| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | North Hertfordshire Leisure Centre, Baldock Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor John Booth (Chairman), Councillor Alan Millard (Vice-Chairman), Councillor Ian Albert, Councillor Mrs A.G. Ashley, Councillor D.J. Barnard, Councillor Clare Billing, Councillor Judi Billing, Councillor John Bishop, Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Julian Cunningham, Councillor Bill Davidson, Councillor Elizabeth Dennis, Councillor Faye S Frost, Councillor Jane Gray, Councillor Jean Green, Councillor Nicola Harris, Councillor Simon Harwood, Councillor Steve Hemingway, Councillor Cathryn Henry, Councillor Fiona Hill, Councillor T.W. Hone, Councillor Tony Hunter, Councillor S.K. Jarvis, Councillor Lorna Kercher, Councillor David Levett, Councillor Ben Lewis, Councillor Bernard Lovewell, Councillor Sandra Lunn, Councillor Ian Mantle, Councillor Jim McNally, Councillor M.R.M. Muir, Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, Councillor Janine Paterson, Councillor Frank Radcliffe, Councillor Mike Rice, Councillor Deepak Sangha, Councillor Valentine Shanley, Councillor Adrian Smith, Councillor Harry Spencer - Smith, Councillor Mrs C.P.A. Strong, Councillor R.A.C. Thake, Councillor Terry Tyler, Councillor Simon Watson and Councillor M.E. Weeks. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Chief Executive, Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, Corporate Legal Manager, Democratic Services Manager and Committee and Member Services Manager. |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Suzanne Ornsby QC Approximately 270 members of the public. |
| Meeting attachments |
Agenda Front Pages Audio recording of Meeting |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 44 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Paul Clark, Steve Deakin-Davies, Gary Grindal, Paul Marment and Gerald Morris. |
Noted | ||
| 45 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) 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 Corporate Legal Manager and Monitoring Officer stated that the decision that Council was being asked to take was to endorse the likely strategic policy and spatial implications of a new Local Plan for North Hertfordshire that would comply with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant legislation. As stated at the Council meeting held on 27 November 2014, the question of interests would be considered at each stage of the Local Plan decision making process. As with all reports that any committee received, the Corporate Legal Manager and Monitoring Officer commented that Members needed to consider three issues with regard to this evening's Council meeting: 1. Whether they had 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; and 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. The Corporate Legal Manager and Monitoring Officer explained that, in some circumstances where they potentially had an interest, Members could request a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer which allowed them to take part in the debate and vote. 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 Corporate Legal Manager and Monitoring Officer advised that all Members were sent a series of questions, which sought information on the three potential issues highlighted. Each response was individually considered. A number of Members had potential interests, due to involvement with bodies such as housing associations, county council, heritage foundation or where they lived, which could be considered to be potentially affected by the decisions Council was making on the Local Plan. In total, a third of all Councillors identified some form of potential interest, which clearly had potential implications for the ability of residents to be represented in this process. The Corporate Legal Manager and Monitoring Officer stated that the position of each Councillor was considered based on the information available to him. He decided that, in all the circumstances, including it being in the interests of persons living in the area, it was appropriate to grant a dispensation to the following Councillors: Councillor Allison Ashley - Interest: Hertfordshire County Council Councillor David Barnard - Interests: Hertfordshire County Council and North Herts Homes Councillor Clare Billing - Interest: Aldwyck Housing Group Councillor Judi Billing - Interest: Hertfordshire County Council Councillor Bill Davidson - Interest: North Herts Homes Councillor Faye Frost - Interest: D.H. Frost and Sons Councillor Jane Gray - Interest: North Herts Homes Councillor Jean Green - Interest: Property Councillor Fiona Hill - Interests: Hertfordshire County Council and property Councillor Terry Hone - Interests: Hertfordshire County Council and Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Councillor Tony Hunter - Interest: Hertfordshire County Council Councillor Lorna Kercher - Interest: Hertfordshire County Council Councillor Ian Mantle - Interest: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Councillor Michael Muir - Interest: Hertfordshire County Council Councillor Lynda Needham - Interest: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Councillor Richard Thake - Interests: Hertfordshire County Council and property For the avoidance of doubt, the Corporate Legal Manager and Monitoring Officer advised that a vote this evening 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 this 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. Councillor Allison Ashley clarified that the nature of her interest was that her husband (Derrick Ashley) was a Member of Hertfordshire County Council. The Chairman invited Suzanne Ornsby QC to address the meeting. She advised that she was the barrister advising the Council on its emerging Local Plan. She reminded Members that the purpose of the meeting was to consider the key content and key principles underlying the emerging Plan. This would hopefully enable the Council to move on to its Proposed Submission Consultation Stage, which was the stage immediately prior to submission of the Plan to the Secretary of State ready for an examination by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. Suzanne Ornsby QC made the following key three points in order to inform and hopefully assist the debate: - It was important to have a Local Plan in place - to avoid Government intervention and financial sanctions post-March 2017; to enable the Council to control the proper