Agenda item

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

Immediately before the respective Agenda Item, several presentations were received from members of the public regarding Agenda Item 6 – East of Luton Strategic Masterplan Framework.

Audio recording – 10 minutes 56 seconds

 

The Chair invited Ms Karen Jay to speak on Agenda Item 6 – East of Luton Strategic Masterplan Framework. Ms Jay thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided Council with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       Developers had encroached the greenbelt.

·       The plan had been presented as a done deal with no scrutiny of the content.

·       The open space plans were flawed as up to 10,000 people could live on the site. The Masterplan outlines that there would not be enough open space for 5,000 people, therefore developers would land grab for extra space.

·       Woodland on the site had been included as multifunctional open space.

·       If the housing mix was known at this stage, then there would be a better idea of the expected population.

·       1,950 homes on this site were to meet the unmet needs of Luton.

·       Affordable housing was a NHDC policy, but Officers had advised that this could not be included until the planning stage.

·       There needed to be confidence that the developers would deliver homes and not claim unviability.

·       Luton Borough Council had built 1,100 homes of which only 7 were affordable.

·       The final Masterplan would set a design framework for future applications, but this is not the right version and would lead to over population, cramped houses, lack of open space and three storey buildings.

·       Developers cannot build until the Masterplan had been adopted, therefore Members should either defer or reject this Masterplan.

·       Data from Luton Borough Council showed this was not required for their needs  and therefore a scrutiny review of the process should be undertaken.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Jay for her presentation and invited Mr David Dorman to speak on Agenda Item 6 – East of Luton Strategic Masterplan Framework. Mr Dorman thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided Council with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The Masterplan outlined that building heights on the site would be predominantly 2 to 2.5 storeys to reflect the surrounding area. However, a 3 storey building would tower over the edge of Luton.

·       The school proposed at Chalk Hill would be 3 storeys and would be a blot on the landscape from the east.

·       There were no improvements planned to Chalk Hill, which was currently a single track road. However, as schools would provide for the villages west of Hitchin, this would be a key access point to the school and needed rethinking.

·       Space had been allocated for a GP surgery. However, this was subject to input from the relevant providers and there was no guarantee this would be provided on site. There were concerns raised that existing GP surgeries would not be able to cope with the additional demand.

·       There was no employment provided on site and limited public transport, therefore people would have to use cars to travel and the road provision was inadequate.

·       The plans propose lifestyle engineering, rather than good housing and infrastructure which supports the reality.

·       Pedestrians would be prioritised under the Masterplan with schemes put in place to assist this, such as 20mph zones, reduced road width and reduced parking spaces.

·       There were concerns for parking of visitors and emergency vehicles and more road safety measures would be needed.

·       There remained questions as to why there was only one access point to the part of the site owned by the Crown Estate.

·       Following an FOI request to Luton Borough Council, it had been confirmed that these houses were not required to meet the unmet needs of Luton, and this had been published on their website.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Dorman for his presentation and invited Ms Carolyn Cottier to speak on Agenda Item 6 – East of Luton Strategic Masterplan Framework. Ms Cottier thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided Council with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       She had shared plans and maps with Members ahead of the meeting.

·       There were several areas which potentially had historical significance, such as a medieval site, a blacksmith, neolithic and bronze age artifacts and ancient enclosures and woodlands.

·       She had provided LIDAR images which highlighted burrows in a corner of the site where the primary school was proposed.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Val Bryant, Ms Cottier advised that some areas of the site were not in the direct historic record, and this needed to be updated. The study of Brick Hill did not cover all the site, and one remaining field would need to be looked at. This needed to be done at the Masterplan stage to avoid any risk of challenge due to non-consideration of the historic environment. 

 

The Chair thanked Ms Cottier for her presentation and invited her to speak again on Agenda Item 6 – East of Luton Strategic Masterplan Framework. Ms Cottier thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided Council with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The Luton Airport enterprise zone, which had additional rights granted by Luton Borough Council, overlapped part of the site and was highlighted in maps provided to Members.

