Agenda item

1.    RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND:

 

a)     the changes set out in Table 4 of the Report of Representations are made to the Pre-Submission Site Allocations DPD as a result of representations received; and

b)     the Site Allocations DPD incorporating Focused Change, together with other appropriate supporting documents is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

2.    That the issues arising from representations received to the Focused Changes to the Pre-Submission Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and the impact of new advice be noted.

 

3.    That authority is delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration to approve any further minor wording changes to the Site Allocations document prior to consideration by Full Council.

 

4.    That authority is delegated to the Assistant Director (Planning, Development and Regeneration) to:

(a)   Finalise the Report of Representations and other Submission documents; and

Agree any further minor changes arising during the course of the Examination.

Decision

 

1.    RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND COUNCIL:

a)     that the changes set out in Table 4 of the Report of Representations are made to the Pre-Submission Site Allocations DPD as a result of representations received; and

b)     that the Site Allocations DPD incorporating Focused Change, together with other appropriate supporting documents is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

 

2.    That the issues arising from representations received to the Focused Changes to the Pre-Submission Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and the impact of new advice be noted.

 

3.    That authority is delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration to approve any further minor wording changes to the Site Allocations document prior to consideration by Full Council.

 

4.    That authority is delegated to the Assistant Director (Planning, Development and Regeneration) to:

(a)   Finalise the Report of Representations and other Submission documents; and

(b)   Agree any further minor changes arising during the course of the Examination.

 

Reason for Decision

To consider the significant new issues raised through representations on the Focused Changes to the Pre-Submission Site Allocations DPD; and Agree the process for submitting the Site Allocations DPD to the Planning Inspectorate.

 

Implications

 

Financial

Budget provision for the next stages of the statutory process i.e. Submission and Examination are made in the 2015/16 and 2016/17 LDF budget. 

 

Having an up-to-date planning framework helps reduce the incidence of planning appeals (and hence costs associated with these).  It will be the most effective way of ensuring the optimum level of developer contributions to infrastructure and in mitigation of development impacts can be achieved.  This process will be further improved and simplified through the implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

 

Value for money

Where possible, technical work that supports the Site Allocations has been jointly commissioned with adjoining authorities to ensure value for money.

 

Legal

Jameson and Hill have been retained to provide external legal support for the Site Allocations.  The same advisers acted for the Council through the Core Strategy Examination process and subsequent (unsuccessful) legal challenge to this document.   They will provide the Council with any advice required regarding the implication of new Government advice; assist with responding to key representations; advise on the production of any additional evidence and support Officers through the Examination process itself. 

 

Staff

It is critical that the Strategic Planning and Regeneration team is fully staffed to enable the agreed LPF timetable to be delivered.  A Programme Officer will need to be appointed by the Council to provide administrative support to the Inspector and act as a single, independent point of contact for all parties throughout the Examination process.

 

Land

The Site Allocations supports delivery of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy which will play an important role in decisions regarding future land uses within the Borough.  The Council has specific land ownership interest in two of the Local Allocations - LA1 (Marchmont Farm) and LA2 (Old Town).

 

Risk Implications

Key risks are identified in the Local Development Scheme and reviewed annually within the Annual Monitoring Report. They include failure of external agencies or consultants to deliver on time, changes in Government policy and team capacity.  A separate risk assessment prepared for the Core Strategy Pre-Submission identifies a number of risks relating to the Examination process and particularly the soundness tests with which the Site Allocations must comply. 

Equalities Implications

An Equality Impact Assessment has been carried out for the Core Strategy.  Equalities issues are also picked up as part of the Sustainability Appraisal Report that accompanies the Site Allocations document.

Health And Safety Implications

Implications are included in the planning issues covered by the Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPDs.

 

Corporate Objectives

The Site Allocations forms part of the Council’s Local Planning Framework, which as a whole helps support all 5 corporate objectives:

·        Safe and clean environment: e.g. contains policies relating to the design and layout of new development that promote security and safe access;

·        Community Capacity: e.g. provide a framework for local communities to prepare area-specific guidance such as Neighbourhood Plans, Town / Village Plans etc;

·        Affordable housing: e.g. sets the Borough’s overall housing target and the proportion of new homes that must be affordable;

·        Dacorum delivers:  e.g. provides a clear framework upon which planning decisions can be made; and

Regeneration: e.g. sets the planning framework for key regeneration projects, such as Hemel Hempstead town centre and the Maylands Business Park.

 

 

 

Advice

 

The Strategic Planning & Regeneration Team Leader gave the following introduction to the report

‘The role of this report is to summarise the issues raised through representations on the limited ‘Focused Changes consultation on the Council’s Site Allocations’ document, and to agree processes for submitting this Site Allocations DPD to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination.  This submission requires the agreement of Full Council.

 

Subject to this agreement being achieved at the next Full Council in January, the Site Allocations would be submitted in early February, with the examination hearing sessions pencilled in for May 2016.

 

As Cabinet has previously been advised, the Site Allocations DPD is in effect the ‘delivery’ document or the adopted Core Strategy. 

It is not an opportunity to re-open debates on issues that the Core Strategy covers – but to show how these policies and designations will be delivered on the ground.

 

It is a very important document in helping the Council to demonstrate that it has an up to- date plan, as required by Government and can also ensure delivery of the critical 5 year land supply. 

To delay its submission and implementation therefore weakens the Council’s ability to fend off speculative applications on sites it does not wish to see developed – especially those in the Green Belt.