planning of the area in order to avoid ad hoc and piecemeal planning by appeal; and to enable to Council to have a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which allowed the Council to raise funding from developers in a broader way, to use towards infrastructure improvements in the District; - Any Local Plan had to be robustly and evidentially justified. NHDC officers had worked diligently to produce evidential documents in order to support the key policies and principles contained in the Local Plan document. So for the Plan to be evidentially robust it had to contain a housing requirement for about 16,600 houses, otherwise the likelihood would be that the Plan would fail at an Independent Examination; and - The Council was under a legal obligation to discharge the "Duty to Co-operate". If this duty was not discharged then the Plan would fail - there was no legal remedy to put that right. In essence, the Council had to assist, insofar as it was able, Luton to meet its own unmet housing need (1,950 houses had been allocated for this purpose in NHDC's draft Plan). The Chairman thanked Suzanne Ornsby QC for her comments. (2) Tabled Paperwork - Officer Clarifications The Chairman asked Members to check that they had in front of them a short tabled document outlining a number of Officer clarifications regarding the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 as a supplement to the issued reports. |
Noted | ||
| 46 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Council was addressed by the following members of the public in respect of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031: (i) Parish Councillor David Short (Ashwell Parish Council) Parish Councillor Short stated that, as well as being a member of Ashwell Parish Council, he also chaired the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan Working Group. Parish Councillor Short advised that, in the NHDC Draft Local Plan, Ashwell had been allocated 95 units, which included a single site for 33 units. He made the following comments: 1. Ashwell was not opposed to further development provided it fulfilled proven needs; 2. The housing survey of the Neighbourhood Plan Group showed that the housing needs were: - housing for those who want to downsize, particularly older people; - sites of between 5 and 10 units and nothing bigger; 3. The Claybush Field site, AS1, failed both of these criteria; 4. The Claybush Field site also failed the NHDC criteria: - It was in an area of high visual landscape value, as identified by NHDC's own Landscape Character Assessment; - Access for pedestrians was via a path that had 19 steps and therefore contravened the NHDC Policy 57; 5. Planning permission for development of the site had been sought and on three occasions it had been rejected by the Inspector because it was in an area of high landscape value and also because of concerns raised by Historic England. Parish Councillor Short commented that Ashwell Parish Council was being pro-active in its future development. The Neighbourhood Plan Working Group had identified three sites in the village that would suit the needs identified in the housing survey. The Working Group had sent a draft copy of its emerging Neighbourhood Plan to the Planning Officers, giving their analysis of the of the Ashwell sites. The Working Group therefore requested that the Claybush Field be deleted from the Local Plan and fuller consideration be given to the sites recommended by the Group. The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Short for his presentation. (ii) Paul Harrison (Ashwell resident) Mr Harrison stated that allowing development on the Claybush Field site would significantly impact on the north Baldock chalk uplands character area. This was also a comment that had been made on several occasions by NHDC Planning Officers when previous planning applications for development of the site had been refused planning permission. He considered that the fact that housing strategy and demand were changing did not automatically mean that the reasons for previous planning applications being rejected were no longer valid. Mr Harrison emphasised that to get pedestrian access from the site would require the crossing of a four way traffic junction with blind corners. This would be the only option for those with disabilities, who would be confronted with nineteen steps, making progress unfeasible. Mr Harrison commented that Claybush Field was a greenfield site, currently outside of the village boundary. No consultation or approach had been made to the Parish Council or local residents regarding the proposed change. He felt that the proposal to incorporate the land into the village boundary and remove its greenfield status was extraordinary. The drawings attached to the Local Plan presented the site as being within the village boundary, without highlighting in any way that this was a proposed change, thereby indicating that the proposal was acceptable. Mr Harrison stated that the Plan covered a 20 year period. There appeared to be no consideration given to the fact that circumstances over these 20 years may change. NHDC seemed to be determined to complete the Plan in the shortest possible time, ignoring potential macro-economic changes (such as the EU Referendum result), as well as local influences that could well change the housing forecast figures. There appeared to be no attempt to spread the development across the 20 year period. Since 2011, 62 houses had been built in Ashwell, a growth of 7%. He felt that the village had therefore already materially contributed to the objectives of the Local Plan. Mr Harrison considered that if the Claybush Field site was included, and the growth continued at this rate, 35% more houses would be built in the village in the 20 years (which vastly exceeded the growth rate predicted by the Office of National statistics). He also questioned what would happen in the 10 years after the Claybush Field site was developed? At what point would there be enough housing to be sufficient? Mr Harrison concluded by stating that there were other brownfield sites located within Ashwell that would be far more suitable for development. The fact that these sites had not been included in the Plan as alternatives raised serious questions as to why they had been omitted. Development of those sites was far more likely to be supported by the village, and would allow Ashwell to support the Local Plan in a fair, democratic and proportionate way. The Chairman