Agenda item

Decision

RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND

That the Two Waters Masterplan Guidance (as set out Appendix 1 of the report to Cabinet) be adopted as a Planning Statement until the new Dacorum Borough Local Plan is in place when it will be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document.

Reason for decision

To review the Two Waters Masterplan Guidance and recommend to put forward the document for adoption by Council as a Planning Statement

Corporate objectives

Affordable Housing

The Two Waters Masterplan Guidance will help deliver affordable housing through development and sets out guidance for its delivery in accordance with DBC’s Core Strategy policy CS19.

Building Community Capacity

The Vision for the Two Waters Masterplan Guidance centres on creating a sustainable community balancing national pressures for delivering housing and development with local needs and sets out guidance for developers and potential developers to regenerate the area and develop in a manner that builds local community capacity.

Delivering an Efficient and Modern Council

The Vision for Two Waters Masterplan Guidance sets out to deliver development that is modern and efficient for the enjoyment of those living and working in the Borough which will be enabled through the guidance provided for development coming forward in the area.

Ensuring Economic Growth and Prosperity

The Two Waters Masterplan Guidance sets out a Vision, Objectives and Guidance to steer development that ensures economic growth and prosperity through high quality mixed use development around transport hubs and in close proximity to the town centre, as well as the provision of improved infrastructure including transport. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and/or S106 contributions will enable the provision of improved infrastructure and community facilities that facilitates economic growth and prosperity.

A Safe, Clean and Enjoyable Environment

The Two Waters Masterplan Guidance sets out a framework for the delivery of a safe, clean and enjoyable environment.

Monitoring Officer/S.151 Officer comments

Monitoring Officer:  

The Masterplan will provide a framework which can be used to guide development in the area.  It should enable a more consistent approach to decision making and thus avoid unnecessary appeals and legal challenges.

S.151 Officer:

No further comments to add.

Advice

Cllr Sutton introduced the report, which had been presented to Cabinet previously and the comments gathered have now been taken into consideration and incorporated into this report.

Cllr Sutton handed over to J Doe to provide an overview of the report.  J Doe reminded Members that this covers an extensive area of the town, it covers 124 hectares of land, roughly in a triangle between the Plough roundabout and the two train stations, at Boxmoor and at Apsley.  The work goes back to late 2015 when the masterplan started to be drafted and in that time there have been a number of public engagements, including facilitated workshops, exhibitions and a general public consultation last year.   DBC looked at a number of different scenarios for development within the area. 

At the heart of the masterplan are 4 key sites, the first around the station and associated commercial property.  The second is based around London Road; around the traffic light junction around the area where Aldi and the light industrial units are.  Area three is the small piece of land just opposite the traffic lights on Boxmoor Trust land.  There are a collection of sites making up site four at Two Waters Road, incorporating the Magic Carwash down to Sunnyside Nursery, including the car dealerships and other land adjacent.

The consultation was extensive and raised a number of concerns from residents, which summarised, fall into concerns around; building heights, schooling provision and the future of the Sunnyside Rural Trust site and issues around traffic buildup and air quality.

The building heights have been reviewed along with our consultants, looking at the viability advice and there has been a clear case to review the heights, particularly around the station sites.  Members may recall that parts of that site were indicated for development to 8 storeys, and have been reduced to 6 in certain locations.

In terms of the school and the Sunnyside Rural Trust; suitable location for the school has not been identified, due to Council concerns over appropriateness and the issues for Hertfordshire County Council in finding an appropriate site to locate a school.  This will therefore need to be resolved as the plan progresses; looking for opportunities over the coming months and years. 

Members will note that many of the concerns were expressed that the Sunnyside Rural Trust would be removed from the area, but that is not the case, the site is there for a potential option for re-location, but as Members will know, the Council owns that site and will take a decision about what will happen to that site, so hopefully we have been able to cover off those concerns quite effectively.

Traffic – there is a traffic analysis and the developments will have a traffic impact, which will have to be assessed in detail as applications come forward.  Key thing is that the majority of the area is in private hands.  It will depend on those land owners to bring forward proposals in due course. DBC own a couple of sites (Magic Carwash & Sunnyside site).

The critical point is, this is an area in need of regeneration and whether we have a plan or not, development pressures will come to the Council, so from an officer perspective w the best option to recommend to members is that you have a plan with which to steer those pressures as they come forward. The recommendation is that members accept the revised Masterplan which is set out in the report, and that it goes forward to Full Council for final approval. 

