Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning on the Local Plan – additional sites and modifications to the Plan. Members received a presentation which set out the background to the Local Plan including the key stages and consultation; Hearings Sessions; the content of the submitted plan the Development Strategy; and, the key reports and letters received from the Inspector.  The Inspector had advised that the Local Plan should make provision for 15,200 homes.  The Inspector had found that allocation totalling 8,557 dwellings to be either sound or could be found sound.   An additional 1,641 dwellings were required to be allocated from sites considered by the Inspector.  The presentation set out options to meet the housing need while meeting the Inspectors tests.

Recommendation 1:

Consider the results of the Site Selection Addendum and the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum and the merits and disadvantages of the different options.

Recommendation 2:

That Members accept the Officers recommendation set out in paragraph 4.30 of the report and recommend to Cabinet and Full Council Option D as set out in Appendix D to this report for submission to the examination along with the relevant supporting information.

Recommendation 3:

That Members recommend to Cabinet and Full Council that public consultation take place on Main Modifications to the Local Plan once the Inspector has confirmed the content of the Main Modifications required to make the Plan sound.

Members sought clarification on the inspector’s position on the number of dwellings proposed at the Symondshyde site.  Officers stated that the site does not need to be selected and more sustainable sites had to be selected first. Officers stated that the site had revised changes which could not change the funds allocated for infrastructure such as transport. Officers concluded that not the complete number of dwellings needed to be built in the Plan period, but the site would need the full amount to be deemed sustainable.

Members asked about infrastructure at the Symondshyde site. Officers stated that critical mass was examined to find what would be needed for school, shops and public transport provisions. As the site would be near North-West Hatfield and the two sites are owned by the same landowner, the site promoter would make a relationship between the sites. Officers stated the inspector was happy with the viability of public transport infrastructure.

Members expressed concerns over the inclusion of Symondshyde into the Plan. Members felt that the transport and sustainability was inadequate, highlighting that the bus service would not sufficient, the housing would be expensive therefore most homeowners would have cars which would increase stresses on the roads. Members felt it would be a blight on the greenbelt landscape.

Members stated that they could not support options A – D in the report as they included Symonshyde and other sites which were not sustainable. Members felt that Inspectors OAN number of 15 200 was too high. Members stated that the metrics to calculate the target were not as certain as before as growth had been stagnant and inward migration had decreased which meant that the housing need would decrease.

Members had heard several concerns from Welwyn Hatfield residents and those outside of the borough over the loss of greenbelt proposed in this Local Plan. Members wanted the Local Plan to work for local people. Members stated that residents’ concerns had been ignored, other local authorities were also building which would add stress to infrastructure and resources within the borough.

Members were aware that any Plan suggested, land from the greenbelt would be lost but felt it would be best to lessen the impacts. Members stated the greenbelt in the borough was crucial for many during the pandemic lockdowns, therefore as much of the greenbelt should be protected. Members stated that the greenbelt was created to prevent urban sprawl. Members highlighted that density of developments would need to be reconsidered to keep the greenbelt protected.

Members felt there was limited options, the officers’ recommendations would not be welcomed by the residents of the borough, and if an agreement was not made then the Council would be subject to Planning by appeal which would be a costly process. Members stated that appeals would still happen even if the Officer recommendations were accepted.

Members expressed that the Plan started in 2009 was focussed on Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield which was wrong. Members felt perhaps it was too late to reduce the OAN. Members felt the inspector was dictating the Plan as only he could approve or remove site allocations.

Members proposed a motion to reject the officers’ recommendations and revert to the Plan discussed in November 2020 that had 13 377 homes for the borough.

In response to the Motion, Officers advised that the Inspector had found an overall figure of 15,200 new homes to be sound and had made it clear that unless the Council added in more sites to the Local Plan to achieve the Full Objectively Assessed Housing Need the Plan will be found unsound. Should the Inspector find the Plan unsound (e.g., because it did not make provision for what he regarded as the appropriate level of new housing development and / or because he did not regard the sites put forward to meet the need for new housing to be appropriate) the Council would be unable to adopt the Plan. In that eventuality, the Council would not have an up-to-date Plan as the current adopted District Plan dates from 2005 and therefore largely out-of-date, particularly in relation to policies relating to new residential development. If the emerging plan were withdrawn or found unsound the Council would have to largely rely on policies in the NPPF for decision making. Because the Council no longer had a five-year land supply and had failed the Housing Delivery Test, the presumption in favour of sustainable development already applies. In the absence of an up-to-date local plan, policies that sought to protect areas from residential development would carry less weight and the Council would be more likely to lose decisions on appeal. There would be a risk that the Council’s vulnerability to opportunistic speculative planning applications and associated appeals would increase significantly by not having an up-to-date Local Plan. By virtue of its date of submission for examination the emerging Local Plan was being judged against the version of national planning policy (the NPPF) which was published in 2012 rather than against more recent versions. The housing requirement was lower than it would be under more recent Government policy. If the emerging plan was not adopted the housing figure of 760 per annum would be replaced by a higher figure of 875 per annum generated by the “standard methodology”. Officers stated they have a duty to alert members of the risks associated with departing from the principles set out by the Inspector in his letter dated June 2021.

Members sought clarification on the legal process of the recommendation from CPPP to Cabinet. The Executive Member stated that Cabinet makes recommendation for Council to decide.

Members sought clarification whether Option D from the report could be accepted and at the 5-year review to reduce the number of dwellings and remove sites. Officers stated that they had investigated that, however once land had been removed from the greenbelt it would be hard to put it back in. Members agreed in principle with the idea however once the land had been designated building land it would then be built upon.

Members stated they could not support the motion as the distribution of housing was incorrect however they would like to see a lower OAN. Members raised concerns regarding to the Inspectors comments and the Plan potentially being found unsound which would be a waste of time and money.

Members sought greater detail on the proposed motion as they had not seen the Plan mentioned.

Members stated that they had a difficult decision to make as the Inspectors OAN of 15 200 was too high, the Council Advisors, Turleys, figure of 14 000 was high and local resident would not support such large developments in the borough due to the quantity of correspondence regarding the Local Plan.

          RESOLVED:

(Unanimous in Favour)

Panel members considered the results of the Site Selection Addendum and the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum and the merits and disadvantages of the different options

RESOLVED:

(Unanimous against)

Panel Members accept the Officers recommendation set out in paragraph 4. 30 of the report and recommend to Cabinet and Full Council Option D as set out in Appendix D to this report for submission to the examination along with the relevant supporting information.

A motion was proposed and seconded by Councillors S. Thusu and D. Richardson and,

          RESOLVED:

          (10 in Favour, 2 against, 1 abstention)

That Members recommend to Cabinet and Full Council the proposed dwelling numbers agreed and recommended by the Cabinet Planning and Parking Panel on 17 November 2020, specifically that a strategy is put forward for 13,277 dwellings.