Agenda item

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING MANAGER

 

This report asks Full Council to approve the Strategic Masterplan Framework for land to the east of Luton. This site is allocated for development in the Council’s adopted Local Plan (Sites EL1, 2 & 3, Policy SP19) as a strategic site for approximately 2,100 homes and supporting infrastructure.

RESOLVED: That the Strategic Masterplan Framework for the land East of Luton (Local Plan sites EL1, 2 & 3), attached at Appendix A, is approved and adopted as a material planning consideration for relevant planning decisions relating to the site.

 

REASONS FOR DECISION:

 

(1)   To set an agreed design framework for the delivery of a strategic site within the Council’s adopted Local Plan.

 

(2)   To accord with policy requirements of the Local Plan.

 

 

Audio recording – 1 hour 40 minutes 08 seconds

 

Councillor Daniel Allen, as Interim Executive Member for Planning and Transport, presented referral 5A from Extraordinary Cabinet and the report entitled ‘East of Luton Strategic Masterplan Framework’ and advised that:

 

·       This report sought support for the East of Luton Masterplan to be a consideration in the planning process.

·       The site was allocated for approximately 2,100 homes and infrastructure, including schools and a local centre.

·       Council Officers and consultants had worked with the developers to produce the plans, with key plans and extracts from the Masterplan included in the report and a summary provided.

·       There had been a thorough process in the preparation of this Masterplan and a number of changes had been made which were outlined in the report and summary.

·       The Masterplan outlines how the Sustainability SPD requirements would be met, with 7 out of 8 areas set to achieve the silver rating and 1 gold rating.

·       The site had primarily been identified to meet the housing needs of Luton Borough Council.

·       A Masterplan was one stage of the planning and delivery of the site. It was a high level framework against which any schemes on the site can be considered.

·       The request to approve the Masterplan sat between the adoption of the Local Plan, which had happened, and the planning applications, which were yet to happen.

·       There were no new decisions to be made on the principle of development or wider matters which may be considered in the future.

·       All Members had been invited to a briefing by Council Officers on the Masterplan.

 

The Strategic Planning Manager provided a visual presentation of site plans and advised that:

 

·       The Masterplan had been produced in collaboration with the developers who had spoken at this meeting and with support from Herts County Council Officers on highways and education.

·       The site was included in the adopted Local Plan.

·       Consideration of whether an unmet housing need existing in Luton was not for the Masterplan stage.

·       Housing provided for Luton would be included in the North Herts supply total.

·       The Masterplan would provide a framework for different applications to be brought forward by different developers at different times, whilst maintaining consistency across the site.

 

The Associate Director of Hyas Associates provided a visual presentation of site plans and advised that:

 

·       Hyas had worked with Officers for 3 years on the project and had a huge amount of knowledge and experience of supporting Councils with projects like this on a national level.

·       There were two key landowners of the site, Bloor Homes, which owned 66%, and the Crown Estate, which owned 25%. The remaining 9% was owned by ATO Holdings.

·       Previous applications which had been submitted were considered but had been revised and updated in the Masterplan process.

·       The Masterplan established an appropriate framework for the site, which pulled together landowners and allowed for a holistic approach to the wider site.

·       Over a number of years, several parties may be involved in this development and this document would be a material consideration for all applications received for the site, if adopted.

·       Not all planning considerations were covered within the Masterplan, as this was not required, but it provided a starting point for the scheme.

·       A bespoke design review panel, including national experts, had provided challenge to the scheme, roughly 18 months ago.

·       There were primary schools, a secondary school, a local centre and a neighbourhood centre provided in the plans.

·       It was important to consider the pattern of movement and provide people with the opportunity to walk to places and ensuring the structure of the development supported this.

·       Site typography and characteristics had been considered.

·       There had been a focus on how existing landscape could be used within the development of housing around it.

·       The playing fields would sit next to Wandon Park and was considered suitable use for greenbelt land and access to this would be open to all residents.

·       The primary movement and arterial routes into the site were outlined in the Masterplan.

·       Multimodal access to the site had been considered and it was important the foot and cycle paths were located correctly to provide residents the opportunity to walk. In previous developments this had not been considered and therefore the infrastructure was not provided to support this.