thanked Mr Harrison for his presentation. (iii) Parish Councillor Mark Ireland (Codicote Parish Council) Parish Councillor Ireland commented that, in 2014 and 2015, when the Local Plan Preferred Options were announced, the Parish Council held a series of open days, followed by a public meeting. A similar process had been carried out in 2016. Codicote residents were extremely concerned about the implications of development on the scale proposed and the loss of the much-appreciated Green Belt, as demonstrated by their overwhelming response to the consultation. Parish Councillor Ireland stated that the residents fully understood the background to the process and the need for a Local Plan, however, they questioned the District Council's logic in taking a scatter gun approach to development - the rural communities across the region were simply unable to cope with this expansion at a local level or with the impact on a wider scale. Parish Councillor Ireland explained that those familiar with Codicote would know that traffic on the B656 road poured through from Hitchin, Luton and surrounding villages, with rush hour lasting up to three hours both morning and evening. Roadworks, bad weather and traffic accidents often brought congestion to an intolerable level. There was no capacity for improvement, the road had no scope for widening, and parking restrictions would be detrimental to local shops and cause residents to park elsewhere, thereby creating congestion in all areas. Parish Councillor Ireland was of the view that the impact of the four major developments accessing the High Street at the proposed sites north, south, east and west of the village would be devastating. Add to this the cumulative impact of development in neighbouring villages (such as the proposal to build 600 new homes in Knebworth). With the potential for those residents accessing links to the A1M, Hitchin, Luton and Welwyn Garden City via Codicote, it was not inconceivable that a further 1,000 or more cars would be converging on the village at morning and evening rush hours. Parish Councillor Ireland advised that this would lead to safety issues, primarily for children who walked to their primary school or who waited for buses on the High Street to take them to their secondary school. The B656 bisects the village and had to be crossed by many, on the route to and from school. Parking also presented a danger, especially inconsiderately parked vehicles, which mean that busy roads had to be negotiated on foot. Any development should bring with it not just adequate, but enhanced, parking arrangements. Safety would also be compromised during any construction period, as they village already had a large number of lorries using the High Street and side roads to access the nearby quarry. Construction traffic accessing sites down narrow lanes was a terrifying prospect and would present months or even years of upheaval. Parish Councillor Ireland stated that residents had been advised that if development occurred, the infrastructure by necessity would be improved. Historically, this had not happened, the development of some fifty houses at the Clock roundabout being a case in point. Infrastructure concerns also applied the village's struggling drainage and sewerage systems - who would bear the cost of upgrading these services and would NHDC ensure that a holistic approach was taken to any expansion? Parish Councillor Ireland commented that the residents had also voiced concerns over the lack of affordable housing. Rural villages were suffering because there was little accommodation available for lower income workers, who filled jobs that sustained rural communities. Each of the four proposed developments had the potential for 40% affordable housing. If the Plan was adopted and those sites developed, would there be a condition that this 40% figure was adhered to, and perhaps those houses were built first? Parish Councillor Ireland concluded by conveying to the Council the strength of feeling that existed amongst Codicote's residents, that the nature and integrity of a rural community was being overlooked. The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Ireland for his presentation. (iv) Councillor Peter Chapman (Luton Borough Council - Wigmore Ward) Councillor Chapman advised that he represented the Wigmore Ward of Luton Borough Council (adjacent to Luton Airport and towards Putteridge Park). He was also speaking on behalf of the Luton Borough Councillors who represented the neighbouring Stopsley Ward. He therefore represented the 15,000 residents who lived in that area (the approximate equivalent of the size of the population of Royston). Councillor Chapman objected to the allocation of 2,100 houses to the east of Luton in NHDC's Local Plan, which included only 150 to meet NHDC's own needs. In response to the remark made by Suzanne Ornsby QC earlier in the meeting that NHDC had to contribute towards Luton's unmet housing needs, he commented that no it did not, as Luton would be able to look after itself. Councillor Chapman stated that Luton already had numerous sites being developed to the west of the town, and a huge site was being developed between Luton and Houghton Regis to the north of the town. He considered that, should there be further development, most Luton residents would prefer this to be to the west of the town towards the M1 motorway, where access would be easy, without the potential chaos that any development east of Luton would cause. Councillor Chapman commented that the developers of the site towards Houghton Regis had already started to challenge many of the new developments proposed in the centre of Luton because they feared it was a case of over-supply rather than fulfilling an unmet need. Councillor Chapman considered that there was no justification for the east of Luton proposal, as the scale of development was far too high, but also that there were problems with transport infrastructure. There was currently only two single lane residential roads in and out of the proposed site, between Luton Town Centre, the M1, Wigmore Ward, and the villages of Cockernhoe and Tea Green, which had for years enjoyed the open spaces between settlements. Those roads were massively congested already. A new school recently built on Crawley Green Road, one of the roads leading to Cockernhoe, was (even before the school was open) congested during peak hours. What would happen should the 2,100 extra houses be built? Councillor Chapman stated that