffett considered that if Letchworth became the victim of urban sprawl, an historic vision that was still an acceptable modern model for the world would be lost forever. NHDC and the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation would have erased a piece of global history - he felt that they had a moral duty to protect it as an asset to Hertfordshire. NHDC had existing policies, especially those relating to biodiversity, conservation, wildlife and landscape history which would suggest that this land should not be built on. The National Planning Policy Framework had many reasons why Letchworth's relatively small and very precious Green Belt should not be built on. The Chairman thanked Mr Paffett for his presentation. (ix) Mr Edward Strickland (Ashwell resident) Mr Strickland referred to the only Ashwell site shown in the Preferred Options document, namely Land to the west of Claybush Road. He asked what factors had changed since this site was considered unsuitable for development on at least four previous occasions, and which had received a different categorisation in the most recent Local Plan drawn up in 2011? He therefore felt that, in the absence of any justification for the inclusion of this site, it should also be removed from the Preferred Options paper. The Chairman thanked Mr Strickland for his presentation. (x) Mr Jack Rigg (Graveley resident) Mr Rigg strongly urged Members to reject the Preferred Options document, given the excessive level of development proposed and the reliance on large strategic sites located adjacent to existing towns, thereby extending urban sprawl. He felt that sending the Plan out to consultation in its present form risked having it soundly rejected, something which would be both costly and time-consuming. To oppose the proposals would not be a vote against consultation, but instead would be a vote against an excessive and poorly formulated Plan, which would irreparably damage the rural nature of North Hertfordshire and compromise the principle of Green Belt in North Hertfordshire. Mr Rigg stated that the current proposals, including housing for Luton and Stevenage, would result in the building of 17,300 houses, 73% of which would be on Green Belt. NHDC's plans to build 12,100 homes went far beyond the original objectively assessed need of 5,400 homes necessary for organic growth on a net nil migration basis and the original Plan target of 7,700 homes. Mr Rigg advised that development on Green Belt was contrary to Government policy and legislation. Exceptional circumstances needed to be proven to justify building on Green Belt. Current legislation stated that unmet housing need was unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt (Paragraph 34 - Planning, Practice and Guidance). Paragraph 45 of the same legislation required that, in preparing a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, account must be taken of any constraints such as Green Belt, which indicated that development should be restricted and which may restrain the ability of an authority to meet its need. He was of the view that this was in stark contrast to Planning Officers' advice that the use of the Green Belt as an argument to reduce housing targets required exceedingly robust evidence. He was also very concerned about Planning Officers' advice that the Council should dismiss the recent changes in legislation as not being material and that recent similar guidance issued by the Secretary of State should be ignored. Mr Rigg considered that Government and Office of National Statistics projections and developers were driving the excessive development proposed. He asked why had no attempt had been made by NHDC to assert its independence and reflect the concerns of the local electorate by resisting Central Government imposed numbers as being excessive and inappropriate in relation to the locality or local environment. Current proposals focussed on large developments demanded by developers and favoured by planners, rather than encouraging smaller village developments. The latter spread throughout North Hertfordshire would reduce reliance on Strategic Sites and help sustain local services, support local builders and diversify the housing stock while reducing congestion and spreading the strain on infrastructure. Mr Rigg was of the view that Sustainable Development requirements had bee interpreted as necessitating the location of new developments adjacent to existing towns within North Hertfordshire, Stevenage and Luton, the latter two reflecting the need for NHDC to evidence its co-operation with neighbouring authorities. This strategy would merely result in endemic urban sprawl going forward. Given the level of development proposed, requiring some 13,000 houses, he asked why the proposals did not include a "New Town" alternative, with direct access to major roads, such as the A1(M). A town of this size would surely be viable on a standalone basis, reduce demands on existing infrastructure, and might also attract additional Government subsidies. The figure of 13,000 homes included West of