Agenda item

J Doe introduced the item to members and said the purpose of the report was to report back on the results of the public consultation.

-       Regeneration work in the town started a few years ago mainly in the town centre. The north side of the town centre from the Civic Centre and onwards is next to be regenerated.

-       Two Waters is an area with sites that could help meet the housing need in the borough.

-       Previously, workshops were held for residents alongside facilitators and consultants to gain residents view on what type of regeneration they would like to see and this has influenced the current version of the draft masterplan guidance.

-       The draft masterplan guidance went out for consultation and it gained a mixture of support and opposition but it is hoped that the guidance will help steer and guide changes that will happen anyway for the better.

-       The masterplan guidance will be used as a Planning Statement for material consideration when assessing planning applications and will also help inform the new Local Plan. It is expected to be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) once the new Local Plan is adopted.

-       Two Waters is a triangular area, including the area between the Plough roundabout and Hemel Hempstead and Apsley rail stations. It is hoped the vision for Two Waters will bring new residential led mixed use development and lift the environmental quality of the area and open up natural resources like the canal and the moor.

-       Part of the plan is to encourage additional improvements to infrastructure like the car park and transport interchange at Hemel Hempstead train station. The council doesn’t own this land but the masterplan creates a framework to respect the design of the local area as development comes forward.

-       There seemed to be a misunderstanding regarding site 4 and people thought that Sunnyside Rural Trust would be lost. The masterplan sets out land for development if and when it becomes available. The Council is committed to maintaining the facility and this has been reiterated in DBC’s response.  The council do own this site so they can take control of its future.

-       Next steps: Further studies will be needed. Planning applications have started to come forward and they will need to undertake their own detailed studies through the planning application process.

Councillor Birnie referred to J Doe’s point about environmental quality. He said there was no mention that Apsley has failed to meet air pollution targets and further development will surely only increase this. Secondly, he said he was appalled to hear that the proposals are for eight storey buildings around the station especially when the vast weight of public opinion was against this.

J Doe said they are not ignoring the consultation outcomes but this is not a rigid plan for the area. Future planning applications will have to be of a sensitive and careful design. The points about overlooking can be addressed once an application has been submitted. The proposal isn’t to cover the whole site in eight storey buildings but it is about finding the most suitable location for it. The size of the building is necessary to generate sufficient investment to fund the infrastructure improvements required including to the train station site. Sites also need to be viable. It is a hard decision to make but government policy points to development around commuter hubs. With regards to air quality, there is a monitor on Apsley High Street and this will need to be monitored in the future.

Councillor Birnie said the Beacon development would mean more traffic. The bridge at Durrants Hill will need to be widened to accommodate this increase.

Councillor Anderson said this was a common theme at the workshops he had attended.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe was concerned when looking at the pie charts in the report. Most of responses were concerned about building height in three of the proposed sites. She said people might be more accepting of the masterplan if there was less emphasis on tall buildings and the views given in the consultation should not be ignored. There is a huge weight of opinion against what is proposed and the public clearly do not see this as an improvement. Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe was also concerned about infrastructure and the council is letting down its residents if they do not listen to their views. Traffic is a serious issue in Apsley and the bridge at Durrants Hill is a bottleneck, of which there are several across the borough. People accept the need for additional housing but there is also a great need for infrastructure. This needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

J Doe said he agreed with the comments about infrastructure. Hertfordshire County Council are preparing plans for transport improvements and growth. The CIL contributions from developments will not cover all needs. He accepted that building heights were an issue but these can be designed to look attractive.

Councillor Hicks said he agreed with Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe’s comments. He said he could not believe that this all new development would not need a new primary and secondary school. He asked if HCC had justified this and is this future proof?

N Bateman said there is a need for primary school places but within the plan, there is no logical place to put a primary school. The council is working with HCC to resolve this matter.

Councillor Timmis referred to the station improvements. She said the car park was owned by the train operator, not the council. Will they be paying for the car park improvements? Secondly, there is a shortage of water in the area so is there enough water to meet the needs of these new developments?

J Doe said he was not aware of any issues regarding water supply in this area. HCC are currently undertaking a study with the water companies. He also didn’t think that any of the proposed development sites were within flood risk areas.

N Bateman said all buildings would be designed to be resilient to flooding.

