Up to thirty minutes will be made available for questions from members of the public on issues relating to the work of the Cabinet and to receive any petitions.
Minutes:
Question 1 - from John Gardner:-
I note the proposal by Welwyn Hatfield BC for additional sites and modifications to the plan. (Public reports pack CPPP 20220113), which ignore significant points in the Inspector’s Letter (EX271) and supplementary report (EX272).
In summary:
· Why is the council proposing to explicitly ignore the directions on site allocations set by the Inspector?
· Why are they taking the risk that the Inspector will have no choice but to find the plan unsound, with the consequent impact of an even higher housing number in a future plan?
· Why is WHBC in it’s preferred option(D) ignoring sites that are close to local train stations, schools and shops, in preference for a site like Symondshyde which will have few local shops, only a primary school and be distant from all transport hubs
· Why have WHBC not followed up the comments in the Inspector’s letter exploring all available avenues for a FOAHN reduction?
Site Allocations
The Inspectors directions on site allocations
In EX271 and EX272 (and supporting documents) the inspector required “evidence that objectively justifies the choice and distribution of the proposed sites.” and “but the process should be objective and transparent as well as justified”
· The Inspector further stated para 16. “Site selection is a complex process, which needs to be undertaken in a consistent and transparent manner. There is no evidence to suggest that the Council followed such a process when considering which additional sites to place before the Examination. Indeed, not all land previously considered appropriate for development by the Council but also being assessed as causing high or moderate/high harm to the GB, if developed, was selected for removal from the plan. At best this suggests an inconsistent approach and a lack of objectivity. The conclusions are not justified and thereby unsound.”
The Inspector made absolutely clear at several Hearing Sessions that Symondshyde should not be allocated ahead of suitable sites in “Large Villages” and he further stated that the allocation of Symondshyde would not be found sound until all other options had been “exhausted”. Clearly, the Council is going against the Inspector’s advice and instructions.
It is difficult not to see the selection of Option D as an attempt to minimise development around Brookmans Park, at both the expense of other less suitable sites and the local plan overall.
The Inspector’s commentary on numbers
· In EX241 he describes the employment strategy as “seeks to further grow the amount of employment in the Borough, beyond what are already excessively high levels, for the size of the economically active population.”
· In EX272 para 25 The inspector notes ”The Council’s development strategy is based on the assumption that there will be further economic growth in the area during the plan period. Land to accommodate some of this is to be released from the Green Belt. I discussed my concerns about this when I examined the overall strategy in 2017 and again in my preliminary conclusions and advice.”
· The inspector indicates that ”such a strategy could be found sound” but goes on to say in para 26 ”Nevertheless, my support for the release of GB land to facilitate economic development is still conditional upon the Council providing sufficient suitable sites from the GB to enable it to deliver sufficient dwellings to meet its FOAHN.”
WHBC have no satisfactory way to deliver sufficient sites in a way that is compliant with the inspectors required approach to site allocations! Since the inspector regards the employment estimates as unnecessarily high, it is probable he would only agree to such a strategy if sufficient sites can be found.
Effectively the Inspector may be offering the council an acceptable approach to reduce the FOAHN and in line with councillors wishes to save specific areas, keep the plan acceptable to the inspector
Whilst the Public Reports Pack acknowledges the over-high employment projections in paras 3.7 to 3.9. There is no mention of any consideration of a reduction in the employment projections and consequent landing and housing needs. Local residents cannot see the high FOAHN as anything other than a failure by the Council.
Response
The Inspector states in his notes following the Stage 9 Hearings Session that the submitted evidence has suggested that if the overall housing requirement can only be met by the establishment of a new village within the borough, then an expanded village at Symondshyde site would be the most appropriate solution.
It is not a requirement that all sites examined in the villages should come forward. The Council does not agree that Option D is an attempt to minimise development around Brookmans Park at the expense of other less sustainable sites. Under both Option C and Option D Brookmans Park is proposed to have more development than any other village. Option D still proposes 549 dwellings and seeks to address the Inspector’s requirement of ensuring the plan has a proportionate distribution.
As evident by Option C, even in the event that additional development was provided in the villages, Symondshyde would be required to meet the identified Housing Need of 15,200 and ensure a proportionate distribution of growth is achieved across the plan period.
The Plan now has less employment land than when it was submitted for examination and is no longer seeking to meet employment projections. In November 2020 additional urban sites on employment land for housing were put forward to the examination. This would have resulted in a further reduction but the Inspector has concluded that housing on these sites would be contrary to the Plan’s policies on employment which have already been found to be sound.
The FOAHN has been reviewed three times during the examination. It is considered that there are no further avenues for debate on this matter. The Council does not agree that it is ignoring the directions on site allocations set by the Inspector.
Question 2 – from Jeremy Berger:-
Why is the Council proposing to submit modifications to the submitted Local Plan that include a new settlement at Symondshyde, significantly larger in terms of land take and dwelling provision than that originally proposed, that is diametrically opposed to the Inspector’s guidance that development should be proportionately distributed and directed towards the existing villages with railway stations that are better positioned to take sustainable growth?
Supporting information
The Symondshyde development would create a huge hole in the Green Belt, is unsustainable in terms of existing infrastructure, services and facilities, and at 1,500 houses it would be the equivalent of a tier 3 large excluded village rather than a tier 4 small settlement, but without the full range of services and facilities of a tier 3 settlement.
The Inspector’s advice in EX272 paragraph 35 states:
the Council also need to respond to the strategic requirement for a proportionate distribution of development that is tempered firstly by the two classes of excluded village settlements and secondly by their comparative sustainability. In this context, the four villages with railway stations are better positioned to take sustainable growth than their counterparts that have not got the benefit of such a facility.
A completely new settlement at Symondshyde would not be a proportionate distribution of development. According to the Housing Sites Selection Addendum 2021, proportionate growth in the Rural Areas of which the Symondshyde site is part is 635 dwelling units. Symondshyde at 1,130 dwellings is nearly double this, and at 1,500 dwellings it would be an increase of 180% on the proportionate requirement for the whole of the wider rural area.
In stark contrast, under the Council’s preferred Option D, the addition of site BrP4a at Brookmans Park would be an increase of 43 dwellings on the proportionate figure of 506 – an increase of only 8.5%. Contrary to paragraph 12.8 of the Site Selection paper, as a tier 3 settlement with a railway station, the levels of growth at Brookmans Park should significantly exceed the proportionate. However, even the addition of all the BrP sites would exceed the proportional requirement by no more than 64%.
Throughout the preparation and examination of the Local Plan, the Council has treated the Symondshyde proposal as an exception, not subject to exactly the same criteria as other strategic allocations. For example, at successive site selection stages, Green Belt sites not adjoining an existing settlement were excluded from further assessment, but this criterion was not applied to the Symondshyde site as a standalone new settlement. No real justification for this was given, and the necessary exceptional circumstances for removing the site from the Green Belt have never been justified.
The Local Plan as proposed to be modified is therefore quite clearly unsound.
Response
At the current time the Council has not agreed to submit modifications to the plan which include Symondshyde. The Officer’s report indicates that both option C or D could be found sound. The Inspector has said that the new village must be at least 1,500 homes. Other Green Belt sites which do not adjoin a settlement were rejected because they were too small to be standalone settlements. The development strategy continues to seek to direct development to the towns then to the most sustainable villages. The Inspector has stated that if the overall housing requirement can only be met by the establishment of a new village within the borough, then an expanded village at Symondshyde would appear to be the most appropriate solution.
Question 3 – from Celia Gardner
There is a Cabinet Planning and Parking Panel meeting on the 13th January 2022. Given Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council's response to Mr Middleton the Inspector for the Local Plan, despite the fact the agenda and reports pack has not yet been published for the Special Cabinet of 18th January 2022, it is reasonable to infer the Local Plan will be discussed and the cabinet will determine whether to ratify the CPPP's decisions and pass them to the special Council meeting 27 January 2022.
The publication of the reports pack for the CPPP and the apparent re-interpretation of the time scale for the submission of questions prevent any questions from the public having read the officers, report prior to the question submission.
Whether an oversight, or a deliberate attempt, this effectively disenfranchises local residents from participation in local democracy.
The question is whether the local residents access to the CPPP has been properly conducted and whether any consequent decisions from the CPPP are entitled to be passed onto the full council.
Response
The agenda for the Cabinet Planning and Parking Panel on Thursday 13 January 2022 was published on Wednesday 5 January just before 4pm. This was within the timescale of publishing papers five clear working days prior to a meeting.
Our constitution states that public questions for meetings need to be received by midday, five clear working days prior to a meeting. Questions are required to relate to business within the remit of the committee or panel and do not need to be in relation to specific agenda items, as it is for elected councillors to consider the reports and ask relevant questions at the meeting.
Following submission of this question, members of the Council’s Constitution Review Group discussed the deadline for public questions at meetings at their meeting on the 12 January 2022. Officers will be reviewing options and bringing proposals back to the members for their next meeting.
I can confirm that existing procedures have been properly followed regarding the meeting of CPPP last week and that decisions made by that panel have been recommended to this meeting of Special Cabinet who will subsequently make recommendations to next week’s special meeting of Full Council.