·       There were at least 6 points of connectivity to Luton and it was important to ensure new footpaths accorded with existing footpaths and accessed the existing facilities residents may need.

·       Phase 1A and 1B would provide the main access to the site and 2A would be the first development, including the primary school and local centre. For facilities to be viable on site, people needed to live there to use them.

·       There would be further opportunities for consideration of and revisions to the Masterplan, should suitable plans not be brought forward.

 

N.B. Councillor Dominic Griffiths left the Chamber at 21.44 and did not return.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor Jon Clayden

·       Councillor Ralph Muncer

·       Councillor Claire Strong

 

In response to questions, the Strategic Planning Manager and the Associate Director advised that:

 

·       The principal access to and from the site were included on the plans.

·       Given the nature and size of the site, and that it would be developed by different parties, it was not relevant to provide a housing mix at this stage, but it did set out assumption of what is appropriate mix and density, and what this might mean in terms of delivery.

·       Existing cycling and walking infrastructure into North Herts had been considered and mapped out through the process, and detail was provided on where rights of way ran through the site and where possible enhancements could be made to these.

·       The housing numbers would contribute to North Herts overall housing delivery and the Inspector had agreed this was sufficient to meet demand.

·       A 4-form entry school was advised by Herts County Council as being appropriate for this site alone and admission rules were location specific. The residents on this site, and in existing villages, would have access to the school before any residents further away.

·       The Masterplan provided the opportunity for character to be established for the whole site. It analysed existing villages and aspects of form, but the detail would be confirmed during the application process.

·       The Masterplan considered character areas, however it was incumbent on the planning authority to manage the quality of the outcome.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed and Councillor Val Bryant seconded to approve the recommendation.

 

Councillor Steven Patmore advised that he was a Parish Councillor at Offley and Cockernhoe Parish Council, however had taken no part in discussions on this item as part of the Parish Council business. He had sought advice from the Monitoring Officer, who had advised that he could participate in the debate and vote on this item.

 

N.B. Councillor Emma Rowe entered the Chamber at 21.59.

 

The following Members took part in the Debate:

 

·       Councillor David Barnard

·       Councillor Laura Williams

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Ralph Muncer

·       Councillor Joe Graziano

·       Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

·       Councillor Claire Strong

·       Councillor Daniel Wright-Mason

 

Points raised during the Debate included that:

 

·       There was evidence that there was not an unmet housing need from Luton Borough Council, which was the primary reason for the site. Therefore the greenbelt would be decimate unnecessarily.

·       The small roads into North Herts would not be suitable to deal with the traffic coming from the site, with issues around size and flooding.

·       It was easy to visit recent developments and spot the ones without a Masterplan in place.

·       This decision was not about planning permission, but a strategic overview to collaborate with developers and set in place guidelines for development.

·       A vote against the Masterplan would not prevent houses being built but would remove the protections provided in the Masterplan.

·       There was a vast amount of public feeling against the development of these sites. However, this decision was not about the principle of development due to the site allocation within the adopted Local Plan.

·       Adoption of this Masterplan would ensure the best possible outcomes can be achieved.

·       With three separate landowners, applications could come forward in different stages, and the Council had previous experience of developments without a Masterplan in place.

·       The sustainability standards proposed as part of the Masterplan were excellent.

·       There were concerns over some aspects, such as the small, rural lanes, but overall it was better to have a Masterplan in place.

·       Councillors were required to do what was best for North Herts residents, not those in other districts or boroughs.

·       The question of the unmet need in Luton still remained unanswered. Contributions tonight said that there was an over supply of 1 and 2-bed dwellings, but 50% of plans for this site were for 1 and 2-bed dwellings, so these would not meet the needs of Luton. 

·       There was a need for further engagement with Luton Borough Council and other stakeholders and adoption of the Masterplan should await the Local Plan review and until Luton could provide further information.

·       The development would end up being isolated by looking to Luton, but being within North Herts.

·       Chalk Hill was not suitable for the number of vehicles expected, especially with any airport expansion, and a connection to the A505 was required.

·       There was no commitment provided from the developer or NHS to provide healthcare on site.

·       There was only a rural bus service currently, which was not suitable to provide for the needs of the new residents.

·       Serious questions needed to be addressed, some could be dealt with at planning application stage, but need further clarification was needed for some points raised.