J Doe said the car park was managed by the train operator and the council are not funding it. The masterplan is creating conditions to allow Network Rail to bring forward improvements. The current car park is over subscribed and it’s necessary to double the spaces.

Councillor Riddick said he supported all the comments from his colleagues. He was disappointed that the masterplan consultation document seemed watered down using words such as ‘some’ and ‘few’. He said he was against the scale of the proposed developments with no plans to improve the infrastructure. Apsley is already gridlocked and the LA3 development will push traffic towards the train station. The station has been changed and cars now cannot get into the forecourt to pick passengers up so the traffic backs up down London Road and all the way to the Plough roundabout. A scheme on London Road was recently refused and dismissed on appeal and that was just three storeys, the large towers proposed are ridiculous. If the government are pushing to get people to use public transport then planning applications must come with no parking provision on site and then the residents would have to rely on public transport.

Councillor Matthews was also disappointed by the loose language used in the report, it was unacceptable and was frustrated at having to keep referring back to the pie charts to find the percentages of each response. Major road improvements will be needed to accommodate all this extra development.

J Doe said 293 people responded to the consultation which isn’t substantial when the area has thousands of residents. Section four of the report sets out the precise percentages. He said he disagreed with Councillor Riddick’s comment that everybody was opposed to the masterplan. Transport is covered in the documents online and certain junction improvements are set out.

Councillor Barrett asked why only two stakeholders had been consulted. How can the viability of the masterplan be assessed?

N Bateman clarified with Councillor Barrett that he meant developers when he mentioned stakeholders and said these two stakeholders were the ones the council were aware of. The department has worked with planning and throughout the consultation, land owners have been spoken to. It is unclear when some of the identified sites will become available for development but land owners have been engaged in the process.

Councillor Anderson referred to site 1 in the masterplan. Given the council had already permitted a large tower block outside the Central Business District, what hope was there in being able to prevent a large tower block on this site or elsewhere.

J Doe said it was for this reason that the masterplan was needed. The masterplan would allow the council to set out where maximum heights should occur.

Councillor Anderson was grateful that he and the Vice Chair were invited to the various residents workshops in relation the masterplan. The public reaction was pretty clear, and it was clear that they felt their concerns were not being listened to. Traffic issues are a main concern, and Apsley High Street is already a disaster because so many people who do not have access to public transport have to use it to gain access to/from Hemel Hempstead.  Moreover, this is a mature road network with little or no scope for improvements due to the amount of development on the road sides.

Site 3 was removed from a previous Local Plan because far from being a waste of land, the Inspector had agreed with Councillor Anderson that it was an important green gateway to the town.  But, there wasn't any problem at all with the redevelopment of the dilapidated works yard in the northern part of the site, and so a way forward could be to split the site in two. Councillor Anderson had been in touch with the landowner the Boxmoor Trust, which expressed doubt over whether the organisation's charter would permit any development of the moor, so there is also a problem with deliverability.

Councillor Matthews said there were no suggestions in the report for improving connectivity and broadband in the area.

J Doe said this was an important issue and recognised this was part of the infrastructure improvements. Obviously, this was demand led.

Councillor Anderson hoped that the implementation of fibre broadband would be included in any infrastructure improvements, as one would not think it but a significant part of the Kings Langley ward was served by a telecoms cabinet in Apsley, which currently is not due for any upgrade.

Councillor Hicks questioned the statement in the masterplan for a modal shift in sustainable transport. He said in Milton Keynes, there are paths in between the roads. However, Apsley is gridlocked, there is no way extra buses can be put on and there is no room for cycle lanes.

J Doe said Apsley was well served by public transport compared to other areas in the borough.

Councillor Birnie said the area has two train stations and buses from Apsley to the Town Centre but there was no public transport through the high street. This consultation has a small number of responses but previous consultations produced concerns over buildings heights.

Outcome

In view of the unanimous comments made by the committee, Councillor Anderson wondered if a referral to the Cabinet was appropriate, and this was agreed.

It was proposed, seconded and agreed that:The Strategic Planning and Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee has grave reservations about the Two Waters & Apsley Masterplan as proposed. The main concerns are the public responses and the lack of infrastructure. The pressures the council and planning department are under are acknowledged, but the committee believes there are serious problems with what is being proposed.