·       The housing site overlapped into Luton Airport Development Consent Order (DCO) area, which was currently being examined by the Secretary of State.

·       Phase 1B, which included a school and roundabout, was part of the DCO site.

·       Wigmore Valley Park also had an enterprise zone decision which was in place and was required for part of the development.

·       Due diligence had not been completed for the Masterplan to be adopted.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Cottier for her presentation and invited Mr Sunny Sahadevan, of Luton Borough Council, to speak on Agenda Item 6 – East of Luton Strategic Masterplan Framework. Mr Sahadevan thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided Council with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       He was the interim Service Director at Luton Borough Council responsible for this area.

·       Luton Borough Council supported the assessments in the Masterplan and consider it beneficial to both Luton Borough Council and NHDC.

·       It was a well thought out plan and the applicants had included Luton Borough Council Officers in discussions.

·       The official position was that Luton does not have a 5 year land supply and when the NHDC Local Plan was adopted, the land supply position was better. When the Plan was considered by the Inspector, it was on the basis that some land would be to support the unmet need of Luton Borough Council.

·       A recent assessment in October 2024 highlighted that Luton had only a 3.36 5-year land supply.

·       The NPPF was amended in December 2024 and Luton had not yet outlined the official position, but there was not likely to be much change.

·       Luton Borough Council had been reviewing their adopted Local Plan and were in the process of examination of a new Local Plan, which was out for consultation.

·       If there were concerns from government regarding this arrangement, these would have been raised by this point in the process.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ralph Muncer

·       Councillor David Barnard

·       Councillor Jon Clayden

·       Councillor Joe Graziano

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

 

In response to questions, Mr Sahadevan advised that:

 

·       Both historically and currently Luton required family housing units, as there was an oversupply of 1-bedroom and studios. This was down to historic Class O approvals which meant the marker was flooded with smaller units.

·       The oversupply of smaller units was the case when the NHDC Local Plan was examined and was why Luton was considered to have an unmet need.

·       The benefits of the development to NHDC would have been considered at the examination stages and considered through the NHDC adoption process.

·       He was confident that during the production of the plan, the Luton Enterprise Zone would have been considered by Officers.

·       There was a national shortage of affordable housing and Luton was no different. There had been a struggle to ensure affordable housing was included in new developments and, whilst some has been achieved, it was not enough.

·       It was for NHDC and the developers to consider the appropriate level of affordable housing on site. Luton Borough Council would support as much as could be delivered and this would be agreed at application stage.

·       The official Luton Borough Council position was that the needs could not be met within the borough, and other figures may be available, but he could not comment on the calculation process of these.

·       There was a question mark over the future of the Vauxhall site in Luton, but this was not finalised.

·       The new Luton Local Plan was being consulted on and comments were being received, including from neighbouring authorities. The expected adoption of this was 2029, so there was a need to deal with the current situation before this.

·       Luton Borough Council had not been required to appear before Members as part of this Masterplan process, but they had responded to letters from MPs, pressure groups and Parish Councils when approached.

·       The Inspector had concluded that the NHDC Local Plan was sound before adoption, with the East of Luton site included. The Luton Borough Council position had not improved since this adoption and therefore it would appear that the inclusion of this site is justified.

·       The market housing on site would be available to all residents, with the affordable housing being used to help meet the unmet needs of Luton.

·       Any potential unmet need of NHDC would be more reason to support this site being progressed.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Sahadevan for his presentation and invited Mr Jonathan Dixon, Ms Silvia Lazzerini, Mr David Joseph and Mr Thomas Parfitt to speak on Agenda Item 6 – East of Luton Strategic Masterplan Framework. They thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided Council with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       They represented the landowner and developer team.

·       They had worked with Officers from NHDC, Luton Borough Council, Herts County Council and various other stakeholders, including schools, Parishes and residents, to develop the Masterplan.