there was no planned infrastructure whatsoever to go with the 2,100 houses. The 4,500 houses proposed to the west of Luton had two major roads being built to support them. How would the residents of the east of Luton site be expected to travel to Hitchin? Councillor Chapman advised that Luton Airport was expanding to 18 million passengers per annum, which meant an extra 7 million cars on the roads east of Luton each year, with no new roads planned. There were no policies on issues such as pollution, and the one road in Luton where a survey had been undertaken had revealed that the air contained there times the level of particulates above the recommended level. Councillor Chapman explained that next to the Airport, and adjacent to North Hertfordshire, was the new Wigmore Valley Park Enterprise Zone, designated to have 6,000 new jobs. Luton Borough Council had been persuaded that Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road were so congested that access to the Zone should not be via these roads. Accordingly, access to the Zone was through the Airport. Councillor Chapman concluded by commenting that, in the Conservative Party Manifesto, it stated "we will protect your countryside, Green Belt and urban environment". He did not see this reflected in the NHDC Local Plan. The Chairman thanked Councillor Chapman for his presentation. (v) Rev. Parish Councillor Sonia Falaschi-Ray (Barkway Parish Council) The Rev. Parish Councillor Sonia Falaschi-Ray advised that Barkway was an historic village, with houses lining the High Street dating from the 15th Century to the present day. The village comprised 329 houses, to which NHDC through its Local Plan now proposed to add a further 204, an increase of 62%. The Rev. Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray commented that the village was happy for some development to occur, and 65 houses were in the process of being built. Plots K1 and BK2 in the Plan were acceptable, but Plot BK3 (for 140 houses) was unacceptable. This plot (which was Grade 1 agricultural land) had previously been rejected as being outside the village settlement boundary. The Rev. Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray stated that Barkway had few amenities and very few employment opportunities. Villagers had to visit nearby Barley to access a shop, post office and doctor's surgery, and it had been noted that no new development was proposed in Barley. The Middle and Upper Schools were located in Royston and Buntingford, respectively, and both were near capacity. The Rev. Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray explained that the additional traffic to be generated by the 140 houses on Plot BK3 would indicate that NHDC would be in breach of its own Sustainable Transport Policy. Over the past 20 years, the B1368 road had experienced 344 accidents, of which 10 had been fatal and 81 serious. There were 7 "SLOW" signs in the two mile stretch between Barkway and Barley; the Royston Road had two blind bends up a steep hill, with adverse camber; and The Joint between the Royston Road and the A10 was a single track, with a few passing places. The Rev. Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray advised that sewage may also be a problem. The Sewage works were one mile south of the village, with pipes running under back gardens of properties on both sides of the High Street. She considered that the current works would be unable to take an increase of 140 houses, and so new Sewage works and an upgraded fresh water supply would be required. The Rev. Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray considered that the housing allocation was disproportionate and unfair. The expansion of Barkway by 62% was in conflict with the North Hertfordshire and Stevenage Landscape Character Assessment, which says of Barkway that the Council should be sensitive to inappropriate or unsympathetic development and any form of development not in scale with the village. The same document stated that large urban extensions and new settlements in excess of 5 hectares would not be appropriate and smaller ones of less than 5 hectares would not be entirely appropriate. Plot BK3 measured 7.7 hectares. The Rev. Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray concluded by re-iterating that the Parish of Barkway supported proportionate and sympathetic development, such as Plots BK1 and BK2. The Parish strongly urged the Council to re-consider the inclusion in the Plan of Plot BK3, which they considered would be wholly detrimental to Barkway. The Chairman thanked the Rev. Parish Councillor Falaschi-Ray for her presentation. (vi) Christine Watson (Save Rural Baldock Group) Christine Watson acknowledged the fact that, whilst councillors were clearly under pressure to complete a Local Plan in order to ward off hostile planning applications, this was not a reason to ignore some important practical implications about how the Plan could be delivered. It was disappointing, although not altogether surprising, to hear that it was still proposed to expand Baldock enormously (by 3,500 extra homes) over the Plan period. Christine Watson commented that the questions raised at the recent public meeting showed that, whilst the need for housing was recognised, its affordability was a major concern for many, and residents of Baldock and Bygrave were very worried about the disruption and overloading of infrastructure that would impact on their lives over the 20 year period. Specific concerns related to schools and the traffic they generated, the oversubscribed Doctor's Surgery, and crowded trains, as well as the congestion that already afflicted the roads that would connect the proposed very large north-eastern housing area to Baldock. Christine Watson stated that the need for new primary and secondary schools was mentioned in the Plan, but the strategy for maintaining provision through the expansion period remained extremely opaque. The new secondary school would only become viable when most of the new housing was in place. Until then, how was Knight's Templar School in Baldock to cope? The Doctor's Surgery was also full to capacity. How would patients be treated during the period of such huge population growth before the new surgery became viable? Christine Watson felt that the trains would just become more crowded unless they were longer and more frequent. There would be a further impact during the Plan period from the improved connections at the London end of the line, generated by