Up to thirty minutes will be made available for questions from members of the public on issues relating to the work of the Committee and to receive any petitions.
Minutes:
One question was received from the public. The Vice- Chair as Portfolio Holder of Environment. Planning, Estates and Development gave the response.
The following question was received from Mr Howard Dawson.
“I am a resident of Welham Green and a Regulation 19 participant at the Local Plan Examination.
At paragraph 9 of the Inspector’s letter, he refers to five sites formally submitted to the Examination in May 2017. He says that “one of those has already been found sound when your Council decided that it wished to remove it in November 2020”. The Inspector does not state which site, but I believe he is referring to BrP4 (HS22).
Whilst BrP4 was proposed in 2017 for allocation in the submitted Local Plan for 250 dwellings, that was before the Inspector himself required the Council to undertake an entirely new Green Belt study with the specific purpose to identify land that was “essential to retain” in the Green Belt. The new Green Belt study was undertaken by Land Use Consultants (LUC), published in August 2018 and updated in March 2019.
BrP4 was found to be within Parcel 65 to the west of the East Coast Mainline railway, in open countryside. The LUC assessment of P65 was “VERY HIGH HARM” which is essential to retain. BrP4 is a significant part of Parcel P65 but LUC did not undertake a Green Belt assessment of BrP4 based on national purposes, as lawfully required following the High Court judgment in the Calverton case. BrP4 therefore remains on land which is VERY HIGH HARM if released from the Green Belt and the Inspector himself has stated that no land which is found to be VERY HIGH HARM should be allocated for development.
Furthermore, the Council has informed the Inspector that, due to new evidence commissioned after the Plan was submitted for Examination, Exceptional Circumstances to justify the release of BrP4 from the Green Belt do not exist. The Exceptional Circumstances test is required by paragraph 83 of the NPPF.
In light of (1) the fact that BrP4 forms a vital part of land which has been found to be VERY HIGH HARM if released from the Green Belt and (2) the Council has formally notified the Inspector that BrP4 does not satisfy the legal test of Exceptional Circumstances, it would be unlawful for the Inspector to force the Council to allocate BrP4.
Other matters which are relevant include:
- BrP4 breaches a strong and permanent Green Belt boundary. There are few boundaries which are stronger or more permanent than the East Coast Mainline railway.
- The justification used by the Council in 2016 to support the original allocation of BrP4 in the Local Plan was reliant on major road improvements that were promised to be achieved on the dangerous bend on the Station Road railway bridge. It subsequently emerged that the promoter of BrP4 did not own the land required to fulfil that promise and the highway safety improvements which are formally listed in paragraph 21.4 of the submitted Plan have vanished. It will require a Main Modification to the submitted Plan to delete these promised highway improvements. The Council was therefore deceived prior to the submission of the Plan for Examination and that deceit provides justifiable grounds for this Council to delete BrP4 from the Plan.
- BrP4 was found to be very sensitive in terms of landscape harm and development of BrP4 would also spread into the wider countryside in terms of Green Belt sprawl and harm to openness
- At the Stage 9 Examination Hearing, no Flood Risk Assessment was submitted, and no surface water management or attenuation was proposed. The land promoter simply informed the Inspector and the Council that such matters would be considered after the site is allocated, at the planning application stage. That is not acceptable when the surface water flooding is evidentially severe and new development would be certain to cause serious consequential flood impact on the SSSI at Water End.
The only reason why this Council allocated BrP4 in the first place is because it is not in Brookmans Park. The brunt of the impact in terms of highway and traffic disturbance will be felt by Welham Green and Water End being the obvious routes for all traffic leaving the BrP4 site.
BrP4 should be deleted from the Plan on the grounds that (1) new Green Belt evidence after the submission of the Plan demonstrates that the allocation of BrP4 would cause VERY HIGH HARM to the Green Belt and (2) Exceptional Circumstances do not exist to justify the allocation of BrP4. That is the legal test, which BrP4 fails.
Will the CPPP discuss that for the planning and legal reasons explained above, this Council is fully justified to require the Inspector to delete BrP4 from the submitted Plan on the grounds that it is not a sound allocation?”
Answer:
The Council has written to the Inspector proposing the removal of BrP4 from the plan. It is the Inspector who assesses the soundness of the plan, and he has not, to date, changed his opinion that exceptional circumstances do exist for its removal from the Green Belt. The Council cannot require the Inspector to delete the site.