Agenda item

1.    Cabinet approved the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area Conservation (SAC) Mitigation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Bunkers Park and Chipperfield Common SANG Management Plans (Appendix C) and delegates authority to the Strategic Director (Place), in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Place to keep the approved documents under review and amend as required to ensure compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended)

2.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Strategic Director (Place), in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Place, to agree and complete any further governance documents between the partner authorities to facilitate the effective implementation and administration of the Mitigation Strategy and Management Plans referred to in recommendation 1 above.

Decision

1.    Cabinet approved the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area Conservation (SAC) Mitigation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Bunkers Park and Chipperfield Common SANG Management Plans (Appendix C) and delegates authority to the Strategic Director (Place), in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Place to keep the approved documents under review and amend as required to ensure compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended)

2.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Strategic Director (Place), in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Place, to agree and complete any further governance documents between the partner authorities to facilitate the effective implementation and administration of the Mitigation Strategy and Management Plans referred to in recommendation 1 above.

Corporate Priorities

Building strong and vibrant communities; Ensuring economic growth and prosperity; Climate and ecological emergency.

Statutory Officer Comments

Monitoring Officer:

The Habitats Regulations are a mandatory consideration and compliance with them is a legal obligation. The Mitigation Strategy will become a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and will offer important guidance to applicants as to how their applications will be dealt with in accordance with the Regulations. The Strategy will help to assist both applicants and the Council and ensure fair and consistent decision making.

S151 Officer:

The direct financial impact of this strategy is considered limited in the short term, with the costs of implementing and administering this strategy funded through the tariffs proposed.

The role of the Council in regard to the SAMM’s tariff is to ensure that we collect these funds from developers and pass them onto the National Trust to ensure they can invest these funds to deliver the agreed mitigation strategy and outcomes. There is no financial impact on the Council as the SAMM tariff includes the Council officer time and cost of administering this process.

The role of the Council in regard to SANG is more complex. The tariff that has been set, in relation to the Council’s SANG sites at Bunkers, Chipperfield and Gadebridge, is based on the projected costs of developing and maintaining these sites going forward, to give the Council the option to provide essential alternative areas of natural green space to facilitate new housing developments in these geographical areas.

The SANG tariff has been developed collectively across the Council, with a significant amount of horizon scanning resulting in a large volume of assumptions. At the present time, these assumptions are considered prudent but, as with any long term 80 year investment projection, there is a risk that costs could change in the medium to longer term.

The SAMMS and SANG tariffs will be collected from developers in line with the agreed strategy and utilising existing approved processes utilised for S106 and CIL collection. These are considered robust.

Advice

Cllr Anderson introduced the report and asked colleagues to ensure they have seen the amendments to the recommendations (Cllr Anderson read out the revised recommendations for clarity).

Cllr Anderson went on to advise that after 8 months of considerable effort, the Council has produced this comprehensive strategy to allow us to remove the moratorium from areas including Hemel Hempstead.  It has been a very complex issue without any clear answers or previous precedents.  It is a fluid situation with minor issues still to be resolved.  What the Council has had to do is effectively set up another Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), to duplicate that on our own without any precedent and that is one of the reasons I want to pay tribute to the effort officers have put in to get us to the situation we are in now, they have had to stop other work streams to complete this.  Cllr Anderson gave praise Alex Robinson, Ronan Leydon and the rest of the team for the work they have put in to get us to this point. 

Cllr Anderson advised he wished to address some criticisms that have bene made at scrutiny’; comment has been made that Ashridge is such a beautiful location, how can we want to take people away from that.  The purpose of this is not to take everyone away, or attempt to, but to reduce the pressure and reduce the damage that is occurring at that site. 

Cllr Anderson advised that in the last couple of days the Council has received a handful of criticisms about what is happening this evening.  He responded to this to advise that we are happy that our proposal satisfies our legal requirements.  SANG tariff legal advice has been followed relating to bedrooms and dwellings and we are happy we are taking the most sustainable approach.  There isn’t a right or wrong and we have done the best we can do. 

