Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR – PLACE

To present this Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for adoption following public consultation and amendment.

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:

(1) Noted the outcomes of the consultation on the draft Design Code SPD, as contained in the Statement of Consultation at Appendix A.

(2) Adopted the Design Code SPD, attached as Appendix B.

(3) Revoked the 2011 Design Supplementary Planning Document.

(4) Granted delegated authority to the Director: Place, in consultation with the Executive Member for Place, to make any minor non-material corrections to the Design Code SPD as considered necessary for publication and publicity in accordance with the relevant regulations.

REASONS FOR DECISIONS:

(1) To allow the Design Code SPD to be adopted to support delivery of the policies in the adopted Local Plan and ensure that developer contributions for development schemes are secured appropriately where they are necessary.

(2) To ensure the SPD is presented in advance of the Government’s final cut-off of 30 June 2026 for any SPDs to be adopted under the outgoing legacy planning system.

Audio recording – 41 minutes 30 seconds

Councillor Donna Wright, as Executive Member for Place, presented the report entitled ‘North Herts Design Code SPD’ and advised that:

· The Draft Design Code had been presented to Cabinet in February following several Member Workshops held over the year before that.

· 68 responses had been received from the consultation and most of these had been addressed, with some raising procedural concerns on technical aspects, and these were set out at Appendix A to the report.

· A minor adjustment had been made to page 9 of the SPD in response to a second letter received from Bloor Homes to make it clear that existing plans should be consistent with the Design Code unless it would conflict with design principles established earlier.

· With the query addressed, they should accept the recommendations in the report.

The Director – Place provided a verbal update on the letter received and advised that:

· Four issues had been identified with the SPD on how it would be applied, its introduction of new policy, implications of viability, and the adequacy of consultation.

· Amendments had been made to the SPD to address its proposed application already and the letter acknowledged satisfaction with these.

· Officers did not agree that it introduced new policies as it expanded on existing policies in the Local Plan rather than creating new ones, which followed government guidance.

· It was also not agreed with that the SPD had negative viability implications as it would not reduce the quantity of development, overall value or prevent other targets being met in terms of density or space standards.

· It was also recognised that pre-existing work took precedent.

· The Design Code would be applied once applications progressed through certain stages such as Reserved Matters, but some elements would have already been fixed at earlier stages such as outline planning.

· A comply or justify approach allowed developers to put forward their case if they had not met requirements in the SPD.

· Consultation on the SPD had been condensed to meet deadlines but had not been compromised because of this and had met the relevant consultation regulations.

In response to a question from Councillor Ian Albert, the Director – Place advised that Natural England and the Environment Agency were two of the three statutory consultees for environmental appraisal screening, but there were more statutory consultees for planning consultations.

In response to a question from Councillor Ian Albert, the Principal Planning & Urban Design Officer advised that one request had been made by Historic England in response to the consultation to amend wording on listed buildings and character areas.

Councillor Donna Wright proposed the recommendations in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Sean Nolan.

The following Members took part in the debate:

· Councillor Val Bryant

· Councillor Sean Nolan

Points raised during the debate included:

· Members had been fully involved in the process of developing this document, which had helped with their understanding.

· North Herts residents had also been involved, and it had been good to receive different perspectives to ensure the future of the district beyond the existence of the Council.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was: