Agenda item

This report and appendices set out the officer recommended sites to be included in the Regulation 19 Publication of the Local Plan.

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Local Plan Sub Committee:

 

(i)      notes the contents of this report;

 

(ii)     notes the contents of the presentation;

 

(iii)    considers the sites as set out in the presentation against the criteria set out in this report and presentation;

 

(iv)   recommends to Policy & Resources Committee the sites to be included in the Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication document;

 

(v)     agrees that public access to the report be denied until after Policy and Resources Committee (26 January 2025);

 

(vi)   agrees that public access to the decision be denied until after Policy and Resources Committee (26 January 2025).

Officers introduced the report stressing the proposal were officer recommendation but that the submission of a lower than number of dwellings that the Government figure might risk the plan being rejected at a Public Examination but recognized that it was so far not possible to present a plan that meet the said target. Officers stressed further work would be required to finish the sustainability and accessibility assessments and that site figures might change further before the publication of the Regulation 19 in January.

 

Councillor Giles-Medhurst previously circulated a revision of this item for the Recommendation to Policy and Resources on 26 January ahead of the meeting. It was also noted that officers had miscalculated the number of dwellings and this would be rectified ahead of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting in January.

 

“Administration proposal for Regulation 19 sites listed in the Appendix attached.

Total 4977 dwellings based on current assessments: Commitments of 763, Windfall of 630 Total: 6369

 

Reasons for exclusion from the officer Recommendations

 

· CFS26a The Kings Langley Estate (south) – 1,125 dwellings

Is an area assessed in Stage 4 Green Belt review as of Fundamental Importance and would undermine on three grounds its contribution to the Green Belt (a), (b) and (c). It requires the development of agricultural land to the M25, requires a new road traversing the site potentially undermining any SANG contribution. Any additional shopping core is likely undermine the viability of the Abbots Langley Town centre. Note: Previously rejected in 2023.

 

· CFS21 Land at Rousebarn Lane – 600 and NCFS6 Land North of Little Green Lane - 35 dwellings

These are greenfield agricultural sites in the Green Belt development of which would include an urban sprawl in open countryside north of Little Green Lane into the Saratt area. There remain road accessibility concerns given its distance from the main line station and local shopping centre on the Watford Road. Note: Previously rejected in 2023

 

· PCS4 East Green Street – 678 dwellings

This is a greenfield site within the Green Belt and Chilterns National Landscape. It has status within the Chilterns National Landscape. The interpretation of whether the site’s location within the Chilterns National Landscape is a strong reason for its removal is given the impact on the wider National Landscape. There remain highways accessibility issues to the Chorleywood Centre due to the current road network. Note: Previously rejected in 2023

 

· PCS47 South of Little Oxhey Lane – 485 dwellings

Is an area assessed in Stage 4 Green Belt review as of Fundamental Importance and would undermine on two grounds its contribution to the Green Belt (a) and (b) and requires the development of agricultural land to the boundary with the London Borough of Harrow. Whilst there is a small shopping area with a sustainable location access is limited by a narrow road bridge over the main line railway. The Carpenders Park local centre and station is in excess of the accessible distance thresholds. Note: Previously rejected in 2023

 

· NCFS12- Land East of Oxhey Lane.- 381 dwellings

Is an area assessed in Stage 4 Green Belt review as of Fundamental Importance and would undermine its purpose on two grounds of contribution to the Green Belt (a) and (b). It requires the development of open land to the boundary with the Hertsmere Borough with a local wildlife site and adjacent flood zone 2 and 3 . It lacks pedestrian, links along Oxhey Lane and to local centres.

 

· NCFS6 Land to East of Watford Road – 331 dwellings

Is mainly a green field site in flood risk areas 2 and 3 with previous concerns raised by the Environment Agency. Concerns remain that the only vehicle access can be achieved via the dualled- A41 and its close proximity to junction 20 of the M25 with Highways England questioning its suitability. A neighbouring site for a motorway service was dropped due to such concerns. It remains detached from any local centre separated by both railway lines and the M25.

