Agenda item - NOTICE OF MOTIONS

To consider any motions, due notice of which have been given in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12.

There were five motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12.

A) Provision of Affordable Housing and Infrastructure on Developments

RESOLVED: That Council instructed the Leader of the Council writes to the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government setting out the Council’s views and calling for the government to adopt a strategy that will prioritise increasing delivery of housing with appropriate infrastructure and to prioritise giving more power to Councils to build housing, in particular social and affordable housing.

B) Two Child Limit to Benefit Payments

RESOLVED: That Council:

(1) Instructed the Leader of North Herts Council to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister indicating North Herts Council's strong belief that the two-child limit to benefit payments should be scrapped – which would help 2120 children living in North Hertfordshire.

(2) Further instructed the Council Leader to write to all MPs covering the district of North Hertfordshire, asking them to commit their public support to the campaign to end the cruel two-child limit to benefit payments and ensure the number of children a family has is considered when a hardship grant is given out by the Council.

C) Proposed Expansion of London Luton Airport

RESOLVED:

(1) That the new Leader of the Council writes again to the Secretary of State for Transport urging them not to grant a Development Consent Order, as well as stating that North Hertfordshire District Council continues to oppose any further expansion of London Luton Airport in the strongest possible terms, and remains of the opinion there are no conditions that can be applied to the application to make it acceptable.

(2) Council further resolved that the new Leader of the Council writes to the Member of Parliament for Hitchin, the Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire and the Member of Parliament for Stevenage, urging them to call on the Secretary of State for Transport to reject the proposal allowing London Luton Airport to expand, as well as to use their role as an MP representing residents in North Hertfordshire to secure Parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed expansion.

D) Government Planning Reforms and Housing Target

RESOLVED: That Council resolves:

(1) That the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government calling on the Government to:

(1.1) not increase the Housing Target for North Hertfordshire.

(1.2) Restore the Urban Uplift, ensuring cities and urban areas take their fair share of housing development, particularly as many of these areas already have the infrastructure to support additional development.

(1.3) Ensure infrastructure to support approved development is built prior to houses, thereby reducing the negative impact of development on existing communities, and ensuring local infrastructure is ready to provide for residents moving into new homes.

(1.4) Adopt a brownfield first approach to development, and provide greater protection for green belt land in North Hertfordshire.

(1.5) Not to amend paragraph 11(d) of the 2023 NPPF, which currently provides protection for North Hertfordshire as a local authority that has recently adopted a local plan but does not have a five-year housing land supply.

(1.6) Strengthen the rights of local residents to ensure they have a meaningful say when development is proposed within their communities.

(1.7) Not remove the emphasis and focus on ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful design’ from the National Planning Policy Framework.

(1.8) Meaningfully engage with Local Planning Authorities on the New Town Scheme and – where proposed sites are put forward within an area – ensure that plans have local consent and that sufficient additional funding is in place to support already-stretched planning departments.

(1.9) Actively pursue reforms designed to ensure that a far greater proportion of planning applications – which continue to be approved under the existing policy framework – are actually built out by developers in a timely manner, recognising that this is the most effective way of meeting the Government’s stated objectives.

(2) That the Leader of the Council writes to the Member of Parliament for Hitchin, the Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire and the Member of Parliament for Stevenage highlighting the opposition of Council to the Government’s proposed planning reforms and housing targets, urging them to stand up against these proposals which would have a detrimental impact on residents and communities across North Hertfordshire.

E) Changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance

RESOLVED: That Council resolves:

(1) That the Leader of the Council writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and asks the government to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty.

(2) That the Leader of the Council writes to the Member of Parliament for Hitchin, the Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire and the Member of Parliament for Stevenage, urging them to ask the government to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty, as well as to press the government to reverse this decision which may impact 23,266 pensioners in North Hertfordshire.

(3) To continue to encourage local efforts to promote Pension Credit uptake through council services and partnerships with local charities and community organisations to ensure that all eligible pensioners in North Hertfordshire are supported in claiming their entitlement.

(4) To encourage Councillors to consider the ‘Save the Winter Fuel Payment for Struggling Pensioners’ petition being run by Age UK.

(5) To acknowledge and understand that the financial blackhole that the previous 14 years of Conservative government has left our country in has an impact on the new government’s financial decision-making, but that does not justify the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Payment.

Audio recording – 19 minutes 21 seconds

There were five motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12.

A) Provision of Affordable Housing and Infrastructure on Developments

Councillor Steve Jarvis proposed the motion as follows:

‘This Council notes that, despite the existence of unimplemented planning permission to build more than a million homes across England, the current government, like its predecessor, believes that making it easier for developers to get planning permission is the way to increase the availability of affordable housing.

The Council believes that increasing numbers of permissions, rather than focusing on building the right housing in the locations which are already identified for development will boost developers profits rather than meet the needs for affordable housing.

It also notes that the government’s proposed changes to the NPPF would make it easier for developers in North Herts to obtain planning permission on speculative sites, particularly those in parts of the Green Belt, at a time when they should be delivering housing on the sites that are identified in the Local Plan.

It instructs the Leader of the Council to write to the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government setting out the council’s views and calling for the government to adopt a strategy that will prioritise increasing delivery of affordable housing with appropriate infrastructure, rather than increasing property developers’ profits.’

Councillor Ruth Brown seconded the motion.

The Chair advised that there had been an amendment to this motion which had been proposed by Councillor Daniel Wright-Mason and seconded by Councillor Dave Winstanley and had been published as a supplementary document.

Councillor Daniel Wright-Mason proposed the amendment as follows:

‘This Council notes that, despite the existence of unimplemented planning permission to build more than a million homes across England, the current government, like its predecessor, believes that making it easier for developers to get planning permission is a way to increase the availability of affordable housing.

The council believes that increasing numbers of permissions, rather than focusing on building the right housing in the locations which are already identified for development will boost developers profits, whilst not necessarily meeting the needs for affordable housing.

It also notes that the government’s proposed changes to the NPPF would make it easier for developers in North Herts to obtain planning permission on speculative sites, including those in parts of the Green Belt.

It instructs the Leader of the Council to write to the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government setting out the council’s views and calling for the government to adopt a strategy that will prioritise increasing delivery of housing with appropriate infrastructure and to prioritise giving more power to councils to build housing, in particular social and affordable housing.’

Councillor Dave Winstanley seconded the amendment.

During the debate on the amendment, Councillor Daniel Allen stated that whilst under joint administration the Council brought forward the 40% affordable housing scheme and that the Local Plan identified the right homes in the right places, right now.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote the amendment was carried.

The following Members took part in debate on the amended motion:

· Councillor Ralph Muncer

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Steve Jarvis

Points raised in debate included:

· That there was a need to build more affordable housing in London and the South East.

· Homes in urban areas in other parts of the country were not unaffordable.

· There were concerns that the views of the Council on this motion were ambiguous and vague.

· The planning reforms were disappointing and made it easier to obtain planning permission rather than addressing the issue of unbuilt housing developments.

· The 40% affordable housing and social housing was still unobtainable for many residents.

· There was a need for social housing.

· There should be incentives for developers to build developments that have already obtained planning permission, rather than cherry pick easy profitable sites.

· The reforms reduced the powers of Local Authorities.

· There was support for the affordable and social housing element of the reforms.

· Local Authorities should have more powers to provide social housing.

· The amendment removed the requirement for builders to build those developments that they had obtained planning permission for, and this was a major shortfall of the process.

· Providing affordable housing would not deal with the scale of the problem, there needed to be a different way.

Having been proposed and seconded, the amended motion was put to a vote, and it was:

RESOLVED: That Council instructed the Leader of the Council writes to the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government setting out the Council’s views and calling for the government to adopt a strategy that will prioritise increasing delivery of housing with appropriate infrastructure and to prioritise giving more power to Councils to build housing, in particular social and affordable housing.

B) Motion on the Two Child Limit to Benefit Payments

Councillor Chris Lucas proposed the motion as follows:

‘In North Hertfordshire, 2120 children in 590 households are currently affected by the two-child limit to benefit payments. That is 7% of all children in the authority area. At the same time, 5270 local children are living in poverty.

Council strongly believes that the two-child limit to benefit payments is a cruel and harmful policy that should be scrapped. Research from the University of York has shown its introduction has had no positive impacts on employment and earnings. Instead, it has dragged thousands of local families into poverty.

Council notes that the Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the two-child limit to benefit payments since it was introduced – calling for it to be axed in their 2017, 2019 and 2024 manifestos. Council notes with concern the stance of the Labour Government, who are committed to keeping the cap – going as far suspending the whip from MPs who rebel against this position.

