Agenda item

1)     The post hearing letter of 1^st November 2016 from the Site Allocations Planning Inspector (enclosed as Annex A to the Cabinet report) be noted;

 

2)     The schedule of Main Modifications, associated changes to the Policies Map (set out in Annex B) and accompanying Sustainability Appraisal Update Report (Annex C) for consultation be agreed;

 

3)     Authority be delegated to the Assistant Director – Planning, Development and Regeneration (in consultation with the Planning and Regeneration Portfolio Holder) to make any necessary changes to the location of the changes within the Schedules in Annex B to the Cabinet report and renumber accordingly;  agree any additional minor modifications required as a result of the above and to ensure the text of the plan is up-do-date; and

 

4)     Confirm arrangements for public consultation on the Main Modifications as set out in the report to Cabinet.

 

Decision

 

1)     The post hearing letter of 1^st November 2016 from the Site Allocations Planning Inspector (enclosed as Annex A to the Cabinet report) be noted;

 

2)     The schedule of Main Modifications, associated changes to the Policies Map (set out in Annex B) and accompanying Sustainability Appraisal Update Report (Annex C) for consultation be agreed;

 

3)     Authority be delegated to the Assistant Director – Planning, Development and Regeneration (in consultation with the Planning and Regeneration Portfolio Holder) to make any necessary changes to the location of the changes within the Schedules in Annex B to the Cabinet report and renumber accordingly;  agree any additional minor modifications required as a result of the above and to ensure the text of the plan is up-do-date; and

 

4)     Confirm arrangements for public consultation on the Main Modifications as set out in the report to Cabinet.

 

Reason for Decision

 

To agree a series of Main Modifications and associated map changes to the submitted Site Allocations DPD for consultation, in order to ensure the plan can be found ‘sound’ following examination

 

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.

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.

 

Monitoring Officer/S.151 Officer Comments

 

Monitoring Officer

 

The proposed main and minor modifications to Site Allocations are required to ensure that the plan can be found “sound” for adoption by the Secretary of State and are therefore recommended for further consultation.

 

Deputy Section 151 Officer

There are no direct financial implications of the recommended decisions. The costs of managing the process will be managed within existing approved budgets.

 

Advice

 

The Leader of the Council invited Councillor Guest, Gruff Edwards on behalf of Dacorum Environmental Forum and Lee Royal on behalf of West Hemel Action Groupto make their statements.

 

Councillor Guest made the following statement:

 

Leader, Cabinet, although I and my fellow Chaulden and Warners End councillors John Whitman and Graeme Elliot voted against the release of the Local Allocations, including LA3 from the Green Belt, the decision was made. It was disappointing, but it’s going to happen. The next battle is to get the infrastructure right to get the best deal for local residents, the environment and the people who will live at LA3.

 

The highway infrastructure needs to be right and delivered at the right time. The new houses will need new roads to serve them. I understand that the Borough Council is liaising with the County Council. Can I have the officers’ word that this will continue so that residents can get to and from their own front doors? Our County Councillor Terry Douris successfully fought to prevent the cul-de-sacs in Chaulden being used for access to LA3, with the only accesses being off The Avenue and opposite the Chaulden Adventure Playground and an emergency access in Chaulden Lane. Will the officers liaise with the County Council to make sure that this happens?

 

A primary school is planned for the proposed development. Will the officers liaise with the County Council to make sure that this happens?

 

It has been said that the existing secondary schools can cope with increased numbers. Can the Borough Council liaise with the County Council to ensure that this is the case? If it turns out not to be, can the County Council provide a new secondary school.

 

GP provision is a concern. The Parkwood Drive practice doesn’t want a branch surgery at LA3. They want to expand on the existing site because of economies of scale and being able to offer more services. Another practice is not interested in setting up at LA3. A possibility would be for Parkwood Drive to move into a super surgery at LA3. Is the Borough Council liaising with Parkwood Drive and NHS England?

 

Green infrastructure has to be considered. The ideas of allotments and a community orchard have been suggested. Has a park been considered? A wildlife corridor has been proposed. Is it going to wide enough? The Council needs to work with a professional ecologist. Will there be a wildlife corridor going from Shrubhill Common to land on the other side of the development at LA3?

