Minutes:
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 egress to and from
Berkhamsted High Street, the A4251 and the A41. The Delivery
Strategies paper talks loosely about 1,000 units. The roads
leading down to the town centre are very narrow - in some cases
with effective one-way systems.
The development of Bearoc Park with some 170+ units over
Phases 1 & 2 will be dwarfed by what is
planned.
2.
How will
these plans, for development at the top of a hill, promote more
pedestrian and cycle access down to the town centre?
Would it be possible to build a new parallel road, W-E running
along the edge of the A41 - starting behind Rossway Farm and
ending up behind the cemetery to join up with Chesham Rd. to
provide access to and from the A41 bypass? This would help
alleviate the already very high volumes of traffic along
Shootersway and Kingshill Way which now threaten the lives and
wellbeing of children walking to Ashlyns School.
3. Will a ribbon development alongside the A41 Bypass, which carries fast and heavy traffic, not suffer from unusual levels of particulate and noise pollution? Is it intended that acoustic paneling be installed?
4. Can you confirm that plans submitted for the construction of a Class C2 development at Hanburys, Shootersway (Ref 20/02021/MFA dated 21/07/20, currently with the Planning Officer) will not be supported since that development, with 4 storeys above ground level, will exceed the 2 storey limitation set out in 'Draft Emerging Strategy for Growth 2020-2038: Proposals And Sites, Growth Area Bk10: Hanburys'?
5. Where in the various reports is there mention of enlarging GP services, already deficient in Berkhamsted? I realise that this is beyond the remit of DBC but it is a vital element.
6. How will increasing development in Berkhamsted, an area of high land values, provide rational growth in affordable housing? Or is it, by flooding the area with housing, that the area becomes less desirable, and therefore land values will fall?
7.
Why are
there no plans to develop land between the North East of
Berkhamsted, between Ivy House Lane and Little Heath; between
Little Heath and Fields End/Warners End? (Adjoining Growth
Area HH21, West Hemel Hempstead). This area is flat, has good
access to main roads and public transport and could accommodate all
the planned expansion of Berkhamsted.
8.
With reference to
Growth Area Bk02: British Film Institute. This part of the plan calls for 90
dwellings - more than is to be accommodated within Bearoc
Park Phase 2.
Unless the BFI is going to level the storage silos, there is
not the slightest chance of accommodating that number of dwellings
on the BFI site, unless tower blocks are contemplated. I see
nothing in the public record of the BFI to suggest they are
contemplating destruction of the silos. Indeed, the 2014
Triennial Review of the BFI by the DCMS commends the sustainability
of the operation.
J Doe responded to each point.
1.
A transport study has been carried out
for Berkhamsted which will be published shortly. If the council
selects sites in Berkhamsted, developers will need to provide a
detailed transport study
2. Berkhamsted is a valley town with steep slopes but there are plans for development to promote more pedestrian and cycle access.
3. There is a current application for the Hanbury site (LA4) under consideration so we cannot comment on it. The application will go to Development Management Committee.
4. The provision of GP services is something being discussed with the CCG and will feature in the infrastructure delivery plan which will be made available later in the year before the consultation document is published.
5. Affordable housing is a draft requirement in the draft Local Plan. There is an aim to get a spread of dwelling types, size and tenures. This will require detailed working out as plans develop on site.
6. Officers have looked in detail at the different sites put forward for development across the borough and commissioned a report which looked into the pros and cons of different sites. The officer’s recommendations in the Local Plan is to deliver best outcomes for the three main towns and surrounding villages.
7. The site of the British Film Institute on Shooterways has a notional figure and the plan is in draft form. He advised the speaker to make these points during the consultation.
Councillor Birnie said the transport study is yet to be
published and was disappointed that the Local Plan constantly
refers to reports that are yet to be published. He said this
doesn’t give outsiders and members of the public much
confidence. He asked J Doe when this documents would be
published.
J Doe said that the Local Plan has to be evidence based and he
would take away members comments and give them some estimates on
when the documents would be published as the final details were
currently being put together.
Mike Ridley could not connect to the meeting so J Doe read out his statement on his behalf.
Sir David Attenborough in his recent program “Extinction, the facts” has highlighted the grave danger to our world due to the loss of biodiversity, not just the loss of iconic species in the natural world, but also the wholesale destruction of ecosystems upon which society depends.
Concerning bio-diversity in the Borough, I am very dismayed that the proposed local plan does not appear to specify particular wildlife sites. I can find no reference in the draft to Bunkers Park, Shrubhill Common or The Halsey Field local wildlife site, to name just 3 sites in Hemel Hempstead.
Referring specifically to The Halsey Field, I find this surprising, since a letter passed to us from Sir Mike Penning from Rebecca Williams confirms that the importance of Halsey Field is already recognised in the Site Allocations DPD, and that she expects this to be carried over into the new Local Plan.
I can assure you that frequent bio-surveys demonstrate that under the management of the Friends of Halsey Field, the wildlife and biodiversity have continued to increase. Gadebridge residents frequently thank us for all the work that we have done on the site and tell us how much they value it as a wildlife site and local amenity.
In particular, The Halsey Field boasts:
· An invertebrate fauna of over 2000 separate species;
· 24 species of butterfly, and 164 species of moths, some rare in Hertfordshire;
· A thriving population of protected Roman snails;
· Breeding pairs of 4 raptor species;
· Colourful displays of over 80 species of meadow flowers and shrubs, including 3 orchid species.
Consequently, I would be grateful if you could confirm that DBC have no intention of allowing development on the Halsey Field, or indeed other wildlife sites, and that this will be specifically written into the Local Plan.
J Doe said this referred to Halsey Fields north of Polehanger Lane and is designated Green Belt land. This area is not being proposed for development as part of the Local Plan. There are general policies for the protection of wildlife and it is not essential to list wildlife sites in the Local Plan because they already have that status. He suggested that an annex could be included in the plan that lists the wildlife sites across the borough.
Brian Kazar made his statement to the committee.
“Regarding policy SP23 "Delivering Growth in East Tring" and policy SP24 "Delivering growth at South East Tring", can you please provide and minute assurance that the SPDs proposed by these two policies will be in force before any planning applications for the areas concerned are considered?”
J Doe proposed that this area will have further planning guidance and the content of the SPDs will be a final decision for the borough council. SPDs come forward at a later stage than the Local Plan but developers submit plans at their own risk. An SPD will come back to council for approval before it is adopted to be used in the decision making process. They do not have the same weight as the Local Plan and are discretionary policies.