Council resolves to:

Instruct the Leader of North Herts Council to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister indicating North Herts Council's strong belief that the two-child limit to benefit payments should be scrapped – which would help 2120 children living in North Hertfordshire.

Further instruct the Council Leader to write to all MPs covering the district of North Hertfordshire, asking them to commit their public support to the campaign to end the cruel two-child limit to benefit payments and ensure the number of children a family has is considered when a hardship grant is given out by the Council.’

Councillor Tim Johnson seconded the motion.

The Chair advised that there had been an amendment to this motion which had been proposed by Councillor Nigel Mason and seconded by Councillor Daniel Wright-Mason and had been published as a supplementary document.

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed the amendment as follows:

‘In North Hertfordshire, 2120 children in 590 households are currently affected by the two-child limit to benefit payments. That is 7% of all children in the authority area. At the same time, 5270 local children are living in poverty.

Council strongly believes that the two-child limit to benefit payments is a cruel and harmful policy that should be scrapped. Research from the University of York has shown its introduction has had no positive impacts on employment and earnings. Instead, it has dragged thousands of local families into poverty.

Council notes that the Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the two-child limit to benefit payments since it was introduced – calling for it to be axed in their 2017, 2019 and 2024 manifestos. Council welcomes the new Labour government setting up a child poverty task force, and looks forward to working with central government to ensure its recommendations are effectively implemented.

Council resolves to:

Instruct the Leader of North Herts Council to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister indicating North Herts Council's strong belief that the two-child limit to benefit payments should be scrapped – which would help 2120 children living in North Hertfordshire.

Further instruct the Council Leader to write to all MPs covering the district of North Hertfordshire, asking them to commit their public support to the campaign to end the cruel two-child limit to benefit payments and ensure the number of children a family has is considered when a hardship grant is given out by the Council.’

Councillor Daniel Wright-Mason seconded the amendment.

The Chair clarified that as there were two amendments – the deletion of one sentence and the addition of another sentence - they would be considered individually and the deletion of ‘Council notes with concern the stance of the Labour Government, who are committed to keeping the cap – going as far suspending the whip from MPs who rebel against this position’, would be debated first.

The following Members took part in debate on the amendment:

· Councillor Daniel Allen

· Councillor Matt Barnes

· Councillor Chris Lucas

· Councillor Sam Collins

· Councillor Alistair Willoughby

· Councillor Vijaiya Poopalasingham

· Councillor Tim Johnson

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Daniel Wright-Mason

Points raised in debate included:

· The Labour government should be judged on their actions and so far, these have been to suspend the whip for MPs that do not agree with this policy.

· Deleting the sentence would weaken the motion.

· The motion should be open and clear.

· The argument around this was for the benefit of political points.

· There was agreement regarding the removal of the two-child cap.

· It was the Governments position to review this when it was financially viable.

· The Council should have cross party agreement on the two-child cap.

· Was this about making a political point or about the two-child cap.

· Removing the line meant that Members would not upset their Labour bosses.

· The two-child cap was introduced by the Conservative government in 2017.

· The amendment was to remove an overtly political point.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, the amendment was lost.

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed the addition of the following ‘Council welcomes the new Labour government setting up a child poverty task force, and looks forward to working with central government to ensure its recommendations are effectively implemented’ and this was seconded by Councillor Daniel Wright-Mason.

The following Members took part in debate on the amendment:

· Councillor Tim Johnson

· Councillor Chris Lucas

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Alistair Willoughby

· Councillor Ian Albert

· Councillor Matt Barnes

· Councillor Tina Bhartwas

· Councillor Tom Tyson

· Councillor Val Bryant

· Councillor David Chalmers

Points raised in debate included:

· The amendment was unnecessary.

· It takes time to set up a task force and in the meantime, children remained hungry and in poverty.

· The amendment would read better as Government instead of new Labour Government.

· The task force would be in addition to the call to scrap the two-child cap.

· The task force should be welcomed and would help more than just those affected by the two-child cap.

· The amendment did not affect the requested resolution of the motion.

· The issue of child poverty needed to be addressed and the setting up of a task force was a positive way forward.

· No single policy could solve child poverty, the task force would however look at the root causes of child poverty.

· The task force would be a valuable addition to assist the prevention of child poverty.

Councillor Ruth Brown sought a further amendment to the amended proposal, the deletion of the words ‘new Labour’ which was accepted by the proposer and seconder of the amendment.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, the amendment was carried.