The report went to SPAR Overview & Scrutiny Committee in October, there were some concerns raised which are referred to in the report, Cllr Anderson as the Chairman of that Overview & Scrutiny Committee addressed the Cabinet.

Cllr Anderson thanked the Chair and stated that in general there is no issue with the fact that we have got to have a plan; what the purpose of the plan is; and what we are trying to achieve with it.  But, speaking on behalf of the committee, they did have quite a few concerns, some of which were paraphrased in the referral. However some were actually said at the meeting and not included in the referral though J Doe and Cllr Sutton were both at the meeting and would have picked up these concerns.  He was not convinced that the revised draft, under consideration at this meeting, really covered the issues.  He referred to the report and what concerned him was trying to ‘park’ to one side, transport as an issue, and saying it will be picked up at the application stage, which in his opinion is too late. He added that we have a very serious problem with traffic and highways in Apsley, as the Southern gateway to Hemel Hempstead.  The road cannot be extended or widened: it is the only means of access to and from the town, through a substantial community to the south of the town; who don’t have access to public transport; and that is what has led to the situation of the road being very heavily congested at all times of day.  His concern is that further development would actually exacerbate that problem, no matter how hard one tries to restrict car ownership and usage.  Regarding the concerns over air quality: we have two out of the three air quality problem locations in the Borough in this triangle, again, his committee was concerned that the issue hadn’t really been covered adequately in the proposed plan.  Finally, as a personal comment, through participation in previous local planning enquiries, in his experience Local Plan Inspectors have agreed that site 3, on the corner of the traffic lights at Two Waters, was a key green gateway entrance to the town and he personally would have a very serious problem with development occurring on that land.  He went on, development of this site is unrealistic and it is not deliverable, which is one of the key indicators we are supposed to be looking at, because it’s against Boxmoor Trust’s charter.  He personally has a specific issue with developing that site, however he was there primarily on behalf of the committee and the concerns the committee had.

Cllr Birnie absolutely concurred with Cllr Anderson regarding transport and his other views.  He pointed out that, in para 5.2 on Page 21, there is a statement that there will be consultation with Herts County Council on the Growth and Transport Plan.  He enquired, when?  Since it so radically affects all the planning decisions that DBC make; particularly in this area where it is so crucial; and as an ordinary member of the Council, he would like to be a part of whatever consultation takes place, preferably before we have to decide any more major issues or planning applications in this particular area.

J Doe advised that we are not able to give an answer on that as the County Council do not have a programme at the moment.  Work on the Growth & Transport Plan has actually stalled at the current time and they have had to rethink it as it covers a wider area; Watford & St Albans as well as Dacorum; and it has been impacted by the recent decision not to fund the Metropolitan Line extension.  They are committed to doing a new Growth and Transport Plan, we just have to wait for the new timetable.

The Chair confirmed there was quite a lot in the transport plan about the Metropolitan Line extension that went to the board for consideration last Thursday afternoon. It is very detailed and quite clear from their perspective that it is never going to happen and they are already talking about reallocating the funding towards other schemes (that might have had funding taken away from them to fund the extension, so, in their view, the County should be re-writing that transport assessment on the basis that it will not go ahead. This makes a good deal of difference as it has impacted the viability of other developments.

Cllr Marshall advised that she has a number of different unrelated comments concerning the Plan. She recalled that at the October scrutiny committee every member, bar one, was very vocal about their concerns on the impact of traffic and issues arising from that the availability of parking.  It is very difficult to specify what should be done in this sort of document, but she confirmed what Cllr Anderson has said about the strength of feeling of that scrutiny committee.  She drew attention to Page 66, developing sustainable travel plans, and the fact that individual developments will be required to deliver sustainable travel plans: She hoped that travel plans will be required as part of the planning process.  She hoped that there is an expectation that these travel plans will be required for nearly all of the planning applications.  She drew attention to the bottom of Page 326 where there was a comment about the bridge widening on Durrants Hill Road, showing the wrong bridge. In the actual Masterplan she cannot see the Durrants Hill Road at all as the plan doesn’t go that far.

