Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the Local Plan proposed alteration – additional sites.  The purpose of this report is to consider which new sites should be proposed to the inspector for inclusion in the Local Plan.

Members considered the report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the Local Plan proposed alterations – additional sites.  The report noted that the Council had submitted the Local Plan for public examination in May 2017.  The Inspector had advised that the Plan was found not be sound as submitted, as it does not meet the objectively assessed need for housing.  The Council therefore undertook a further call-for-sites exercise in January-February 2019 and consulted on all of the suggested sites in May-June 2019.

The purpose of the report was to consider which new sites should be proposed to the Inspector for inclusion in the Local Plan.  It also reported on the results of the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) and the updated Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). The documents had been published on the Local Plan website. 

It considered any policy implications associated with sites which are considered to be technically ‘suitable’ coming forward and the cumulative impact associated with combination of sites.

The report highlighted that there were a number of other scenarios to achieve a total of 15,952 dwellings.  It also discussed the approaches which would avoid all high harm to the Green Belt to achieve 14,958 dwellings; also made reference to maximise protection of employment land, delivery on all available sites and an alternative scenario which would retain existing sites in the Submitted Local Plan and only adds in new urban sites to achieve 13,994 dwellings.

Members received a presentation on the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan

Site Selection Background Paper 2019, which included:

·         Introduction

·         Options

·         Government Policies

·         Preferred Strategy

·         Employment Land

·         Maps – showing the areas proposed and boundaries

·         Rural Areas – preferred strategy and categories

·         Inspector’s statement

·         Risks

·         Timetable

The Panel raised and discussed the following points:

·         Concern was raised in respect of ‘What is a sound Plan’ and that moderate to high harm to Green Belt should not be accepted.  Also why 16k homes being built in this area without sufficient employment – were these homes for people working in London?  Therefore contributing to pollution.

·         Members discussed the impact of the Government’s policy and how this had changed and how it will affect the delivery of homes.

·         HAT11 area not having a defensible green belt boundary.

·         The additional 90 homes proposed at Panshanger.

·         Is the development sustainable – Officers explained that the Council had a duty to co-operate and conversations have taken place with the neighbouring authorities; who indicated that they could not support any additional housing in their district/borough. 

·         It was also noted that at the last SOSC meeting the Committee agreed the Sports Strategy which includes a recommendation for a masterplan for Gosling Park to consider the future of sports provision including the ski slope.

·         The green corridor to be retained around the airfield site (Panshanger) due to its health benefits for the community.  Also protection of wildlife/natural habitat.

·         Members commended the phenomenal work that has been undertaken by the Head of Planning and his Team.

·         Comments were made in respect of the Inspector not being from this area and his statement regarding the submitted Plan.

·         The impact on health, transport, education and air quality were debated together with Hertfordshire County Council’s proposed plans to deal with the effects.  Officers explained the Hertfordshire County Council had confirmed that the infrastructure was deliverable.  Provision would be made for walkable and cycling routes for safe travel.

·         Coopers Green Lane – current traffic bottleneck and fatality numbers were discussed and the daily frustration for drivers during peak commute times in respect of HAT1 and Symondshyde sites.

·         Lose of employment land and how commuting is affecting climate change.

·         Members asked Officers to re-look at PB1 to the east of Potters Bar, as they felt it might have potential to deliver some homes.

·         Members observed that sites such as BP12a in Brookmans Park and WeG6 in Welham Green might lead to coalescence between these villages.

·         Officers reminded Members that Birchall Garden Suburb and proposed village at Symondshyde will be debated at a hearing session in March 2020.  Some Members indicated that they cannot support the development at Symondshyde.

·         Officers explained that a Green Gap Study had been undertaken.

·         The impact on the nature reserve adjoining Birchall Garden Suburb was discussed. Officers responded that a 15m buffer was proposed alongside the Green Corridor and member asked which organisations had been consulted.

·         The options proposed within the report were considered and Officers explained the risk of not having an adopted Local Plan and that land supply figures will be based on the Governments’ standard methodology.  As a consequence policies seeking to protect areas from residential development would carry less weight and the Council is more likely to lose decisions on appeal.  It will have an impact on the Council’s performance figures.

·         A Member commented on achieving a balance between housing need and harm of using Green Belt land. 

·         Officers also explained the financial costs of not having a sound Local Plan.  Also costs that would be incurred when applications which are refused and successfully appealed.  The importance of being closer to the 16k dwellings. 

·         The impact of removing the number of dwelling that are currently listed within the high and moderate-to-high harm in the Green Belt would reduce the number of houses to approximately 10-11k, which will not be accepted by the Inspector.

·         Independent agents had been used to test the OAN figure.

·         The impact on villages – with new houses having already been added to these areas; it was highlighted that any further increase would not be acceptable.  A number of residents had already voiced their concerns on this matter.

·         Wheat Quarter redevelopment site – it was noted that early proposals were being drawn up by landowners for up to 700-900 extra units at this central site.  There is no knowledge on whether this is likely to be acceptable.  Further information may be available at the 29 January meeting.

·         Lack of parking was also considered together with road access widening of narrow lanes to accommodate new dwellings.

·         Archery Field development – StL5 was considered and Members commented on increased traffic, road access and capacity for pupils at the local school.

·         A question was raised, whether any documents from the Wildlife organisation are available in respect of impact of widening Singlers March bridge – showing their response to the consultation.  Officers advised that no environmental group had raised any concerns.

·         Reducing CO2 emissions – removal of gas boilers for new homes.

·         It was suggested that Lemsford and Stanborough sites be removed from the proposals.

·         Discussion ensured on having additional Council policies to protect the Green Belt.

·         Although consultants have carried out the work, it was felt by some Members that there were significant inconsistencies; together with risks to the community.  A question was raised - ‘what level of harm was acceptable and where should the line be drawn?’

·         Members commented on the situation at Oxfordshire County Council (OCC), whereby they had been advised to intervene, as South Oxford may withdraw their local plan.  The Secretary of State has instructed OCC to take over responsibility but the principal authority lacks resource.

·         Members all agreed that the recommendations would need amending for parties to agree.  That this was a difficult decision being taken by all in terms on agreeing to the sites.

Head of Planning advised that this Panel can make amendments to the Plan and take out proposed housing in the Green Belt but there will be consequences, in terms of resource and risk.  This Panel’s recommendation will be presented to Cabinet on 30 January 2020, issued for public consultation and the results of that will be re-represented to Members for a final decision by CPPP and Council as to which sites to submit to the inspector for public examination.

The Chairman thanked everyone for the debate and advised that the decision will be taken at the second part of this meeting on 29 January 2020.  In the meantime, if anyone had any further questions or required additional information they should engage with Colin Haigh, Head of Planning.