The following Members took part in debate on the substantive motion:

· Councillor Tim Johnson

· Councillor Daniel Allen

· Councillor Matt Barnes

Points raised in debate included:

· The fact that the government had not scrapped this cap sent the wrong message, for a party founded on socialist principles.

· The two-child cap was aimed at parents but affected children.

· The policy was immoral and did not work.

· North Hertfordshire did not issue hardship grants.

· The two-child cap was a hateful policy.

· The policy discriminated disproportionately against women and larger families in the community and drove up the rate of child poverty.

Having been proposed and seconded, the substantive motion was put to a vote, and it was:

RESOLVED: That Council:

(1) Instructed the Leader of North Herts Council to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister indicating North Herts Council's strong belief that the two-child limit to benefit payments should be scrapped – which would help 2120 children living in North Hertfordshire.

(2) Further instructed the Council Leader to write to all MPs covering the district of North Hertfordshire, asking them to commit their public support to the campaign to end the cruel two-child limit to benefit payments and ensure the number of children a family has is considered when a hardship grant is given out by the Council.

N.B. Councillor Ruth Clifton left the chamber at 20:46 and returned at 20:49.

C) Proposed Expansion of London Luton Airport

Councillor Ralph Muncer proposed the motion as follows:

‘On 24 May 2024, the then Secretary of State for Transport, The Rt. Hon. Mark Harper, delivered a written statement to Parliament announcing the deadline would be extended from 10 August 2024 to 4 October 2024 for a decision to be made regarding whether to grant a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the construction of a new passenger terminal and aircraft stands at London Luton Airport, thereby allowing passenger capacity to increase from 18 million per annum to 32 million.

The stated reason for this decision is as follows: “This is due to the General Election and to allow appropriate time for any new Secretary of State to consider the applications. The department will however endeavour to issue decisions ahead of the deadlines above wherever possible”.

Following the General Election and the appointment of a new Secretary of State for Transport, a decision on whether to grant a DCO is now expected imminently.

Therefore, Council resolves that the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State for Transport urging them not to grant a Development Consent Order, as well as stating that North Hertfordshire District Council continues to oppose any further expansion of London Luton Airport in the strongest possible terms, and remains of the opinion there are no conditions that can be applied to the application to make it acceptable.

Council further resolves that the Leader of the Council writes to the Member of Parliament for Hitchin, the Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire and the Member of Parliament for Stevenage, urging them to call on the Secretary of State for Transport to reject the proposal allowing London Luton Airport to expand, as well as to use their role as an MP representing residents in North Hertfordshire to secure Parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed expansion.’

Councillor Joe Graziano seconded the motion.

The Chair advised that there had been an amendment to this motion which had been proposed by Councillor Chris Lucas and seconded by Councillor Sam Collins and had been published as a supplementary document.

Councillor Chris Lucas proposed the amendment as follows:

‘On 24 May 2024, the then Secretary of State for Transport, The Rt. Hon. Mark Harper, delivered a written statement to Parliament announcing the deadline would be extended from 10 August 2024 to 4 October 2024 for a decision to be made regarding whether to grant a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the construction of a new passenger terminal and aircraft stands at London Luton Airport, thereby allowing passenger capacity to increase from 18 million per annum to 32 million.

The stated reason for this decision is as follows: “This is due to the General Election and to allow appropriate time for any new Secretary of State to consider the applications. The department will however endeavour to issue decisions ahead of the deadlines above wherever possible”.

Following the General Election and the appointment of a new Secretary of State for Transport, a decision on whether to grant a DCO is now expected imminently.

We note that Council agreed a similar motion proposed by Chris Lucas in January 2024 and the under the last government, the Conservative Secretary of State already agreed to increase the number of passengers at Luton Airport by 1 million from 18 to 19 million per year.

Therefore, Council resolves that the Leader of the Council writes once again to the Secretary of State for Transport urging them not to grant a Development Consent Order, as well as stating that North Hertfordshire District Council continues to oppose any further expansion of London Luton Airport in the strongest possible terms, and remains of the opinion there are no conditions that can be applied to the application to make it acceptable.

Council further resolves that the Leader of the Council writes to the Member of Parliament for Hitchin, the Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire and the Member of Parliament for Stevenage, urging them to call on the Secretary of State for Transport to reject the proposal allowing London Luton Airport to expand, as well as to use their role as an MP representing residents in North Hertfordshire to secure Parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed expansion.’

