Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance), which provides an update on the Local Plan process, including the recent examination hearing sessions, the updated Objective Assessment of Housing Need (OAN) and recent letters between the Inspector and Head of Planning.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) providing an update on the Local Plan process, including the recent examination hearing sessions, the updated Objective Assessment of Housing Need (OAN) and recent letters between the Inspector and Head of Planning.

The Officer advised that the ONS published the new 2018 based projections earlier this year and the household projections in June 2020.  These had been recognised by the Council, the Inspector and other parties that these were important pieces of evidence to inform the objective assessment of housing need for the Borough.  It was noted that Turley’s updated OAN had used the 2018 based population and household projections alongside other factors to recommend an updated objective assessment of housing need of 715-800 dwellings per annum for the original plan period of 2013-2032.  For the revised plan period of 2016-2036 the report had placed more justification on an OAN at lower end of the range, which equates to 14,300 dwellings as shown in Turley’s OAN report in Appendix 1.

The Inspector has commenced consultation on the updated OAN evidence and further evidence on Birchall Garden Suburb and Symondshyde. Members noted that in addition to the potential for additional dwellings at Symondshyde the Inspector had also indicated that consideration be given to increasing dwelling numbers at HS27 and HS22.  The numbers had been limited for these sites at Cuffley and Brookmans Park due to highway capacity issues which were challenged at the hearing session.

Members discussed the following:

1.    Some Members felt that the figure was too high and that if data changed within the five year period this could have some disturbing affects.  Reference was made to North Herts having taken the position of using a longer trend period of ten years to help smooth potential issues. Some Members felt that Turley’s figures were unacceptable and that further work was required.

2.    A Member asked whether it would be feasible to obtain two further sets of figures besides Turley’s reported figures to provide a comparison before a decision is made.

3.    Two questions were raised in terms of how long did it take Turleys to produce the report? Also are Turley’s exclusive to the Council?  The Officer explained that it took Turley’s approximately one and half months to produce the report and that they are national consultants.  There are other OAN consultants that could be engaged but Turley’s have the background knowledge to the Council’s Local Plan.

4.    Clarification was sought on the percentage of affordable housing in different towns and villages that is applied within the Borough in the submitted Local Plan.  The Officer clarified that the percentage of affordable dwellings was based on viability evidence.  If there was to be the same percentage affordable housing applied in the Borough it would reduce the affordable housing figures for Welwyn Garden City to 25%, currently the figure was 30%.  The figure for villages was currently 35%.

5.    Further questions were raised in terms of: Was there a danger of building more house than those needed?  Would builders be waiting for payment with part developed sites?

6.    Reference was made to the Government’s consultation on fundamental changes to the planning system.  It was noted that they are also consulting on the proposed changes to the standard methodology for calculating housings need – a figure of 667 dwellings per year for Welwyn Hatfield had been generated using the new methodology.  The material difference was noted.

7.    The issues relating to discussing figures from three different consultants would not necessarily provide a comparison, as they could be very different and how would one justify the dissimilarity in figures? Also there would be a cost involved. There are other parties who have commissioned work and information will be fed into the Inspector’s consultation, which will be reviewed.

The Head of Planning advised that it would be advantageous to go back to Turley’s with Member’s comments and see if they have a response to the points raised.  They may prepare a supplement to their report.

RESOLVED:

That this item be deferred until November 2020, as additional information is required by the Panel.