Agenda and minutes

To agree the minutes of the previous meeting.

The minutes of the meeting of 28 July 2020 were agreed by members.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Rogers. Councillor Bhinder was substituting on his behalf.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

The chair notified the committee that there were four members of public registered to speak on the Local Plan item and that the public participation section would be moved so the speakers could make their statements directly before the relevant item.

None

The Chairman announced that in view of the complexity of agenda Item 6, the expected length of the debate thereon, and the likely effect of government proposals in agenda Item 7 on the local plan, agenda Item 7 would be dealt with first.

J Doe introduced the item to members. There were two consultation documents with different deadlines for responses; one in early October and one late October. Officers have prepared a draft response which is included in the report and the final decision for content lies with Councillor G Sutton, the portfolio holder. He referred to the white paper and paragraph 2.2 which related to the three pillars to the proposals; pillar 1 new local plans system and the development management system and how to deal with proposals as they arise; pillar 2, design codes to allow for beautiful and sustainable places; pillar 3, infrastructure planning and funding. A key aspect of pillar 1 is that the new local plans are to be shorter, map based and online based. The proposals in local plans are to be split into three areas: growth, renewal and protected areas. The big issue in these documents is the government’s methodology for calculating housing need in each area.

Councillor Timmis asked if the proposals to engage with the community be anything more than a tick box or will it allow for objection to plans? She also referred to green belt areas and that the government have made a commitment to protecting green belt areas, so she questioned why the council were going in the opposite direction and releasing areas to be developed.

Councillor Birnie said that the housing targets are to be adhered to and the numbers are determined nationally. Dacorum would find it impossible to meet their target unless they released green belt land.

J Doe said the planning proposal documents are overlapping with the Local Plan. There is a need for further housing delivery but the white paper leaves questions unanswered. There should be further guidance and legislation on the detail to the policy. At the moment, officers are not picking up a change from process to meet housing needs from greenbelt land. The government does expect the consultation process to be front loaded and have greater engagement at the Local Plan stage. Any sites in the Local Plan would benefit from outline planning permission and the principle of the development cannot be reopened.

A Robinson added that the government proposals do appear to shift public engagement back to the Local Plan stage instead of the decision making stage. There are two stages of consultation within the Local Plan, at the beginning during the call for sites and the second stage where the plan is prepared and published. There is a new area being proposed, allowing local authorities to create design codes prepared alongside the Local Plan.

Councillor Birnie questioned the future of the Development Management Committee in view of the reduction in public participation at the planning application stage.

J Doe  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

Under the public participation rules, the following people make a statement to the committee:

Tom Ritchie

Having been on both sides of this discussion over many years, as an elected Councillor from 2015 until 2019 and now as a resident, I know this argument quite well.

The earlier “consultation” was carried out in 2017 and, as far as I am aware, the results have never been finally published, as the current edition, now three years on, is still marked “draft” - how many of this Committee, especially newer Members, have gone through the over-700 pages? Without that knowledge, it will be difficult for them to make the correct decision now asked of them.

My disappointment is how little of the earlier consultation comments have been accepted and actioned. Many of the over 20,000 comments question the wisdom of focussing such large developments in the two Market towns, Berkhamsted and Tring. Under the new proposals, Berkhamsted would see a population increase of some 41% and Tring 67%!

There is no detail of how each town could successfully accommodate such numbers - in school places, especially at Secondary level, traffic, health provision etc. Such numbers would completely destroy the existing structures and lifestyles.

The view of the 2017 survey was that the bulk of the Borough’s new houses should be in Hemel Hempstead - the new Town. This has not been addressed.

I do not see how you can recommend the present scheme to Cabinet and you will do the whole community a service by sending Officers back to try again - however unpopular that decision would be to some

A Robinson responded to Tom Ritchie. He said the consultation finding document is on the website and has been published for some time. It is a large document with 700 pages. Since 2017, a lot has changed in government policy and this has had to be taken into account, including revised housing projections. The current document is the document being consulted on under regulation 18, it is not the final version and can still be amended following consultation responses. In relation to apportionment of growth to settlements, the team has sought to accommodate as much growth as possible around Hemel Hempstead and the town takes 60% of all growth. The scale of growth means it is not possible to accommodate all of that without including development in Berkhamsted and Tring. There are no easy sites and officers feel that larger urban extensions to Berkhamsted and Tring will allow for delivery of the necessary infrastructure.

Rollo Prendergrast was unable to connect to the meeting so J Doe read his statement out on his behalf.

1.    Is it the intention that a fully-supported traffic survey will be carried out to determine the feasibility of (especially) car journeys to and from Shootersway, Darrs Lane, Durrants Lane, Kingshill Way and Chesham Road, in the light of increased traffic density arising from the development of 1,680 new units to the South of Berkhamsted which require access and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

A Robinson gave a brief presentation to the committee, running through the main highlights of the Local Plan.

Councillor McDowell referred to point DM2 and the affordable homes policy. The tenures expected only lists first homes and rentals. There is no shared ownership listed and said he felt that other tenures should be included in the policy.

A Robinson said this decision was reached with the Task and Finish group which decided that the priority should be on delivering genuinely affordable housing to help those on the lowest incomes. As such, the policy does not include shared ownership schemes.

Councillor McDowell referred to the density of homes that are being proposed especially in Tring Town Centre. DM11 states there will be a 30% increase within the town centre. He said the Development Management Committee have refused applications on grounds of density and said the burden of proof should be on the developer to prove they are not losing amenity space.

A Robinson said the plan reflects some of the key elements of reforms suggested by the government, particularly in reference to growth areas, renewal and protection. They have been brought into the plan as officers believe this is the direction of travel. Design codes are currently discretionary and the view of officers is that these should form part of the plan whether the government mandates it or not. There is a section in the plan devoted to design expectations with specific reference to two new design guides. All proposals submitted will need to adhere to this requirement. In relation to the question on density, the proposals are to deliver minimum density requirements and this does not mean that local character considerations are completely removed from the judgement of the Development Management Committee.

Councillor Taylor referred to transport and asked why the council is proposing to build 2,000 homes in Berkhamsted without first having a transport system to cope with it. All roads in Berkhamsted lead to the centre of town and the main junction is often gridlocked.

A Robinson said the council have prepared technical studies alongside the county wide strategic transport Comet model,which looks at development across the county. Increasing growth will have a significant impact on road networks but there are a number of interventions made to accommodate growth. The team has commissioned a sustainable transport plan for Berkhamsted and Tring which is near completion and notes that there is a need to move to sustainable methods of transport but accepts that there needs to be interventions on the current highway network.

Councillor Taylor asked for more detail on the interventions.

A Robinson said there would be improvement to the cycle network and pedestrian pathways. There would need to be a passenger travel intervention scheme working with bus providers. More detail will come forward in the specific highway schemes and a lot of these will be set out in infrastructure delivery plan.

Councillor Birnie asked if there was an example of when the council has successfully formed a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.