·       The Statement of Community Involvement, which detailed 3 years of discussions, was published alongside the Masterplan.

·       Whilst some still objected, there was an agreement to differ on opinion, but to collaborate on the Masterplan.

·       They wanted to acknowledge the input from all parties which had helped to develop a greater understanding of the site and the proposals.

·       Subject to approval of the Masterplan, they would continue to work with the community to keep conversations going as the details were further outlined in the planning process.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Paul Ward

·       Councillor Ralph Muncer

·       Councillor Dominic Griffiths

·       Councillor Matt Barnes

·       Councillor Joe Graziano

·       Councillor David Barnard

 

In response to questions, Mr Dixon, Ms Lazzerini, Mr Joseph and Mr Parfitt advised that:

 

·       Some plans were confusing over land allocation, with some red lines around field parcels which made it difficult to establish what was included. There was some trespass, with minor incursions into hedges.

·       There was an agreed position with Luton Rising to allow access and agree the process for doing this, which had been included on the NHDC website.

·       There were proposed sports pitches to the northern side of the allocation, which was outside of the allocation, but was not incompatible with greenbelt use. They had considered the best place for the playing fields and this area was agreed. It would be controlled by Luton Borough Council on North Herts land, but Sport England felt this was a good provision.

·       The site had two principal points of access and relied on Chalk Hill as a third minor access point, as the gravity of the traffic demand would be towards Luton.

·       There was expected to be a degree of self-containment of the school, with most students coming from the site itself. There would be some mitigations to Chalk Hill which would make it suitable for access.

·       The strategic Masterplan had been developed from the original application submission. Cultural Heritage was covered on pages 42 and 43 of the Masterplan and had been explored in the same detail as all other considerations within the Masterplan.

·       The entire site had been subject to desktop, geophysical, human walkover and trial trenching assessments as required and this had summarised that no evidence of remains would preclude development.

·       One side of the site was on the urban edge of Luton and the other rural Hertfordshire. There were two lanes into the rural Hertfordshire area, but the main arterial road out of Luton would be the primary points of access. This had been reviewed and considered as part of the development of the Masterplan.

·       The Masterplan outlined that active travel would be prioritised on site and whilst existing infrastructure in Luton did not encourage this, improvements would be made to existing cycling and walking routes.

·       There was a new bus service proposed from the site to key locations in Luton and all residents on site would be within 400m of a bus stop.

·       The developer was continuing to work with the relevant authorities to get a firm commitment on health provision on site and this would be delivered as soon as possible. The space and site of a surgery had been allocated within the Masterplan.

·       Consideration of building height on site was difficult, as it could be measured in stories or height from ground. It was not planned to have 3 storey buildings across the site, but should an innovative design solution be presented then this could be considered at the planning stage.

·       The average number of people per home had been established considering figures from both North Herts and Luton and there was roughly twice as much greenspace provision for this number than required by planning policies.

·       They had held discussions with Officers at Herts County Council Highways regarding the road access.

·       They were aware of some flooding issues on the roads towards North Herts and engineers had planned mitigations for this.

·       Access to local services had been raised during engagement session as residents were split across North Herts residents and Luton residents. This consideration was not relevant to the Masterplan stage, but discussion were ongoing and would be confirmed as part of the planning process.

·       The primary change to the Masterplan made from the consultation was with regard to the principle of integration of the development with existing areas. The original plan did not contain a green corridor between the site and villages, and this was raised by the Parish Council and had been address by including a 45m green corridor between the two sites. Other changes to schools and roads following the consultation were made and outlined in the report.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Jonathan Dixon, Ms Silvia Lazzerini, Mr David Joseph and Mr Thomas Parfitt for their presentation.

 

N.B. During this item Councillor Elizabeth Dennis left the Chamber and returned at 20.48 and Councillor Dominic Griffiths left the Chamber and returned at 20.52

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 21.10.