Crossrail 2. Rail improvements were mentioned, but not detailed - when would Baldock Station accommodate long trains? Christine Watson considered that the road and parking arrangements were a serious concern, both during the construction period and afterwards. The only traffic analysis that she had seen was several years old and dealt only with the impact on roads south of Baldock and around Stevenage. The A507/A505 junction already suffered serious congestion throughout the day, every day. This had not been properly documented to enable an inspector to assess the real situation. The northern link road could be made more effective by taking it all the way to Baldock Services as a bypass - it was difficult to assess how effective a southern link road would be as it had not appeared on any map. Access to Baldock for all the new housing on the North side would still be via the same A507/A505 junction. Christine Watson advised that over the Plan period the age of the internal combustion engine may well be coming towards its end, although electric vehicles actually generated more particulates then conventional cars. It was well known that the Baldock "bowl" concentrated the cocktail of exhaust pollutants with resultant danger to health. This would be a potentially catastrophic consequence of overdevelopment in the Baldock area. Cyclists of all ages should be encouraged, but the Plan stopped at the gates of Baldock. There was an opportunity to develop an integrated cycle system for the whole of North Hertfordshire, but this opportunity had been missed. Christine Watson was of the opinion that a strategy was needed to attract employers to Baldock, otherwise all the new residents would be commuters to other towns. How could this be allowed to happen when there was no end in sight to the peak hour queues on the A507 and A505? What would the Council be doing to attract new businesses and expansion of existing employers in the area? Without robust infrastructure, such employers were unlikely to be interested. Christine Watson questioned how the Council could give residents confidence that it had a plan to fix the current infrastructure problems to ensure that the 20 years of building activity did not result in all the negative impacts feared by residents. She appealed to councillors to vote the way their constituents would want them to vote. This was the only chance to influence the Plan before the final decision would be made by the NHDC Cabinet in September 2016. The Chairman thanked Christine Watson for her presentation. (vii) Anthony Burrows (Save the World's First Garden City Group) Mr Burrows advised that his Group was opposed to any building on Green Belt land anywhere in North Hertfordshire District. The District had more than done its duty, since it had virtually doubled in number of dwellings since 1965, a bigger increase than most of England. Mr Burrows stated that the Group was very disappointed that the formal Consultation had not responded to its view that it should present at least one alternative possibility to enable local voters to have a meaningful input. The Group had hoped that you would present to residents the possibility, allowed by Government from October 2014, of not re-zoning any Green Belt land just to meet Office for National Statistics housing figures. That possibility should be presented as the preferred Local Plan, even if the present draft was presented as a non-preferred Plan, especially since, should the Council vote to allow building massively in the Green Belt, any Inspector would be entitled to assume that you the Council had no objection in principle to building on it. He had been advised that there did not appear to be anything to prevent the Council from submitting a preferred version and a non-preferred version. Mr Burrows asked if any councillor could advise the Group where there was any development in the Plan which was not the (urban) sprawl which for decades had been considered the very opposite of good planning? He considered that moving or increasing the amount of Green Belt so that the sprawl could be constructed was cynical. Mr Burrows explained that the Group was very concerned about the continually increasing unsustainability of the Local Plan from the point of view of matching employment to the proposed increase (by about one-quarter) of population. For sustainability, that huge increase in just twenty years would mean at least an eighth, if not a quarter, increase in employment provision in the District, because otherwise there would be an ever-increasing need for the population to travel increasing distances, with a corresponding increase in greenhouse gas production, congestion, etc. The Council's own "Regeneris" report made this absolutely clear. Mr Burrows stated that it appeared from the Internet that at least one Council in the north of England had obtained agreement for a provision in its Local Plan for a minimum percentage of all new dwellings to be for local people. He could not see any such proposal in the NHDC Plan. Mr Burrows commented that the Group was shocked that the Plan showed complete lack of sympathy with the people of Baldock. Why should the Council agree to an obviously highly objectionable proposal by the County Council to build on the "Land for Heroes" (First World War servicemen who survived the Somme and other battles) to raise a few hundred million pounds, most of which would probably be spent in the rest of the County? The Group was unaware that the need for an applicant to raise cash was one of the strong reasons for granting re-zoning. Mr Burrows advised that there seemed to be a serious lack of understanding about what was meant by "Garden City". For example, in Letchworth Garden City, significant increases of population in the past were planned to be accompanied by significant increases in employment provision, with the "sustainability" concept of people working near their homes. Yet the Plan replaced some of the last few "industrial" zonings (Geo W. King site and District Council Depot site) with residential. As another example of that lack of understanding, the Council still had the proposal to damage the historic Green Belt, said to be the first in the World, as well as infilling of green spaces in the north and east of the town, when one of the principles of the Garden City was to have "green lungs", such as greens, spinneys, allotments, recreation grounds, etc., dotted among the housing, as currently existed in the west and south of the