Agenda item

This report provides an overview of the draft 2025 Settlement Appraisal (Appendix 1) prepared to assist with the formulation of the Local Plan.  The report and draft Settlement Appraisal are only for noting at this stage as further work is required to be undertaken.

Recommendation:

That the Local Plan Sub-Committee notes the report and the draft findings of the Settlement Appraisal document.

The Sub-Committee received a report which provided an overview of the draft 2025 Settlement Appraisal which had been prepared to assist in the formulation of the Local Plan.

The report was presented for noting at this stage, and Members were invited to submit any further comments or proposed corrections to officers separately in writing.

The Principal Planning Policy Consultant introduced the report, highlighting that a settlement appraisal had last been undertaken in 2010.  Changes in the 2025 appraisal had included adding the hierarchy and revising the terminology in relation to the new NPPF to provide clarity for decision making in terms of the naming of settlement types. 

The Principal Planning Policy Consultant outlined the methodology which had been used in scoring the sustainability assessments according to the criteria of facilities, railway services, bus services and road infrastructure.  The most sustainable locations had been identified as Rickmansworth, Chorleywood, South Oxhey, Croxley Green, Leavesden and Garston.  However, it was highlighted that the document was a work in progress and currently draft, and that scoring or thresholds for categories may be subject to change.  There may also be a need to change some settlement boundaries.  Additionally, only settlements as far down as considered to be Service Centres (Tier 3) had been assessed so far.  All other settlements with 100 residents and above would be assessed in the near future.  It was noted that the appraisal provided a high level overview of the sustainability of settlements in order to assist strategic planning: individual site assessments would consider the sustainability of individual development locations.

The Principal Planning Policy Consultant responded to questions and provided clarifications.  Points raised in the debate included the following:

·         Distance measurements were taken from the geographical centre and this may not be the same as what residents would consider to be the ‘centre’ in terms of where services were located.  It was also measured by road, not ‘as the crow flies’.

·         A Committee Member commented that there was some inconsistency in the approach taken where schools were located in a neighbouring authority.  This may also apply to some other services such as convenience stores. 

·         A Committee Member commented that it would be helpful to include some detail on how the settlement boundaries were defined.

·         A Committee Member questioned the approach of treating all types of sports facilities in the same way because the amenity they provided could be very different (for example, a leisure centre might carry a greater weighting than a single tennis court).

·         It was suggested that access to accident and emergency services might be added as a criteria for sustainability, as well as access to pubs and social clubs.

·         A Committee Member commented that whilst road infrastructure may be available in a settlement, there may also be constraints to sustainability arising from issues such as congestion.  Officers were asked to consider if there was another way to reflect accessibility to the road network, or to add supporting text to highlight issues.  It was noted that individual site assessments would provide further detail on road accessibility.

·         A Committee Member questioned why Northwood School was recorded as the secondary school for South Oxhey, given that The Grange Academy was closer and took more pupils from South Oxhey than Northwood. 

·         A Committee Member questioned whether cycle paths and footpaths should be included, and officers responded that work was already underway with a view to including these.

·         A Committee Member suggested that it would be helpful to have greater transparency around how the geographical centres had been identified.

·         Notwithstanding that the appraisal was draft and not yet completed, it was noted that there were a number of areas where Members’ local knowledge could be helpful in identifying anomalies.  It was recommended that the draft document and maps with draft amended boundaries (Chorleywood and Leavesden and Garston so far) be circulated to all Members for comments / amendments / updates with a deadline for responses and a reminder that the document was draft and therefore not for publication or wider circulation.  It was also recommended that Members should be approached for any suggested changes to settlement boundary maps.

RESOLVED:

That the Local Plan Sub-Committee:

(i)      notes the draft Settlement Appraisal;

(ii)     requests that officers circulate the document to all Members and the Three Rivers Joint Residents’ Association with a covering note asking for comments, a link to the overlay map layers, and a deadline for receipt of comments.