 

It is disappointing that the LA3 development is going to happen, but it’s going to happen. It is a blank canvas. Let’s use the right brush strokes to paint a picture, or to use a more appropriate metaphor, let’s build a model that gets the infrastructure right.

 

Lee Royal on behalf of West Hemel Action Groupmade the following statement:

 

The West Hemel Action Group (WHAG), wish to speak on behalf of the residents of West and wider Hemel in relation to the main modifications proposed by the Planning Inspector to the DBC Site Allocations as follows:

 

1. Delete the Gypsy and Traveller site at LA5; and

2. Move sites LA1 and LA3 forward from Part 2 of the Housing Schedule (delivery from 2021) to Part 1 (delivery at any time following adoption of the Site Allocations DPD), to ensure we have a 5 year supply of Gypsy and Traveller pitches. On behalf of the existing residents of West Hemel WHAG submits that:

 

Firstly the events that have driven such modifications fly in face of fairness & good sound planning within DBC. A position has been generated that is allowing developers to drive planning, i.e. the insistence of the planned developer for LA5 that they will not move ahead if they are asked to include a G&T site. This is very much a case of the "tail wagging the dog".

 

Secondly, we consider that allowing one element of DBC's overall plan & one of the most negative in the eyes the existing residents you serve, i.e. G&T site delivery, to drive the overall delivery, is far from what can be described as good planning practice.

 

Finally, we consider that earlier delivery of LA3, the largest of all the LAs (3) and therefore the biggest & most negatively impacting, when there are still a number of factors that require significantly more assessment and therefore more lead-in time, will lead to the worst of all outcomes for the existing and future residents of Hemel Hempstead.

 

We further submit that DBC should be considering the position and alternative location for the current planned LA3 G&T site, which, in every possible way, is clearly planned for a completely inappropriate position. Given the fact that the current location has to no positive factors associated with it and has simply been chosen to provide the best outcome for the developers of LA3 and an easy option in terms of planning for DBC, as opposed to thinking of the existing residents of West Hemel, i.e. those residents that you are here to work for, this may help to alleviate some of the negative impacts of LA3 and deliver a more positive outcome alongside considering other negatively impacting factors for LA3.

This is now compounded further by the fact that we now understand that DBC will not even take ownership and responsibility for any completed G&T site, therefore on the face of it, it is a case of build something that the majority of your voting public do not want, and then step away from any responsibility.

 

Gruff Edwards on behalf of Dacorum Environmental Forum made the following statement:

 

At the Examination in Public in October I made representations on behalf of the Dacorum Environmental Forum. Amongst the Inspector's questions sent out with the agenda for Matter 9 (LA3) was the one the Cabinet are now considering, which is: "Should the site come forward prior to 2021 if it is available?"

 

Our representation was that it should not come forward, since LA3 had obvious and exceptional environmental disadvantages, which I have summarised in a recent E-mail to some Councillors. Another Agenda question was "Should the policy reflect the developer of the site will only be required to carry out upgrading of the drainage infrastructure directly related to the site?"

 

Our representation on this question pointed out that about 30% of the area of LA3 drains into the western branch of the dry valley that forms Shrubhill Common, which is a Local Nature Reserve. Thus any reduction of water feeding into the valley could well have a detrimental impact on the ecosystem which is currently established there.

We asked for the DPD to include a commitment that as a result of LA3 there would be no significant reduction in water draining towards the Reserve.

 

In response to this the speaker for Vincent Gorbing, representing the developers, said that the Water issue generally was "a very challenging matter" and a "fundamental constraint - er - matter", but that his clients were not "shirking their responsibility."

 

Is the Cabinet confident that the developers of the site will have enough time to address this "very challenging matter" adequately if the scheme is brought forward as proposed, and if so on what is this confidence based?

 

Questions and Answers

 

Councillor Williams said that we were in this position in response to the planning inspectorates report. He disagreed with the quote that it was the tail wagging the dog. He explained that if the site had been accepted in Tring, the council would not be in this position and they needed to listen to the inspectorate. The council needed to demonstrate that they are providing gypsy and traveller sites. If we don’t, then someone else will provide it.

The council’s role was as a planning authority and not to manage the sites, this was not to be mistaken for the council walking away from its responsibility.

