Agenda item

REPORT OF THE SERVICE DIRECTOR – REGULATORY

 

To consider the Report and Referral from Cabinet on the Local Plan.

 

The Report being considered is the same as that considered by Cabinet at the Extraordinary Meeting on Wednesday 2 November 2022 and the report can be accessed here: 

 

Agenda for Cabinet on Wednesday, 2nd November, 2022, 7.30 pm | North Herts Council (north-herts.gov.uk)

 

The referral sheet from Cabinet will be published as a supplementary agenda as soon as it is available.

RESOLVED:

 

(1)   That the outcomes of the examination set out in the Inspector’s Report (IR), attached as Appendix 1, along with his recommended Main Modifications to the Plan, attached as Appendix 2, were noted.

 

(2)   That the final version of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 (‘the Local Plan’), attached at Appendix 3, incorporating both the Inspector’s Main Modifications and the proposed Additional Modifications, attached at Appendix 4, was adopted as part of the statutory Development Plan for the District.

 

(3)   That the Policies Map, illustrated by Appendices 5a to 5g, was adopted in order to give geographical effect to the policies of the Local Plan.

 

(4)   That the updated Local Development Scheme, attached at Appendix 6, was approved.

 

(5)   That delegated authority was granted to the Service Director – Regulatory in consultation with the Executive Member for Planning and Transport to make any minor non-material corrections (including but not limited to cosmetic additions or presentational alterations) to the adopted Local Plan or the adopted Policies Map as considered necessary for their publication and publicity in accordance with the relevant regulations.

 

 

REASON FOR DECISION: To provide the District with an up-to-date Local Plan in accordance with the requirements  of national legislation and policy.

 

Audio recording – 94 minutes 35 seconds

 

The Chair invited the Executive Member for Planning and Transport, Councillor Ruth Brown, to present the report entitled ‘North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031’ and advised Members of the following:

 

·         Thanked Members and Officers who had worked on the Plan and been involved in the process since 2011.

·         All Members had attended sessions and drop-ins to ensure they understood the proposals before them in the Plan.

·         Consultation had been ongoing and considerations had been taken and, with the inclusion of the Inspectors modifications, the Plan was sound.

·         It was not ideal that the greenbelt land was being lost, but the Inspector retained this in the interest of sustainability.

·         There was a proposed 4000 hectares of greenbelt to be made around the district within the Plan.

·         Greenbelt status alone does not protect the land and this has been evidenced in recent decisions with the rejection of a previous application at the Planning Control Committee, which was successful on appeal.

·         The Plan would give the Council more control over developments, especially regarding biodiversity and affordability.

·         It was important that infrastructure was developed early around new housing developments.

·         The Local Development Scheme proposed would allow for the Council to update certain aspects of the Local Plan, and a review was due to start by December 2023.

·         The Council was required to have a Plan in place by December 2023 and it was better to have an adopted Plan than not.

·         No change could be made to individual sites through amendments or conditions as this would be deemed a material change.

·         Sites allocated would still require permission for development and would be brought to the Planning Control Committee for approval.

 

Councillor Brown proposed and Councillor Ian Mantle seconded and reserved his right to speak.

 

Following this, the Chair began the debate and the following Members took part and asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Richard Thake

·         Councillor David Barnard

·         Councillor Chris Lucas

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·         Councillor Gerald Morris

·         Councillor Judi Billing

·         Councillor Keith Hoskins

·         Councillor Tom Plater

·         Councillor George Davies

·         Councillor Ian Mantle

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor Sam Collins

·         Councillor Chris Hinchliff

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

·         Councillor Elizabeth Dennis-Harburg

·         Councillor Sean Nolan

·         Councillor Ralph Muncer

·         Councillor Ian Albert

·         Councillor Lisa Nash

·         Councillor Claire Strong

·         Councillor Adam Compton

·         Councillor James Denselow

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Steve Jarvis

·         Councillor Sean Prendergast

 

During the debate at 22.15 there was a short adjournment to allow for a comfort break and the meeting recommenced at 22.23.

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·         The unmet housing need of Luton Borough Council had been met and there were still developments ongoing, with further land available in Central Beds.

·         There were parts of the Plan that were not desired, but there were limited choices available and it was important to have protection against developers.

·         The Plan would increase the Council’s ability to secure affordable homes within developments.

·         Much of the Plan required building on greenbelt land, and while further greenbelt land was proposed the damage will have already been done.

·         The Inspector had reduced housing requirements but all allocated land is still included within the Plan for development.

·         There was a desire to provide housing for residents.

·         Sites HT5 and HT6 felt shoehorned into inappropriate areas, but this could be addressed during the review stage.

·         Emphasis had been placed on Local Authorities to adopt a Local Plan from Central Government.

·         The Plan gives a level of control, with applications having to be presented to the Planning Control Committee, who would be able to refuse developments on the grounds available to the Committee.

·         Housing was already an issue in the district and many residents are unable to afford housing without support.

·         The Plan allows for more affordable and social housing within developments.

·         Unsuitable sites could be identified on a cross-party basis during the reviews.

·         Local politicians had consistently underdelivered on housing and over the last 25 years house prices have risen by 6 times and this is not affordable for young people.

·         Lack of housing has further impacts on communities, employers and families.

·         Environmental policies included would allow the Council to take a more proactive role in protecting land and wildlife.

·         New developments should be connected to existing developments, not gated communities dotted around the countryside.

·         There were policies included to support self-builders.

·         Despite the reduction in overall numbers, there was not a reduction to the 3200 dwellings proposed in Baldock.

·         Not against housing development in North Herts, but important that it is in the right place.

·         The policies were already out of date in some cases and no clear answer on what the review entails or what will be considered.

·         A new settlement is required in this area of the country.

·         The adoption of a Local Plan is a requirement of government.

·         There were 28 social homes built in the last 5 years of the previous administration and this Plan would help to ensure those numbers increase.

·         Many sites in the Local Plan were already subject to applications and the adoption of the Plan would allow for strategic master planning.

·         Without the Plan, there would be a free-for-all from developers.

·         There was a binary choice this evening, with no chance to amend or condition the proposals.

·         Some countryside had been included for development but it was designed to minimise urban sprawl and maintaining existing communities. There would overall be a four times increase in greenbelt countryside.

·         Any new settlement would be a long term project and would not address immediate housing needs.

·         There was destruction included in the Plan and it seemed the mitigations were an afterthought.

·         There needs to be infrastructure in place to support the new residents, as well as those already existing.

·         It was important to look at the broader picture and the Plan as a whole, rather than specific sites.

·         Some sites should not be now included in the Plan, but adoption would allow for the protections to begin and a chance to review and update aspects of the Plan.

·         Members had a duty to listen to residents and proposals should improve the environment and have the support of residents.

·         Land for sale does not mean that it is suitable for housing and it was irresponsible to erode open spaces, which will impact on wildlife, ecology and flooding.

·         Laying concrete in areas at risk of flooding is not suitable and the Plan did not address transport or traffic issues. 

·         There were no long term economic benefits to the Plan.

·         The new Plan was needed to meet the housing land supply.

·         The Council had a legal duty to consider the unmet need of Luton and the East of Luton site was the only viable option to do so.

·         Members want the review of the Plan to start as soon as possible so it can be updated and edited appropriately.

·         The Plan does propose encroachment onto the greenbelt, but this was preferable to the possibility of hostile developers.

·         The greenbelt cannot be protected without an adopted Plan.

·         As needs demand, the Plan can change and reviews will be ongoing.

·         It was not just about sites identified, but about the policies included within it to ensure that there are benefits to the Plan.

·         It was not a debate on whether something better could have been produced, but understanding the value of the Plan with the national planning constraints.

·         The Plan would allow for better affordability of housing in the district.

 

Many Members also took the opportunity to thank the Officers and Members, current and former, who had put a great deal of effort into producing the Local Plan over the last 11 years.

 

In response to questions the Strategic Planning Manager advised:

 

·         The policy within the Plan commits to a review and this would be conducted by working through policy by policy to ensure these remain relevant and revise those policies where this is not the case.

·         There were three possible outcomes from a review of policies, that they were still relevant and suitable, that certain parts need updating or that the entire Plan will need re-evaluating.

·         There were two ‘reviews’ which would take place. The first would be the review of policies and their relevance, and this would be conducted by Officers with changes approved by Members. If the Plan requires a review then this would depend on the situation at the time.

·         Policies would be reviewed if there were no longer in line with national planning policies.

·         This was a binary choice, and it would not be possible to add conditions onto the recommendations, as had been suggested through some public presentations and questions from Members.

·         There was a small team working on Statutory Planning Documents and Town Centre strategies and only so much could be done. Letchworth would be first Town Centre Strategy to be looked at, were the Local Plan to be approved.

·         Whether sites could be removed was unknown at this stage and would need to be reviewed in line with other policy considerations.

 

In response to points raised in the debate, Councillor Ruth Brown concluded:

 

·         Thanked Members and members of the public who had spoken at the meeting and shared some of the concerns raised.

·         It was important to be pragmatic and it was more than just building homes, the policies and strategies included were vital and would be lost without adoption.

·         It would allow more control over affordable housing, the housing mix of developments and protection of the greenbelt.

·         There was no further opportunity to remove sites and a decision must be taken.

·         A refusal would lead to hostile applications all over the district, while an adopted Plan would provide a framework to drive up standards.

·         A review would be a worthwhile activity to ensure it remained up to date.

 

Having been proposed by Councillor Brown and seconded by Councillor Mantle, the Chair moved to a vote and it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)  That the outcomes of the examination set out in the Inspector’s Report (IR), attached as Appendix 1, along with his recommended Main Modifications to the Plan, attached as Appendix 2, were noted.

 

(2)  That the final version of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 (‘the Local Plan’), attached at Appendix 3, incorporating both the Inspector’s Main Modifications and the proposed Additional Modifications, attached at Appendix 4, was adopted as part of the statutory Development Plan for the District.

 

(3)  That the Policies Map, illustrated by Appendices 5a to 5g, was adopted in order to give geographical effect to the policies of the Local Plan.

 

(4)  That the updated Local Development Scheme, attached at Appendix 6, was approved.

 

(5)  That delegated authority was granted to the Service Director – Regulatory in consultation with the Executive Member for Planning and Transport to make any minor non-material corrections (including but not limited to cosmetic additions or presentational alterations) to the adopted Local Plan or the adopted Policies Map as considered necessary for their publication and publicity in accordance with the relevant regulations.

 

REASON FOR DECISION: To provide the District with an up-to-date Local Plan in accordance with the requirements  of national legislation and policy.