·       Some existing North Herts residents may want to move into this site to remain in Hertfordshire, where otherwise they may be forced to move out of the county.

·       There was a need for homes everywhere and it could not be about our needs against others needs.

·       The adopted Local Plan had been developed by the Conservative administration. 

·       Any applications for development would be brought to the Planning Control Committee. This vote was not about stopping development, but about shaping it to ensure it aligns with the vision and community of North Herts.

·       Without a Masterplan the Council would lose the ability to guide the process and developers would take charge. Supporting it would ensure the Council had protection and representation in the process.

·       One of the most important developments from the Masterplan process was the introduction of a buffer zone between this site and the existing villages, which would provide protection and had been requested by the Parish Council.

·       Concerns around height and look would be dealt with at the application stage.

·       The Masterplan provided enhancements to existing woodland and the connectivity of green corridors.

·       There was a large amount of objection to development at all, but this was not for consideration at this stage.

·       If built, a robust Masterplan must be in place to provide the framework to ensure the development was the best it could be and without one the good aspects, such as the buffer zone, may be lost.

·       The secondary school would be small, but is for the development and it was not expected to serve the wider area, with existing villages west of Hitchin already accessing Hitchin schools.

·       A Masterplan would not stop a planning application, the applications would come anyway.

·       It was disappointing to hear some comments on the ‘housing need’ which was a national issue.

 

In response to points raised in the Debate, Councillor Daniel Allen responded that:

 

·       This Masterplan would ensure the best future for the development.

·       Without the Masterplan, the development would likely still go ahead but the good aspects included within it would be lost.

·       Planning Control Committee would determine final detailed aspects of the development, not the Masterplan.

·       It was important for the Council to adopt the Masterplan to ensure to adopted Local Plan was implemented in the right way. 

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, the result was as follows:

 

YES:                31

ABSTAIN:       1

NO:                  6

TOTAL:           38

 

The individual results were as follows:

 

Cllr Ian Albert                                                 YES

Cllr Amy Allen                                                YES

Cllr Daniel Allen                                             YES

Cllr David Barnard                                          NO

Cllr Matt Barnes                                             YES

Cllr Clare Billing                                             YES

Cllr Sadie Billing                                             YES

Cllr Ruth Brown                                              YES

Cllr Val Bryant                                                YES

Cllr David Chalmers                                       YES

Cllr Jon Clayden                                             YES

Cllr Ruth Clifton                                              YES

Cllr Mick Debenham                                       YES

Cllr Elizabeth Dennis                                      YES

Cllr Emma Fernandes                                    YES

Cllr Joe Graziano                                           NO

Cllr Sarah Lucas                                            YES

Cllr Keith Hoskins                                 

Cllr Tim Johnson                                   

Cllr Chris Lucas                                              NO

Cllr Ian Mantle                                                YES

Cllr Nigel Mason                                             YES

Cllr Bryony May                                              YES

Cllr Ralph Muncer                                          NO

Cllr Sean Nolan                                              YES

Cllr Steven Patmore                                       NO

Cllr Louise Peace                                           YES

Cllr Sean Prendergast                                    YES

Cllr Martin Prescott                                        NO

Cllr Emma Rowe                                     

Cllr Claire Strong                                            ABSTAIN

Cllr Tamsin Thomas                                       YES

Cllr Tom Tyson                                               YES

Cllr Paul Ward                                                YES

Cllr Laura Williams                                         YES

Cllr Alistair Willoughby                                   YES

Cllr Stewart Willoughby                                  YES

Cllr Claire Winchester                                    YES

Cllr Dave Winstanley                                      YES

Cllr Donna Wright                                           YES

Cllr Daniel Wright-Mason                               YES

 

As such it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the Strategic Masterplan Framework for the land East of Luton (Local Plan sites EL1, 2 & 3), attached at Appendix A, is approved and adopted as a material planning consideration for relevant planning decisions relating to the site.

 

REASONS FOR DECISION:

 

(1)   To set an agreed design framework for the delivery of a strategic site within the Council’s adopted Local Plan.

 

(2)   To accord with policy requirements of the Local Plan.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, Councillor Ruth Clifton left the Chamber and did not return.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, Councillor Ralph Muncer and Councillor David Barnard left the Chamber and returned at 22.24.