 

J Doe responded to the points raised as follows:

 

·       DBC are liaising with Herts Highways and will continue to as we move through each phase of the development

·       The council have not changed their position with regards to accessing the site, there will remain to be 2 main principle access points

·        Work is underway with the local education authority to ensure primary school provision is provided

·       GP provision – the policy sets out clearly that there is to be healthcare provision at the site. NHS England and local healthcare professionals have been consulted with

·       The Masterplan was making significant provision for green and open space and areas such as parks are still being considered

·       A pre-application would be submitted from the developer soon and this would be publicised

·       The needs of the local community needed to be assessed, but the housing need of gypsy and traveller sites needed to be addressed. 5 year provision for such sites needs to be maintained as the scheme requires

·       Technical studies to support the planning application will be carried out

·       If the recommendations are agreed then a consultation period will follow which anyone can contribute to

·       The site would not be developed until 2021 – the housing need was pressing and a case for early delivery should not happen before 2021

·       A flooding and drainage assessment has already been done and the planning application would address it

 

Councillor Elliot fully supported Councillor Guest’s comments. He too was the relevant ward councillor and noted that their stand was already on record as voting against LA5. However as it was going ahead they must now therefore mitigate the impact. He asked if the gypsy and traveller site did not go ahead, would that increase the number of sites in LA3.

J Doe said this would not be the case and the allocated provision for LA1 and LA3 would remain the same. The council had committed to an early review of the plan which could address any concerns.

 

Councillor Elliot asked if gypsy and travellers would purchase pitches at commercial land price.

L Wood explained that land would be offered to market for gypsy and traveller pitches and therefore sites could be purchased. There would be a variety of mechanisms available.

 

Councillor Elliot asked what would happen if there were no bids for that site by travellers.

J Doe said if there were no bids received in a set amount of time then it could be revisited. He added that the local plan review would assess the needs of gypsy and traveller sites and look to the provision for the future.

 

Councillor Elliot referred to the two access roads and asked if the travellers could also access the site via Chaulden Lane.

J Doe said that the site was chosen due to the two access roads and will look into that part of the plan.

 

Councillor Harden asked how this site would have an impact on the surrounding roads and the number of potential developments. He felt that HCC should look at the overall impacts on the local traffic. He said it was interesting that HCC had reduced their responsibility for the gypsy & traveller sites at a time where the requirement for them had increased due to national legislation. He also noted that gypsy & travellers were the only group not being encouraged to integrate into the community.

 

Councillor Griffiths asked if there was a limit as to the length of time they can stay on one site.

J Doe said there were no restrictions and anyone occupying the site can do so for any length of time.

 

Councillor Marshall sympathised with the speakers and felt that the council needed to be vigilant in order to help reduce the impact. She said that the council could not ignore the advice of the planning inspectorate, if we did not comply then the whole site allocations would be put at risk. She appreciated the concerns raised but reluctantly agreed the recommendations and felt the council should go to public consultation immediately.

 

Councillor Sutton fully supported and appreciated the passion from the speakers and fellow councillors. He assured everyone that he was confident in the teams to be able to manage the process with consideration of the local communities. He felt that there was a very strong member led planning process which would enable this to be monitored in the future.

 

Councillor Griffiths said it was with a heavy heart that she would be agreeing the recommendations as she would be personally affected. She felt that there was a greater need for housing in this area which was getting higher and therefore this needs to be done in a managed way. She was concerned that if the council did not go ahead with this site, then developers could apply all over the borough and therefore it’s preferable that it’s contained to one area.

 

Councillor Williams explained that the council had to find a required number of housing provisions. He disagreed with Councillor Guest’s comment that we were starting with a blank canvass, as he believed the site needed to integrate into the existing community. He said there would never be a ‘good’ site and therefore he felt the council needed to minimise the impact on the existing residents by locating them near new developments.

He said that gypsy and travellers is a lifestyle choice and the council were required to provide for that, and if we didn’t, someone else would.

This was not a new scenario for Dacorum and had been discussing new development sites across the borough and that was the history of a developing town. DBC had to plan for this as the responsible local authority. He therefore supported the recommendations.

 

The committee voted on the recommendations set out in the report.

 

Voting

 

For: 5

Abstain: 1 (Councillor Elliot abstained and requested that this was recorded)