town. He was sure that no councillors could pretend that such infilling was at all "Garden City". Mr Burrows concluded by asking councillors to please bear in mind that, at a national level, building on the Green Belt was being seen as increasingly unacceptable - the District's three MPs had objected to it, as recently had the new Prime Minister. He concluded by asking what progress was being made regarding a new settlement/Garden City in the District? The Chairman thanked Mr Burrows for his presentation. (viii) Simon Butler-Finbow (Pigeon Investment Management Ltd.) Mr Butler-Finbow stated that Whitwell as a Category A village, with approximately 550 homes in the Parish. As with other Category A villages in the western part of the District, it had a proposed allocation for new homes. The proposed allocation of 41 new homes (outside of the Green Belt) in Whitwell represented around a 7% increase of homes in the Parish over the Plan period. Whitwell had all the services and facilities to support its status as a Category A village and the modest level of new homes allocated could be appropriately accommodated in the village. Mr Butler-Finbow advised that the specific policy supporting the draft allocation sought: - The delivery of a detailed drainage strategy; - A scheme which addressed historical surface flood water issues; - The integration of the Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) along the site's western boundary; and - A sensitive design approach towards the nearby Conservation Area. Mr Butler-Finbow commented that the Council was in the process of considering a detailed application which had comprehensively addressed all of the above criteria. It also fully addressed other strategic policies in the emerging Local Plan, and met all National Planning criteria. The draft allocation had therefore been fully tested by evidence and could be considered sound. Mr Butler-Finbow explained that the draft allocation site provided for a high quality, low density and landscape-led proposal, with 40% affordable housing, as well as seven bungalows, both meeting local needs. Whilst the site was approximately 6 hectares in size, the proposed new homes occupied only around 2 hectares, thereby delivering significant green infrastructure to the village. Mr Butler-Finbow advised that the proposal could be sympathetically designed to minimise its impact on the surrounding area and adjoining Conservation Area, and to respect the amenities of existing residents. The proposal occupied a sustainable location for new homes, being close to the school, Fellowship Village Hall and other facilities in the village. Along with the benefits already highlighted, the draft allocation site would deliver: - Extensive new landscaping, wildflower meadow creation and natural play features; - Pedestrian/cycle links to the village and BOAT; - Improved public transport provision; - Primary and secondary education contributions; - Library, waste and recycling contributions; - Bradway Recreation Ground play space contributions; and - Fellowship Village Hall improvement contributions. Mr Butler-Finbow acknowledged the contribution made by NHDC officers in bringing forward the draft allocation site for Whitwell, and appreciated the fact that the scheme had been supported by all main statutory consultees. The Chairman thanked Mr Butler-Finbow for his presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 47 |
NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE LOCAL PLAN 2011-2031 Report Addendum Report - Officer Clarifications Appendix 1 - Consultation Report on Local Plan Preferred Options Appendix 2A - Draft Strategic Policies section of North Hertfordshire Local Plan Appendix 2B - Draft Communities section of North Hertfordshire Local Plan Appendix 2Bi - Hi resolution version of Maps included in Draft Communities Section Appendix 3A - Map detailing emerging Local Plan proposals (east) Appendix 3A - A0 Size Map (East) Appendix 3B - Map detailing emerging Local Plan proposals (west) Appendix 3B - A0 Size Map (West) Appendix 4 - Map detailing Housing Market Areas Appendix 5 - List of supporting and emerging background evidence Link to supporting and emerging background evidence documents The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise (Councillor David Levett) presented the 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 - Consultation Report on Local Plan Preferred Options; Appendix 2 - Draft Strategic Policies and Communities sections of North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031; Appendix 3 - Map detailing emerging Local Plan proposals; Appendix 4 - Map detailing Housing Market areas; and Appendix 5 - List of supporting and emerging background evidence. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise drew Members' attention to the tabled document regarding Officer clarifications in respect of the Plan. With the aid of a Powerpoint presentation, the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise explained the content of the Local Plan, which would be divided into five distinct sections entitled: Introduction and context; Strategic Policies; Detailed development management proposals; Communities; and Implementation, monitoring and review. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise concentrated his presentation on the Strategic Policies and Communities sections of the Plan. He commented that over 8,500 representations had been received regarding the Local Plan Preferred Options documents, of which more than 7,400 were made in respect of the proposed sites for housing development. Following an analysis of these representations, appropriate amendments were made to the document. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise explained that the draft Plan would set a target to provide at least 14,975 new homes for North Hertfordshire's own needs. This had been a balanced judgement taking into account (but not necessarily limited to): - The objectively assessed need (OAN) for 14,400 new homes in the District between 2011 and 2031 established through the evidence base; - The range of sites and options that had been proposed to the Council which might be used to meet these needs; - The implications arising from the potential use of those sites, including upon infrastructure; - Relevant guidance, precedents and case law that relate to the balance which must be struck between meeting development needs and the potential restriction of development, including consideration of Green Belt; - The emerging plans of other authorities within shared Housing Market Areas and the likelihood of them being able to assist in meeting unmet needs should North Hertfordshire determine it was not appropriate to meet its housing need in full; and - The requirement to consider affordable housing requirements and the housing needs of specific groups in translating OAN into a Local Plan housing target. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise advised that the draft Local Plan would also include a supplementary target for an additional 1,950 homes as a contribution towards the unmet needs for housing arising from Luton. In the circumstances, it was not considered a tenable position for North Hertfordshire's Local Plan to make no contribution towards housing requirements from Luton. It was considered that such a position would likely result in a legal failing of the plan under the Duty to-Cooperate. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise advised that, with the District's own needs and Luton's unmet needs taken together, the Plan would therefore set out a requirement for at least 16,925 homes to be built within North Hertfordshire over the period 2011-2031. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise explained that the majority of new homes from this source would be derived from six Strategic Housing Sites (defined as sites that would provide 500 or more new homes, all of which would require the approval of a site masterplan, prior to the submission of any detailed matters). In descending order of size these were: - North of Baldock for 2,800 new homes (2,500 of which to be delivered by 2031); - East of Luton for 2,100 new homes (incorporating the allowance of 1,950 homes that will be made towards unmet needs from Luton); - North of Letchworth for 900 new homes; - North of Stevenage in Graveley parish for 900 new homes; - East of Hitchin for 700 new homes; and - North-east of Great Ashby in Weston parish for 600 new homes. The remaining 65 sites would be described as Local Housing Allocations and were distributed across the District's towns and villages. 16 of these sites were not included at the Preferred Options stage. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise stated that all six of the proposed Strategic Housing Sites and 26 of the proposed Local Housing Allocations would utilise land that was currently designated as Green Belt. In proposing sites currently in the Green Belt, regard had been had to principles set out in case law and other relevant guidance. In summary, it was considered that the pressures facing both the District and the wider area meant that the necessary exceptional circumstances that were required to review Green Belt boundaries to accommodate future development did exist. Justification was set out in the draft technical papers accompanying the report and would form part of the evidence base to support the formal approval of the publication draft Plan in September 2016 The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise recognised that, in addition to Green Belt, the proposed sites would collectively result in development upon, or close to, other features or assets. These included higher quality agricultural land, heritage assets and nationally and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity. Specific additional assessments had been carried out, where necessary, to inform the decision-making process and these formed part of the background papers and evidence base. Although it was fully accepted that the release of certain sites would result in some harm, it was considered that these were: i. below the thresholds at which the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advised an outright restriction on development or at which a planning inspector might support a policy of restraint; ii. capable of appropriate mitigation where relevant and necessary; and iii. outweighed in the planning balance by the pressing need for additional homes (and the onus placed upon this in other relevant examinations) and the lack of likely plausible alternatives should the Council determine not to meet its housing requirements. The Council noted that each proposed site allocation would be accompanied by a set of criteria which would need to be taken into account by any development proposals. These were set out in the draft Communities section of the Local Plan (Appendix 2). These criteria would apply over and above the general requirements - in relation to issues such as design, car parking and housing types - that would be placed on all proposals by the detailed development management policies of the Plan. The Council further noted that, in addition to overall targets and sites, the Local Plan would contain information on the types of new home that should be provided. In particular, the draft plan would set an overall target for one in every three new homes to be provided as affordable housing for local needs. Allowances would also be made for self build development (reflecting recent changes to legislation), Gypsies and Travellers and specialist supported accommodation to meet the needs of those who were unable live in their own home. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise gave an undertaking that all housing sites contained in the Plan would be considered by the Council's Planning Control Committee. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise advised that, subject to Council accepting the recommendations in the report, officers would undertake the final steps necessary to bring the draft Local Plan to Cabinet for formal approval in September 2016. This would include, but would not necessarily be limited to: - Finalisation of the detailed policy wording and supporting text of the draft Plan, including the introductory sections and detailed development management policies which had not been presented to Council; - Finalisation of evidence studies currently presented in draft form, or which were currently ongoing, but not considered critical to the recommendations set out in the report; - Completion of the remaining formal ‘proposed submission documents', including the Statement of Consultation and a submission policies map detailing proposed allocations and protected sites; and - Further details of the proposed consultation activities. In respect of the latter point, the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise commented that the legal regulations stated that the draft