She requested clarity on the number of bridges alluded to in page 75, 78, 81 of the Plan, is that a total of 2 bridges? The Chair asked, if one of the bridges is the one on Two Waters Road, by B&Q?  Cllr Marshall advised that page 75 refers to the bridge on Station Road.

J Doe confirmed that Station Road suggestions are more about improving access for pedestrians and cyclists and getting off the highway onto the towpath, it is difficult to navigate at the moment.

Cllr Marshall drew attention to the bottom of page 281 and 282, and read out the comment ‘tall buildings at gateway locations could create a fortress appearance to the town, rather than a taller block there should be more creativity in the structure design’.  She appreciated that in some locations it is appropriate to have taller blocks, but her concern is the point regarding the fortress appearance. What is the position of the Council if, say, five different applications come in from five different developers or sites and they are all proposing tall blocks, which if all were built would create the fortress appearance.  Would the Council have a legitimate ground to refuse such a tall block on the 4^th or 5^th application on the basis of the collective mass of those tall blocks giving the fortress appearance? J Doe confirmed that the Council would have ground to refuse. He added that part of having the Masterplan is to try and get the development of sites combined so that you can design areas as a whole, perhaps permitting a focal point for development and then lower concentrations in other areas.  The council could proceed as Cllr Marshall is indicating as it will have a design analysis in each case.

Cllr Elliott commented that one of the main things that concerns residents in the area is parking.  With new developments, can we impose a minimum parking spaces per flat or bedroom?  J Doe responded that we can make those requirements.  Our existing plan incorporates a parking standard.  There is a separate review on this which will be going to SPAR Overview & Scrutiny Committee, so there will be a fresh set of parking standards across Dacorum.  In terms of this development, the brief that has been given to consultants around viability is to assume at least a 1:1 parking provision basis; any 1 unit would have at least 1 parking space.  Cllr Birnie commented that his understanding is that our current parking standards were maximum standards? J Doe responded that he is correct: that was the policy of the previous government, however current government policy has changed so they wouldn’t necessary be applicable now as they are not supported by national policy so DBC have flexibility to make them minimum standards.

Cllr Harden commented that he was grateful for the consultation on this, especially the concerns from local residents on heights of buildings.  He put an opposing view that the taller we make them, the more green space we can save, but he appreciated that you have taken the concerns of residents on board and put in a reduced height.  Cllr Harden asked if a record is kept of the postcodes of those people that have been consulted?  S Jayasinghe advised that if consultees provided postcodes then we still hold the information, but for example, at the workshop where consultees registered by email, that information has not been captured. 

Cllr Sutton commented that this is a very important area within our local plan; he accept it is a restricted area and that there are some difficulties but it could be an area of exciting developments given the will and with guidance from J Doe’s team.  He suggested that Cabinet accept the recommendation leading to a good gateway from the West into the town.  He is aware that we have issues such as transport, air quality and parking, but let’s move forward with this and turn the area into something we can be proud of.

Cllr Tindall advised that like Cllr Birnie he is concerned regarding parking and asked, assuming that if this becomes a plan and the Council agree it, does it means that whatever parking limits we have set out for each of the sites, the developers must then adhere to them?  Is it the fact that we have got the parking standards and minimums in a masterplan?

J Doe clarified that parking standards are set out elsewhere, but we are able to ask for a level of parking at application. 

The Chair commented that in terms of consultation, our expectations of the number of homes that can be provided in that area have gone down by approx. 700 having listened to the concerns residents had about high buildings etc. 

In terms of transport, there is always going to be congestion on the network.  With regard to air quality, in the longer term this will be dealt with in changing the types of vehicles we drive and that won’t be an immediate change, it will take a generation to change such air quality issues.  The issue around parking: there appears to be some misunderstanding about what we were saying about our policy.  At the moment we do apply our maximum policy and in his  opinion we are too soft in our resolve to stick to that standard and give in to lower numbers too easily.  This masterplan will not alter that, but in terms of taking forward our local plan we need to be more robust about our parking standards.  Not being able to park anywhere near your home causes great frustration.  We should also be flagging up, where development takes place in areas we already have issues, we should take those issues into account when we are developing the area.  If we apply a universal standard across the piece we could be potentially adding to those issues and growing frustration with residents by not tackling the issue, we need to be robust when forward planning.

The Chair asked if Members were happy to support the document.  Members agreed and recommended the Plan to Council for adoption.

Voting

None.