Up to fifteen minutes will be made available for questions from members of the public on issues relating to the work of the Panel and to receive any petitions.
Minutes:
(a) Public Petition – Stop Symondshyde Green Belt Development
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 42 a petition was presented and the petition organiser, Mr. J Gardner addressed the meeting.
‘Welwyn Hatfield Council are considering a major redevelopment of 1130 dwellings in the Green Belt adjacent to Symondshyde Great Wood. We strongly oppose the suggested development and ask you not to proceed with it into the consultation. It would destroy the rural and historic character of the local countryside and overload the local country lanes.
More specifically:
· The loss of recreational resources for walkers, cyclists and horse riders;
· Impacts wildlife;
· The site would be a major encroachment into the Green Belt corridor which is contrary to Government policy;
· The impact on local lanes, Coopers Green Lane and Marford Road;
· It adjoins Sandridge parish.’
(b) Public Questions
Notice of the following questions had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 31 -
1. Question to the Chairman, Councillor Stephen Boulton, from Mr. Peter Miller, Water End Residents Group
‘During the Local Plan process this Panel and the Planning Officers have consistently reiterated their desire to protect the Green Belt and to “Leave no stone unturned” in their assessment of sites.
North Mymms Parish Council (NMPC) recently submitted a considered proposal for a development at WeG8 New Barnfield in conjunction with Hat11 that would satisfy the proportional distribution of the OAN for North Mymms and minimise the harm to the Green Belt in the Parish by developing a brown field site in accordance with the NPPF.
There was no mention of this proposal at the last CHPP meeting on the 13 June, presumably because in the HELAA, WeG8 was found to be unsuitable because part of the site is an allocated waste site within the Hertfordshire Waste Development Framework.
The HELAA states that no decision has been made by the waste authority to alter the site allocation and because of the uncertainty of uses by the landowner (HCC) the site is considered unsuitable.
We find this perplexing because HCC are the promoters as well as the landowners of the site and one would assume that the significant financial benefits of developing the entire site for residential use would be a prime motivator for altering the site allocation.
Before the Panel rubberstamp the proposed submission, will you please satisfy yourselves that absolutely “no stone has been left unturned” with regard to New Barnfield and that there has been sufficient dialogue between WHBC and HCC?
It is extremely important that you do this because the NMPC proposal for WeG8 has now been given substantial weight by the inclusion of adjacent HAT11 in the proposed submission and you now have the very real and genuine opportunity to save the large open areas of Green Belt in North Mymms that have been proposed at BrP4 and BrP7.’
The Chairman read the following answer to the question:
‘Welwyn Hatfield has had a number of meetings with the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority regarding New Barnfield. The County Council currently has no plans to review the waste plan and the site remains allocated for waste uses in the recently adopted Waste Site Allocations Local Plan. Whilst Hertfordshire County Council property department has promoted the site for residential use, this is on the basis that at some point in the future it may no longer be required for waste management facilities. At this point consideration would also need to be given to whether the site should revert to its former use as a secondary school, given the expected demand for additional places over the plan period.’
2. Question to the Chairman, Councillor Stephen Boulton, form Mr. John Gardner
‘Does the CHPP accept that the inclusion of the HAT15 Symondshyde site as an allocation in the Proposed Submission Local Plan risks having the Plan found unsound on the grounds that the proposal is not justified and is not consistent with national policy?
The proposed development of 1,130 dwellings as a new village in the middle of the Green Belt between Hatfield and
Wheathampstead/Sandridge is not justified when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence. The proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated.
The Welwyn Hatfield Housing Sites Selection Background Paper 2016, which formed part of the basis on which decisions were taken at the CHPP meeting on 13th June, gave as the reason for allocating the HAT15 site that it was an “opportunity to deliver a free-standing village and make a significant contribution to the need for housing alongside community infrastructure”. This is a completely inadequate justification for allocating this site for development.
The Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Brandon Lewis MP issued a letter on 7th June 2016 stating that “The [National Planning Policy] Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development may be allowed only where very special circumstances exist, and that Green Belt boundaries should be adjusted only in exceptional circumstances” and “We have been repeatedly clear that demand for housing alone will not change Green Belt boundaries.”
The HAT15 proposal is not consistent with the following provisions in the NPPF:
· Achieving sustainable development – NPPF paragraph 8 requires that economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously, yet the Symondshyde site is not environmentally sustainable on numerous counts, which together outweigh any economic and social benefits.
· Promoting sustainable transport – NPPF section 4.
· Meeting the challenge of climate change – NPPF section 10.
· Conserving and enhancing the natural environment – NPPF section 11.
· Protecting Green Belt land – NPPF section 9 sets out the purposes of the Green Belt and emphasises its openness and permanence.
· NPPF paragraph 14 states that Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted. Footnote 9 to para 14 lists land designated as Green Belt as a restricting factor.
Does the CHPP not consider it remarkable, in light of NPPF para 14, that paragraph 7.3 of the Director (Governance)’s report to the CHPP meeting on 13th June and paragraph 8.3 of the report to the 20th July meeting both state that there is a risk of the Local Plan being found unsound if it does not meet the Objective Assessment of Need, yet no mention is made of the adverse impact of using Green Belt land for this purpose?’
The Chairman read the following answer to the question:
‘The Council does not accept that the inclusion of Hat 15 (Symondshyde) as a housing allocation in the draft Plan risks having the Plan found unsound. National planning policy in the NPPF (at paragraphs 14 and 47) is clear that local planning authorities should use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for housing in their area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in the NPPF itself.
Specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted in certain cases, and Green Belt designation is identified as one such case. As previously reported to this Panel however it is not possible for the Council even to come close to meeting its objectively assessed needs for housing without releasing significant areas of land from the Green Belt. Whilst noting the statement of the former Minister for Housing and Planning concerning Green Belt boundaries, the adverse socio-economic effects that would result from a failure to meet objectively assessed needs for the borough by a very substantial margin constitute in the Council’s opinion the exceptional circumstances necessary to alter Green Belt boundaries. Paragraph 83 of the NPPF explicitly provides for this.
The adverse impact of releasing land from the Green Belt was considered in the Site Selection Background Paper which was reported to the last meeting of Cabinet Housing and Planning Panel. The Risk Management Implications at paragraph 7.2 refer to the need for the plan to be justified by the evidence and this includes evidence on the impact to the purposes of the Green Belt and the Green Belt boundary.
In terms of the choice of Hat 15 as one of the areas proposed to be released from the Green Belt in addition to other substantial urban extensions at Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City and smaller sites adjoining the villages, the Council has had full regard to the findings of technical studies including the Green Belt Review and the Landscape Capacity and Sensitivity Study in undertaking site selection. Any development of Hat 15 would be accompanied by a package of sustainable transport measures, as well as measures to mitigate any effects on adjoining areas of woodland and nature conservation interest. For these reasons the Council does not accept that the allocation of Hat 15 for housing would be inconsistent with policy in the NPPF paragraphs identified in the question.
Appendix B to the report considered by this Panel on 13th June addressed the impact on the purposes of the Green Belt resulting from the release of land from the Green Belt. Paragraph 7.2 of that report and 8.2 of this report refers to the risk of the Plan being found unsound if it is not justified by the evidence. The evidence includes the assessment of the impact on the purposes of the Green Belt.
3. Question to the Chairman, Councillor Stephen Boulton, from Alasdair Buckle of Maddox Associates
‘The draft Sustainability Appraisal to the proposed Submission Draft Local Plan (annexed to the current committee papers) concludes in respect of Hat2 (former Hatfield Aerodrome) that a contributing factor to not include it in the proposed Submission Draft Local Plan is that “the loss of the country park and community facility until beyond the plan period, and the potential cumulative impact on the road network (if the site was brought forward alongside Hat1 and Hat15 [Symondshyde] during the plan period) are not considered to outweigh the site’s social and economic benefits". Is the committee aware that, should Hat2 come forward for housing, a meaningful Country Park is deliverable throughout the plan period and beyond, due to a phased approach being synchronised with the proposed minerals extraction? And is the committee aware that the highways impact arising from allocating any homes at Symondshyde would be significantly worse than allocating the equivalent number of homes at Hat2, since there are no opportunities to connect to the existing sustainable transport network at Symondshyde, which is isolated from all major employment sites?
The Chairman read the following answer to the question:
‘With regard to the provision of a ‘meaningful country park’ throughout the plan period and beyond, it is accepted that proposals have been put before the Council by the landowner showing phasing arrangements for the mineral extraction and how certain areas of country park could be made available for public access during mineral extraction and during the construction of housing on Hat 2. These areas are significantly smaller, however, than envisaged at the time of setting up the planning provisions for Ellenbrook Park in 2000, and of course the development of Hat 2 itself would permanently remove about one-third of the originally intended park area. No convincing landscape, ecology or recreation benefit has been offered by the landowner sufficient to compensate for this loss in area.
On the question of transport, there is no evidence from the Council’s own modelling work or from any other source that the overall impact on the local highway network from development of Hat 15 (Symondshyde) would be worse than that of a similar number of dwellings at Hat 2. Clearly as part of any development of Hat 15 a comprehensive package of sustainable transport measures, including bus, cycling and walking links, will need to be delivered and this will mitigate highways impact. However HAT2 is closer to a number of facilities and services than HAT15 and therefore offers more opportunities for trips to be made on foot or by bike.’