Plan must be subject to a consultation period of six-weeks. The Council had no powers to lengthen (or shorten) the consultation period. However, it was also recognised that this was a short period of time for interested parties to formulate responses, given the complexity of the issues raised by a draft Local Plan. It was therefore considered that the early consideration of the key principles behind the Plan by this Full Council meeting served a wider purpose by enabling the early release of relevant information into the public domain. It was currently envisaged that the formal consultation period would commence in the autumn of September 2016, thereby meeting the approved timetable set out in the adopted Local Development Scheme (LDS). The Council noted that a timetable, and details of the consultation measures proposed, would be set out in the September 2016 Cabinet report, having regard to the date of that meeting and any other relevant committee cycles, call-in periods etc. Following the close of the consultation, officers would process and analyse all valid representations which had been submitted. Subject to the consultation not raising any substantive new issues that had not previously been considered, the Council would be asked to submit its Local Plan to the Secretary of State for examination in March 2017. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise stressed the importance of having a Local Plan in place to control development of the identified sites. Without a Plan, the District Council would have no policies in place to resist speculative development proposals. It was moved by Councillor David Levett, and seconded by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, that the recommendations contained in the report be approved. The Council debated the draft Local Plan at length. A number of Members spoke in favour of the Plan, whilst others spoke in objection to the scale of development (especially in respect of the Strategic Sites). As an amendment, it was moved by Councillor S.K. Jarvis, and seconded by Councillor Terry Tyler, that "Recommendation 2.3 be deleted and replaced with: Regrets that the strategic policy and spatial implications for a new Local Plan for North Hertfordshire set out in Appendices 2 and 3: a) Fail to reflect the guidance provide by Minister of State for Housing and Planning that Green Belt boundaries should not be moved simply to accommodate housing need; b) Propose revised green belt boundaries that in many cases do not reflect physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent; and Recommendation 2.4 be deleted and replaced with: Council instructs officers to bring forward revised proposals to address these issues before the submission documents are published for consultation." The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise (Councillor David Levett) questioned whether or not this was a valid amendment, as it effectively negated the effect of the original motion. Following consultation, the Chairman commented that he was of the view that the amendment did negate the effect of the original motion, and he therefore ruled that the amendment was unacceptable and would not be debated. As an amendment, it was moved by Councillor Ian Mantle, and seconded by Councillor Adrian Smith, that "The following sentence be added at the end of Policy SP8 at paragraph SP 8.24…' In all cases, at least 65% of the affordable housing will be for social rent.' " The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise was uncertain of whether this addition was acceptable in legal terms. He therefore agreed to investigate the legal implications of the proposal and include the outcome in the report to Cabinet in September 2016. This was accepted by the mover of the amendment. A further amendment was moved by Councillor Adrian Smith, and seconded by Councillor Ian Mantle, that "A new paragraph be inserted between paragraphs SP 8.24 and SP 8.25, with all following paragraphs consequently re-numbered…'Where the Council seeks to obtain the provision of affordable housing from developers, a reduction in the percentage of affordable housing provided will only normally be allowed in exceptional circumstances relating to unexpected site costs. Evidence that an applicant has paid too much for a site will not normally be sufficient to justify a lower level of affordable housing.' " Again, the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise was uncertain of whether this addition was acceptable in legal terms. As with the previous amendment, he therefore agreed to investigate the legal implications of the proposal and include the outcome in the report to Cabinet in September 2016. This was accepted by the mover of the amendment. At the conclusion of the debate, and in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.16(f), Councillor David Levett requested that a recorded vote be taken on the substantive motion. (Voting: For: Councillors Ian Albert, Mrs A.G. Ashley, D.J. Barnard, Clare Billing, Judi Billing, John Bishop, John Booth, P.C.W. Burt, J.M. Cunningham, Bill Davidson, Elizabeth Dennis, Jean Green, Nicola Harris, Simon Harwood, Cathryn Henry, Fiona Hill, T.W. Hone, Tony Hunter, David Levett, Ben Lewis, Bernard Lovewell, Sandra Lunn, Ian Mantle, Alan Millard, Mrs L.A. Needham, Frank Radcliffe, Mike Rice, Deepak Sangha, Harry Spencer-Smith, Mrs C.P.A. Strong, R.A.C. Thake and Simon Watson - 32. Against: Councillors S.K. Jarvis, Jim McNally, M.R.M. Muir, Janine Paterson, Valentine Shanley, Terry Tyler and Michael Weeks - 7. Abstentions: Councillors Faye Frost, Jane Gray, Steve Hemingway, Lorna Kercher and Adrian Smith - 5. The motion was carried.) It was therefore RESOLVED: (1) That the context for the preparation of a new Local Plan for North Hertfordshire, including the legislative and evidential context, be noted; (2) That the results of the Preferred Options consultation, as set out in the Consultation Report attached as Appendix 1, and other relevant consultations on the preparation of the new Local Plan, be recorded; (3) That the likely strategic policy and spatial implications of a new Local Plan for North Hertfordshire that would comply with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and relevant legislation, as set out in Appendices 2 and 3 to the report, be endorsed; and (4) That officers be instructed to finalise the proposed submission documents for formal approval by Cabinet. 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 | ||