Councillor Sam Collins seconded the amendment.

The following Members took part in debate on the amendment:

· Councillor Daniel Allen

· Councillor Alistair Willoughby

· Councillor Claire Strong

· Councillor Ralph Muncer

· Councillor Val Bryant

· Councillor Michael Muir

Points raised in debate included:

· It was only 11 months since the former Secretary of State approved the expansion of London Luton Airport to 19 million travellers.

· The administration, as with previous administrations opposed the expansion.

· The amendment made no difference to the actual motion.

· The motion should say ‘New Leader of the Council writes again’.

· This would be the last opportunity to oppose the expansion before the deadline in January 2025.

· This expansion would be a substantial increase and would affect residents.

· Resident concerns had previously been highlighted to the former MP, who had raised these concerns in parliament.

· This motion was heard every six months.

· The expansion would cause traffic chaos in Hitchin.

Councillor Claire Strong sought a further amendment to the amended proposal, the addition of the word ‘new’ before Leader of the Council and the removal of ‘once’ which was accepted by the proposer and seconder of the amendment.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, the amendment was carried.

N.B. Councillor Lisa Nash left the Chamber at 21:04 and did not return.

The following Members took part in debate on the substantive motion:

· Councillor David Barnard

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Sam Collins

· Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

· Councillor Paul Ward

· Councillor Joe Graziano

· Councillor Val Bryant

· Councillor Claire Strong

Points raised in debate included:

· This would be the first opportunity to address the new Government and Secretary of State.

· The expansion should have been decided by May 2024 this was now delayed to January 2025.

· The expansion would result in the need to fly through the night, especially in the summer months.

· A cross party statement should be issued as well as objections from other Local Authorities.

· Money should be spent expanding the rail network instead of airports.

· There was mitigation for Luton traffic but nothing in the plan for east to west traffic.

· The would be an impact to the environment and increased pollution.

· The new Labour MP had refused to commit to objecting to the expansion.

· The expansion would be a disaster for North Herts residents.

· This was a long and protracted process.

· There was no mitigation for the challenges this expansion would create.

· Work should continue to ensure the best possible outcome for North Herts residents should the expansion be granted.

· Members should use all their contacts to ensure concerns were heard.

· There was already significant noise from 19 million travellers.

· The expansion would have a devastating effect on the wildlife and would increase light pollution in the district.

· Two of the three MPs for this area had confirmed that they were against the expansion.

· The east west transport links to Luton were insufficient and meant traveling into and out of London.

· The number of travellers from Luton Airport had been steadily creeping up for the last 29 years.

· There were other airports that could be expanded.

Councillor Ralph Muncer requested a recorded vote.

Having been proposed and seconded, the substantive motion was put to a vote, and the outcome of the recorded vote was:

VOTE TOTALS:

YES 41

ABSTAIN 0

NO 0

TOTAL 41

THE INDIVIDUAL RESULTS WERE AS FOLLOWS:

Cllr Clare Billing YES

Cllr Alistair Willoughby YES

Cllr Amy Allen YES

Cllr Bryony May YES

Cllr Caroline McDonnell YES

Cllr Chris Lucas YES

Cllr Claire Strong YES

Cllr Daniel Allen YES

Cllr Daniel Wright-Mason YES

Cllr Dave Winstanley YES

Cllr David Barnard YES

Cllr Dominic Griffiths YES

Cllr Donna Wright YES

Cllr Elizabeth Dennis YES

Cllr Emma Fernandes YES

Cllr Ian Albert YES

Cllr Ian Mantle YES

Cllr Joe Graziano YES

Cllr Jon Clayden YES

Cllr Laura Williams YES

Cllr Louise Peace YES

Cllr Martin Prescott YES

Cllr Matt Barnes YES

Cllr Michael Muir YES

Cllr Mick Debenham YES

Cllr Nigel Mason YES

Cllr Paul Ward YES

Cllr Ralph Muncer YES

Cllr Ruth Brown YES

Cllr Ruth Clifton YES

Cllr Sam Collins YES

Cllr Sean Nolan YES

Cllr Sean Prendergast YES

Cllr Steve Jarvis YES

Cllr Steven Patmore YES

Cllr Stewart Willoughby YES

Cllr Tim Johnson YES

Cllr Tina Bhartwas YES

Cllr Tom Tyson YES

Cllr Val Bryant YES

Cllr Vijaiya Poopalasingham YES

Therefore, it was:

RESOLVED:

(1) That the new Leader of the Council writes again to the Secretary of State for Transport urging them not to grant a Development Consent Order, as well as stating that North Hertfordshire District Council continues to oppose any further expansion of London Luton Airport in the strongest possible terms, and remains of the opinion there are no conditions that can be applied to the application to make it acceptable.