Cllr Anderson also referred to the following complaints or comments that have been raised;

·         In respect of the complaints raised about not working with other Councils, we have worked tirelessly with other Councils as a partner approach. 

·         In respect of the criticism that this is not an SPD; the guidance doesn’t say we have to do an SPD. 

·         In terms of complaint presented this evening regarding proportionality; all through this process we have received advice from Natural England about what is proportional and we have to follow that advice. 

·         With regard footfall, again we have followed guidance and in terms of consultation we have gone to lengths to work with Central Beds and we hope to keep those discussions going.

·         In respect of complaints from Chipperfield about designation of Chipperfield Commons as a site for alternate green space, Cllr Anderson addressed the need to correct the misconceptions, suggesting that there appears to be a feeling that a large amount of housing is coming to Chipperfield, which is not the case.  Or that tens of thousands of people will descend all at once; that is not what this proposed mitigation strategy would cause, it would not be all at once and not that many people, it is to effectively do what we can to address the imbalances at the moments.

·         Finally the detailed complaint from Kings Langley regarding the amount of detail in the strategy; we have had the most advice we can.

·         Viability; Cllr Anderson advised that from the start this was a concern of his, about further load on developers but he advised he has now realised that when one compares with the other cost increases in the industry, this is very minor by comparison and we just cannot avoid it.

·         There has also been a political complaint we shouldn’t have embarked on the Local Plan process until this was addressed; but it was only by following the Local Plan process that this problem emerged, it was only by following the process that we are doing the best that anyone can do to resolve it. 

Cllr Anderson stressed it is crucial the Council does what it can to minimise footfall on Ashridge Estate as much as we can, that is what we are proposing.

ARobinson added that it is a central issue for Local Authority is it needs to satisfy obligations under habitat, set out how Council will do this through combination of SANG and SAMM tariffs.

Cllr Barrett referred to Chipperfield Common and the phased works and asked; over what period they would be phased?  Also asking for an assurance that the Parish Council would be involved in the phasing of those works along with other local stakeholders?

ARobinson advised the management of common would last for 80 years, those activities will be phased over that period of time.  He offered assurance that the Council will continue to work closely with Parish Council on the habitat plan.  Many of the interventions outlined are supported by Parish Council, particularly improvements to parks and increases in benches.

Cllr Barrett commented that a lot of the improvements would be welcomed and are long overdue.

Cllr Banks noted the National Trust measures they are looking to introduce to improve quality of Ashridge Park and asked; are similar actions being taken by Ashridge House who have a high footfall to their house.  Where National Trust are trying to drive down footfall, Ashridge House are not, we do not want to move pressures from one part to another.

ARobinson advised there will be an ongoing dialogue with key land owners in area and that will be kept under review.  The technical point is that the house itself is outside of SSE boundary and the intervention will be inside that boundary, but we will not ignore the proximity of the house to that site.  The mitigation strategy will be reviewed at least every 3 years and if there is a cause to make changes we have the opportunity to do that.

Cllr Barrett referred to the SANG, specifically 7.19 hierarchy of priority of use, where 1 is affordable housing and 2 is up to 9 dwellings, asking;  how much of that capacity do you think will be used up by those first two?

ARobinson responded that the purpose of that is to manage what will be a finite supply, the two sites have a limited supply.  We need to manage that supply for as long as we can.  It  was felt that focusing on affordable housing and 9 dwellings or fewer; looking to provide as much allocation to those dwellings where we feel it will be more difficult to provide a solution – they will find it difficult to bring forward SANG on their own so it is important to give them priority if they wish to use our SANG.  We will need to monitor closely and keep under review and look at the next round of SANG sites coming forward. 

Cllr Williams referred to numbers quoted in terms of capacity and confirmed that what we are talking about is releasing capacity for schemes that are in the current Local Plan, not the draft plan.  These are sites that have not been able to come forward due to the need for mitigation strategy.  We are not releasing sites for another 1600 homes that had not previously been spoken about; releasing sites that had not been able to move forward.

ARobinson confirmed these numbers relate to developments currently in the system that have not been able to get planning permission due to the current situation.

Recommendations agreed as amended.