Stevenage and the North Hertfordshire Strategic Sites, but excluded Luton and non-strategic development. Mr Rigg stated that, in assisting neighbouring authorities to meet their "unmet housing needs", there was no legal requirement to do so via sites adjacent to those authorities, rather it would be better to include such housing within other developments within North Hertfordshire. Contiguous development as proposed merely resulted in further urban sprawl and encouraged demand for more land by those authorities in the future. Development to the North of Stevenage of 1,000 houses in the Green Belt and would result in coalescence with the historic village of Graveley, the distance between the two settlements reportedly being only 400 metres. He considered that Green Belt development and coalescence were both contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Mr Rigg was of the view that, given its rural location, incorporating part of the area known as Forster Country and the Hertfordshire Way, the development was inappropriate, as was the proposed high density of 53 dwellings per hectare. The development would be undertaken in conjunction with Stevenage and the overall size of the development would be significantly larger than 1,000 houses. Details of the Stevenage proposals had yet to be made public, but were thought to involve the creation of a new Neighbourhood area with shops, primary/junior school and perhaps a light industrial area. Mr Rigg asked if information on the project would be available from Stevenage prior to the consultation. If not, how could members of the public make a proper judgement of what was proposed overall and its impact on the locale. Mr Rigg commented that the NHDC element of the project would be defined in Policy HDS2: Settlement Hierarchy as becoming part of the urban area of Stevenage. Presumably, this would also be the case for West of Stevenage? Post-development, it was doubtful that the resultant tract of Green Belt land between the North of Stevenage and Graveley would constitute a defendable boundary against future development. Mr Rigg considered this to be contrary to NPPF legislation. He concluded by explaining that Graveley and its surrounds were subject to flooding during times of heavy rainfall. Development on the scale proposed and associated water run off would lead to a significant increase in surface water problems, both in the village and in the land adjacent to the B197 road. The Chairman thanked Mr Rigg for his presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 51 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM CABINET: 24 NOVEMBER 2014 - NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE LOCAL PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS Cabinet Referral Report Amendment Sheet Appendix A Appendix B The Council considered the Minute of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 24 November 2014, in respect of North Hertfordshire Local Plan - Preferred Options (Minute 67 refers). A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet was included with the agenda, as were the following appendices: Appendix A - Local Plan Preferred Options Paper; and Appendix B - Proposed amendments to Statement of Community Involvement. The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise (Councillor David Levett) gave a Powerpoint Presentation detailing the background to the Local Plan and, in particular, explaining the methodology used in arriving at the figure of 12,100 dwellings allocated to North Hertfordshire for the Plan period of 2011-2013. The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise drew attention to a document circulated at the meeting which corrected Policy HDS3 in Paragraph 6.34 of the document deleting the word "minimum" for the percentage of affordable dwellings which must be affordable, and revising the thresholds so that there would be 20% affordable housing on sites of 10-14 dwellings and 30% on sites of 15-24 dwellings. At the conclusion of the presentation, it was moved by Councillor David Levett, and seconded by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, "(1) That, inclusive of a correction to Policy HDS3 in Paragraph 6.34 of the document deleting the word "minimum" for the percentage of affordable dwellings which must be affordable, and revising the thresholds so that there would be 20% affordable housing on sites of 10-14 dwellings and 30% on sites of 15-24 dwellings, the Local Plan Preferred Options paper, as set out at Appendix A to the report, be approved for consultation purposes; (2) That the Local Plan Preferred Options paper's supporting evidence studies listed at Paragraph 8.16 of the report, be published alongside the paper, to inform the consultation process; and (3) That delegated authority be given to the Head of Development and Building Control, in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise, to approve minor amendments and typographical corrections to the documents as may be necessary before the consultation period begins." As an amendment, it was moved by