(2) That the new Leader of the Council writes to the Member of Parliament for Hitchin, the Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire and the Member of Parliament for Stevenage, urging them to call on the Secretary of State for Transport to reject the proposal allowing London Luton Airport to expand, as well as to use their role as an MP representing residents in North Hertfordshire to secure Parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed expansion.

N.B. Councillor David Chalmers left the Chamber at 21:22 and returned at 21:24 after the conclusion of the vote.

N.B. Following the vote on this motion there was a comfort break and the meeting resumed at 21:36. During the comfort break Councillor Dominic Griffiths left the Council Chamber and did not return to the meeting.

D) Government Planning Reforms and Housing Target

Councillor Ralph Muncer proposed the motion as follows, which had been amended subsequent to the agenda publication, as published as a supplementary document:

‘On 30th July 2024, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government made a statement to the House of Commons on changes to National Planning Policy.

The Government announced not only would it be re-introducing mandatory housing targets for Local Authorities, but that it would increase overall targets from 300,000 new homes per annum to approximately 370,000 per annum.

Under the Government’s proposed new method announced as part of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, North Hertfordshire will be required to build 992 new homes per year, representing an increase of 9%.

Neighbouring authority Luton will see its housing target reduced by 22%, and as a result of the Government removing the urban uplift, major cities such as London, Liverpool and Birmingham will all see a reduction in their housing targets by up to 31%.

Following the adoption of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan in November 2022, 47% of land within the district is designated as Green Belt. The reforms of which are proposed by the Government will weaken protections for Green Belt land, and could result in inappropriate development taking place within the district, particularly in and around our rural communities.

As a result of our Local Plan having recently been adopted, North Hertfordshire currently does not need to provide evidence of a five-year housing land supply in accordance with the 2023 NPPF. However, the Government is proposing to remove this element of the 2023 NPPF, which means that should this proposed change come into force there would be a presumption in favour of sustainable development through the decision-making mechanism. The loss of this protection increases the likelihood of approval for major developments proposed within the district on sites not identified in the Local Plan.

The Government has also stated its ambition to build “a new generation of new towns” which will comprise of at least 10,000 homes. In order to identify potential locations for these ‘new towns’ a New Towns Taskforce has been created within the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government.

Therefore, Council resolves that:

(1) The Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government calling on the Government to:

(1.1) Not increase the Housing Target for North Hertfordshire.

(1.2) Restore the Urban Uplift, ensuring cities and urban areas take their fair share of housing development, particularly as many of these areas already have the infrastructure to support additional development.

(1.3) Ensure infrastructure to support approved development is built prior to houses, thereby reducing the negative impact of development on existing communities, and ensuring local infrastructure is ready to provide for residents moving into new homes.

(1.4) Adopt a brownfield first approach to development, and provide greater protection for green belt land in North Hertfordshire.

(1.5) Not to amend paragraph 11(d) of the 2023 NPPF, which currently provides protection for North Hertfordshire as a local authority that has recently adopted a local plan but does not have a five-year housing land supply.

(1.6) Strengthen the rights of local residents to ensure they have a meaningful say when development is proposed within their communities.

(1.7) Not remove the emphasis and focus on ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful design’ from the National Planning Policy Framework.

(1.8) Not impose a New Town as part of the Government’s New Towns Scheme within the district of North Hertfordshire, as the district has already adopted a Local Plan that delivers on the housing need for North Hertfordshire, and the development of a Government New Town would put increased strain on already pressured local services.

(2) The Leader of the Council writes to the Member of Parliament for Hitchin, the Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire and the Member of Parliament for Stevenage highlighting the opposition of Council to the Government’s proposed planning reforms and housing targets, urging them to stand up against these proposals which would have a detrimental impact on residents and communities across North Hertfordshire.’

Councillor David Barnard seconded the motion.

The Chair advised that there had been an amendment to this motion which had been proposed by Councillor Matt Barnes and seconded by Councillor Ruth Brown and had been published as a supplementary document The published amendment was further amended and proposed by Councillor Matt Barnes as follows: