To consider questions (if any) by members of the public of which the appropriate notice has been given to the Assistant Director (Corporate and Contracted Services).
Decision:
Question 1 from Graham Bright (Grove Fields Residents Association) to Councillor G Sutton;
The Grove Fields Residents Association is a member of the One Voice alliance of organisations, united to oppose the Local Plan. I'd like to read out a joint statement from the One Voice alliance.
We the Chiltern Society, Chiltern Countryside Group, Grove Fields Residents Association (GFRA), Berkhamsted Residents Action Group (BRAG), Kings Langley & District Residents Association (KL&DRA), Berkhamsted Citizens and Tring in Transition as the 'One Voice' alliance, oppose the 'Dacorum Local Plan - Emerging Strategy for Growth' because:
1. Whilst the policy on biodiversity is clear, the emerging plan is not explicit enough in terms of how Dacorum Council will work with developers and other stakeholders to mitigate Green Belt loss, increase biodiversity and meet National and Hertfordshire’s goals for climate change and carbon reduction
2. The proposed number of houses to be built should be significantly lower than the target to reflect actual demonstrable need for housing and the high proportion of Green Belt and AONB land in Dacorum, with a primary focus on affordable starter homes
3. A higher proportion of the houses should be built on brownfield land, or established through conversions, in the existing urban areas of Hemel Hempstead, Tring, Berkhamsted and Kings Langley, and away from areas located in the Green Belt (which should only be used in exceptional circumstances) and the Chilterns AONB and its setting.
While not members of the alliance, the Chilterns Conservation Board and CPRE Hertfordshire are working closely as advisors to the One Voice alliance.”
Each member organisation of the alliance will respond individually to the public consultation, however, we are united to oppose the Local Plan during and after the consultation.
We are very concerned by the robustness of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Sustainable Transport Strategy for Tring because these key documents appear to have been rushed in their development and propose solutions that will not work. Our reasons for this concern are as follows:
1. Due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, on-site observations have not been possible and have been replaced by desktop checks.
2. It was stated that it is not feasible or cost effective to address sustainable strategy issues identified because of the historic and physically constrained network of roads in Tring
3. It was stated that the locations of the 1,800 houses to the east of Tring will make it a significant challenge to encourage sustainable travel behaviour
4. The solution puts forward zero large-scale, expensive and complex infrastructure such as new road links and junctions, and major new public transport routes
5. If the Local Plan was proposing a 5% increase in houses, people and cars then we would be more accepting that changing behaviours by moving people out of their car and on to bicycles and walking was a reasonable strategy, however, with a 55% proposed increase in houses, people and cars I do not see how this will lead to anything other than gridlock in Tring
We believe the Local Plan should be redeveloped to deliver a 9% growth in housing in Dacorum and focused on brownfield sites and settlements where the infrastructure can support population growth.
However, if DBC won't halt the consultation and redevelop the local plan then would it be possible to extend the consultation by 10 weeks so the GFRA can commission a transport consultant to carry our an independent assessment of the robustness of the road infrastructure plans and the sustainable transport strategy?
Councillor G Sutton response:Publishing a detailed emerging Infrastructure Delivery Plan to support a Regulation 18 consultation is not a legal requirement but the Council felt it important to publish this work to provide as much information for residents as possible to inform representations.
The IDP was produced following extensive consultation with key organisations, including the County Council and utility providers. Through this work the Council has identified £76m of new infrastructure for Tring to support growth, including new schools, open spaces and transport.
Although the consultation ends on the 28th February (following 13 weeks) the GRFA are at liberty to produce any further technical work it feels necessary to support its case and to submit this to the Council for consideration.
The IDP is only an emerging document and the Council will continue to develop this as the Local Plan develops.
The Government has made it clear that local authorities should follow the standard methodology for housing when preparing their Local Plans, and on that basis the growth levels contained in the draft Plan are based on this approach.
Question 2 from Graham Bright to Councillor G Sutton:
On the question of the £76m identified for new infrastructure, I saw that in the report and welcome that but my only concern about that is that it represents not what it would cost to implement the infrastructure but rather what is being made available from developers towards the infrastructure which are two different things. Can Councillor Sutton confirm that is the case?
Response from Councillor G Sutton: I will come back to you on that so I can confirm the correct breakdown with the responsible officers.
Minutes:
Question 1 from Graham Bright (Grove Fields Residents Association) to Councillor G Sutton;
The Grove Fields Residents Association is a member of the One Voice alliance of organisations, united to oppose the Local Plan. I'd like to read out a joint statement from the One Voice alliance.
We the Chiltern Society, Chiltern Countryside Group, Grove Fields Residents Association (GFRA), Berkhamsted Residents Action Group (BRAG), Kings Langley & District Residents Association (KL&DRA), Berkhamsted Citizens and Tring in Transition as the 'One Voice' alliance, oppose the 'Dacorum Local Plan - Emerging Strategy for Growth' because:
1. Whilst the policy on biodiversity is clear, the emerging plan is not explicit enough in terms of how Dacorum Council will work with developers and other stakeholders to mitigate Green Belt loss, increase biodiversity and meet National and Hertfordshire’s goals for climate change and carbon reduction
2. The proposed number of houses to be built should be significantly lower than the target to reflect actual demonstrable need for housing and the high proportion of Green Belt and AONB land in Dacorum, with a primary focus on affordable starter homes
3. A higher proportion of the houses should be built on brownfield land, or established through conversions, in the existing urban areas of Hemel Hempstead, Tring, Berkhamsted and Kings Langley, and away from areas located in the Green Belt (which should only be used in exceptional circumstances) and the Chilterns AONB and its setting.
While not members of the alliance, the Chilterns Conservation Board and CPRE Hertfordshire are working closely as advisors to the One Voice alliance.”
Each member organisation of the alliance will respond individually to the public consultation, however, we are united to oppose the Local Plan during and after the consultation.
We are very concerned by the robustness of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Sustainable Transport Strategy for Tring because these key documents appear to have been rushed in their development and propose solutions that will not work. Our reasons for this concern are as follows:
1. Due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, on-site observations have not been possible and have been replaced by desktop checks.
2. It was stated that it is not feasible or cost effective to address sustainable strategy issues identified because of the historic and physically constrained network of roads in Tring
3. It was stated that the locations of the 1,800 houses to the east of Tring will make it a significant challenge to encourage sustainable travel behaviour
4. The solution puts forward zero large-scale, expensive and complex infrastructure such as new road links and junctions, and major new public transport routes
5. If the Local Plan was proposing a 5% increase in houses, people and cars then we would be more accepting that changing behaviours by moving people out of their car and on to bicycles and walking was a reasonable strategy, however, with a 55% proposed increase in houses, people and cars I do not see how this will lead to anything other than gridlock in Tring
We believe the Local Plan should be redeveloped to deliver a 9% growth in housing in Dacorum and focused on brownfield sites and settlements where the infrastructure can support population growth.
However, if DBC won't halt the consultation and redevelop the local plan then would it be possible to extend the consultation by 10 weeks so the GFRA can commission a transport consultant to carry our an independent assessment of the robustness of the road infrastructure plans and the sustainable transport strategy?
Councillor G Sutton response:Publishing a detailed emerging Infrastructure Delivery Plan to support a Regulation 18 consultation is not a legal requirement but the Council felt it important to publish this work to provide as much information for residents as possible to inform representations.
The IDP was produced following extensive consultation with key organisations, including the County Council and utility providers. Through this work the Council has identified £76m of new infrastructure for Tring to support growth, including new schools, open spaces and transport.
Although the consultation ends on the 28th February (following 13 weeks) the GRFA are at liberty to produce any further technical work it feels necessary to support its case and to submit this to the Council for consideration.
The IDP is only an emerging document and the Council will continue to develop this as the Local Plan develops.
The Government has made it clear that local authorities should follow the standard methodology for housing when preparing their Local Plans, and on that basis the growth levels contained in the draft Plan are based on this approach.
Question 2 from Graham Bright to Councillor G Sutton:
On the question of the £76m identified for new infrastructure, I saw that in the report and welcome that but my only concern about that is that it represents not what it would cost to implement the infrastructure but rather what is being made available from developers towards the infrastructure which are two different things. Can Councillor Sutton confirm that is the case?
Response from Councillor G Sutton: I will come back to you on that so I can confirm the correct breakdown with the responsible officers.