Councillor John Harris, and seconded by Councillor Jim McNally, "(1) That the Local Plan Preferred Options paper, as set out at Appendix A to the report, not be approved for consultation purposes; and (2) That officers of the Council, at their earliest convenience, replace it with one that reduces the overall housing numbers, listens to the residents of North Herts and gives them a Plan that embraces localism." Councillor Michael Weeks read out a statement on behalf of Councillor A.D. Young, who had been unable to attend the meeting, requesting the Council to not proceed with consultation on the Plan as drafted. A Member raised a point of order, in that the above amendment appeared to negate the motion, and thereby be contrary to Standing Order 4.8.14(f)(i). The Monitoring Officer considered the matter and stated that the amendment was contrary to the above Standing Order and should not be considered. However, should the vote on the substantive motion (inclusive of any other approved amendments) be lost, then it would be possible for Councillor Harris to re-introduce the above amendment as an alternative motion. As an amendment, it was moved by Councillor Steve Jarvis, and seconded by Councillor Paul Clark, that the following be added to the end of Recommendation (1) - "with the amendment of Policy HDS1 to release sufficient land for 9,900 dwellings, 7,800 to meet North Hertfordshire's own objectively assessed needs and 2,100 to contribute towards unmet needs in Luton." Following debate, and in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.16(f), Councillor Paul Clark requested that a recorded vote be taken on the above amendment. (Voting: For: Councillors Clare Billing, Paul Clark, John Harris, Sal Jarvis, S.K. Jarvis, David Kearns, Lorna Kercher, Jim McNally, M.R.M. Muir and Michael Weeks - 10. Against: Councillors Mrs A.G. Ashley, D.J. Barnard, Judi Billing, John Booth, P.C.W. Burt, Tricia Cowley, J.M. Cunningham, Bill Davidson, Faye Frost, Jane Gray, Jean Green, Simon Harwood, Steve Hemingway, Fiona Hill, T.W. Hone, Tony Hunter, Joan Kirby, David Leal-Bennett, David Levett, Ben Lewis, Bernard Lovewell, Ian Mantle, Alan Millard, Gerald Morris, Mrs L.A. Needham, Frank Radcliffe, Deepak Sangha, Deborah Segalini, R.L. Shakespeare-Smith, Adrian Smith, Mrs C.P.A. Strong and R.A.C. Thake - 32. The amendment was lost.) A further amendment was moved by Councillor Sal Jarvis, and seconded by Councillor Paul Clark, that the following be added to the end of Recommendation (1) - "with the deletion of reserve site WS1". Following debate, and upon being put to the vote, the amendment was lost. The Council debated the substantive motion. Some Members spoke both in favour of the motion and others and against the motion. During the debate, specific issues raised by Members included a level of support for a new settlement/Garden City in North Hertfordshire. Following further debate, and in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.16(f), Councillor Steve Jarvis requested that a recorded vote be taken on the substantive motion. (Voting: For: Councillors Mrs A.G. Ashley, D.J. Barnard, Clare Billing, Judi Billing, John Booth, P.C.W. Burt, Tricia Cowley, J.M. Cunningham, Bill Davidson, Faye Frost, Jane Gray, Jean Green, Simon Harwood, Steve Hemingway, Fiona Hill, T.W. Hone, Tony Hunter, Lorna Kercher, Joan Kirby, David Leal-Bennett, David Levett, Ben Lewis, Bernard Lovewell, Ian Mantle, Alan Millard, Gerald Morris, Mrs L.A. Needham, Frank Radcliffe, Deepak Sangha, Deborah Segalini, R.L. Shakespeare-Smith, Adrian Smith, Mrs C.P.A. Strong and R.A.C. Thake - 34. Against: Councillors Paul Clark, Sal Jarvis, S.K. Jarvis, David Kearns and M.R.M. Muir - 5. Abstentions: Councillors John Harris, Jim McNally and Michael Weeks - 3. The motion was carried.) It was therefore RESOLVED: (1) That, inclusive of a correction to Policy HDS3 in Paragraph 6.34 of the document deleting the word "minimum" for the percentage of affordable dwellings which must be affordable, and revising the thresholds so that there would be 20% affordable housing on sites of 10-14 dwellings and 30% on sites of 15-24 dwellings, the Local Plan Preferred Options paper, as set out at Appendix A to the report, be approved for consultation purposes; (2) That the Local Plan Preferred Options paper's supporting evidence studies listed at Paragraph 8.16 of the report, be published alongside the paper, to inform the consultation process; and (3) That delegated authority be given to the Head of Development and Building Control, in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise, to approve minor amendments and typographical corrections to the documents as may be necessary before the consultation period begins. REASON FOR DECISION: To allow consultation to be undertaken on the Local Plan Preferred Options paper and Statement of Community Involvement. |
Agreed | ||
| 52 |
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS Report There were no Questions from Members. |
Noted | ||
| 53 |
NOTICE OF MOTIONS Report There was no Notice of Motions. |
Noted | ||