 

Not unexpectedly, the most sensitive issue in the Site Allocations DPD relates to the inclusion of 3 Gypsy and Traveller sites within the largest of the six ‘Local Allocations’ – at LA1 (Marchmont Farm), LA3, (West Hemel), and at LA5, (Tring).

 

Members will also have received a letter from a local resident who is also a planning barrister regarding the LA5 site.  I can respond to all his points in turn if you wish, but I have provided Councillor Sutton with a briefing note on this matter prior to the meeting and will ask him whether he wishes me to outline our response to the issues Mr Standen raises. 

 

In summary, we do not feel that there is any need from either a technical or legal perspective to delay the Site Allocations submission until after the Housing and Planning Bill is enacted.  The coverage of Gypsy and Traveller issues within this Bill is extremely limited and doesn’t change the Council’s obligations to assess the needs of this group or demonstrate through planning designations and polices how these needs will be met.

 

I would therefore ask members of Cabinet to agree the recommendations set out in the report and enable this important document to progress through the statutory process.’

 

Councillor Hicks spoke as a ward councillor for Tring West & Rural. He said that when he was elected he promised to oppose the gypsy and traveller site at every opportunity. He felt that the proposal process was wrong. He had not yet seen a detailed plan or an artist impression and how it would affect the gateway to Tring. He explained that they were trying to push Tring as a tourist attraction. He concluded that he believed the whole system to be flawed.

Councillor Conway, ward councillor for Tring West & Rural also wanted to see a plan. She felt that the junction at the entrance to the proposed site would be too dangerous. She wanted more information before a decision could be made as currently, in her opinion, the proposed site was in the wrong place.

The Leader of the council noted that this was not a planning meeting and the committee were making a decision on land use only and the level of detail the councillors were looking for would come later in the process.

The Assistant Director for Planning, Development & Regeneration explained that the intention had always been that the site would be included in the consultation document and that the design and detail would follow.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Planning & Regeneration noted that he was a member of the land allocation panel a few years ago as was a representative from Tring. All proposed gypsy and traveller sites had representatives on the panel too. He added that this report was to purely agree the settlement for the site and not detailed plans. He said that local residents would have an opportunity to make their views known, further down the line.

 

The Strategic Planning & Regeneration Team Leader said that all of the objections from councillors and local residents would be passed to the planning inspector. She predicted that a hearing would be held to examine the process and the council’s decisions.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental, Sustainability & Regulatory Services sought clarification on whether or not the powers of the Development Control Committee (DCC) would be limited if this site allocation plan is approved. She also asked what would happen if DCC refused a gypsy and traveller site application.

The Assistant Director for Planning, Development & Regeneration replied that the council’s role would be strengthened by a decision at Cabinet and would allow a planned and controlled approach.

The Leader of the council added that the DCC would need to be mindful of this document when considering certain applications.

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental, Sustainability & Regulatory Services asked if DBC would have to find alternative sites if the DCC had overwhelming objections.

The Assistant Director for Planning, Development & Regeneration replied that there had already been extensive searches over the years for gypsy and traveller sites within the borough, therefore the council would be in a difficult position as no other sites had been identified.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Planning & Regeneration sympathised with the Tring West & Rural ward councillors and requested that they be provided with the background information from past discussions in order to bring them up to date.

The Strategic Planning & Regeneration Team Leader said that the council prepared a consultation document which was published on the website. She added that the minutes from the Task and Finish Group meetings could be circulated, which the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration agreed.

 

Councillor Conway asked what would happen if the government changed the policy.

The Assistant Director for Planning, Development & Regeneration said the council would need to look at the matter again; however they had sought appropriate legal advice.

 

Councillor Hicks noted that if the gypsy and traveller sites were removed from the plan he didn’t think there would be a list of developers wanting to build these sites rather than houses.

The Leader of the Council replied that the council would not fulfil their responsibility within the plan if this were to happen.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing added that this decision would protect the council, for example some travellers had landings in Dacorum and this would stop them developing in other sites.

The Assistant Director for Planning, Development & Regeneration said that developers were not the issue but where the traveller community wished to settle was the issue.

The Leader of the Council said the provision for gypsy and traveller sites was always a challenging process. The government sets out that the council has to provide a site and the sites previously identified were thought to be the best sites.

He noted that the Core Strategy had already been approved and were currently approving subsequent proposals.

The Strategic Planning & Regeneration Team Leader noted that the council could not look at housing numbers etc. but further down the line there could be more discussion. She concluded to note that the planning inspector could not make the decision for the council but he could advise changes to be made. If this was the case there would be further consultation and report back to Full Council.

Consultation

Consultation on the Site Allocations DPD has been carried out in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), adopted by the Council in June 2006. The detail is set out within the Reports of Consultation that followed the 2006 and 2008 Issues and Options Consultations. A draft report of consultation for the period 2008 and 2014 has also been published.

Advice from key stakeholders, such as the Local Education Authority and Highway Authority, has been sought where appropriate.  Feedback on the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan has also been significant in developing a clear understanding of local infrastructure needs. This advice is referred to within the relevant Background Issues paper that form part of the Site Allocations DPD evidence base. The Consultation Reports relating to the Core Strategy (Volumes 1-7) are also relevant.

In terms of internal processes, a Task and Finish Group advised on the preparation of the Site Allocations DPD, There have been reports to Cabinet at key stages in the preparation of the Local Planning Framework and the Planning and Regeneration Portfolio Holder has been kept appraised of progress.

 

SPEOSC also considered a progress report, which highlighted key emerging issues, on 27 January 2015.

 

Voting

 

None.