 

· CFS18 Hill Farm- 100 dwellings

Amend site boundary and description to CFS18a, exclude the Local Wildlife site and removal of southern field that is not grey belt, adjust map accordingly to enable clear separation from the Herongate Conservation Area.”

 

Councillor Reed raised an amendment to the site CG65

 

“ 1. Change in “Use(s) Proposed” from “Residential” to: “Residential/Community”

2.Add to “Site description” at end: “The development must include a community space, office space and meeting spaces.”

 

3. Add to “Further Constraints/Considerations”. “The landowner (Three Rivers District Council) has said that they will provide office space, meeting spaces for Croxley Green Parish Council and a new community space on the site.”

 

4. Add to “Conclusion” as extra third paragraph: “The site must provide office space, meeting spaces for Croxley Green Parish Council and a new community space on the site”.”

 

A further amendment was raised for NCF15 by Councillor Reed

 

“1. Change in “Further Constraints/Considerations” from “should” to “must”

 

2.Change in “Conclusion” in first paragraph “it would be highly desirable to” to “the site must”

 

The amendments from Counillor Reed were approved by assent of the Chair and included in the Chairs proposals.

 

Councillor Cooper raised an amendment:

 

“Remove the following and make necessary subsequent changes to housing numbers:

·         ACFS9b (land at Little How Croft)

·         ACFS13b (land at Hampermill Lane)

·         CFS3 (Fraser Crescent)

·         CFS7 (Bedmond Road)

·         CFS13 (land at Oxhey Lane Watford Heath)

·         CFS14 (land north of Oxhey Lane)

·         CFS16 (land at Chorleywood Station)

·         CFS18 (Hill Farm, Stag Lane)

·         CFS21 (Land at Rousebarn Lane)

·         CFS26a (Kings Langley Estate, Abbots Road)

·         CFS26c (West of the Kings Langley Estate)

·         CFS47c (Adams Nursery, Church Lane)

·         CFS56 (Church Hill Road, Bedmond)

·         CFS65 (land north of Bucknalls Lane)

·         EOS7.0 (land at Shepherds Lane)

·         EOS12.2 (land to the West and South of Maple Cross)

·         EOS12.3 (land to the north of Chalfont Road)

·         NCFS6 (land to the east of Watford Road)

·         NCFS11 (Grange Wood, Oxhey Lane)

·         NCFS12 (land east of Oxhey Lane)

·         NCFS17 (North Hill Farm)

·         NCFS20 (Lonsdale, Hyde Lane)

·         NCFS36 (land North of Little Green Lane)

·         NSS6a (Northcott, East Lane)

·         NSS10 (land at Mill Place)

·         NSS20 (land adjacent to RES, Egg Farm Lane)

·         PCS4 (east Green Street, Chorleywood)

·         PCS18 (land south of St Joseph’s, South Oxhey)

·         PCS47 (south of Little Oxhey Lane)”

 

Members discussed the difficulty of reaching a balanced and defensible position. Concerns were raised about how a planning inspector might view significantly reduced numbers, particularly where sites within the grey belt were proposed for removal. It was acknowledged that removing such sites could be challenging to justify, and there was caution about moving the plan in the wrong direction.

 

Questions were raised about the basis for excluding all of the proposed sites. In response, it was argued that the principle issue was unsustainability. The sites were considered incapable of meeting sustainability criteria, even after extensive work by officers to justify as many sites as possible under the previous standard method.

Members noted that having clear reasons for proposed site removals would be helpful in order to comment meaningfully and expressed concern that without such clarity the council risked having a plan imposed without adequate opportunity for input.

 

Clarification was sought regarding the deliverability of a site. Officers confirmed that dialogue with the landowner had taken place. The landowner was considering both supermarket and residential options but there were concerns about how these would integrate on the site.

 

It was noted that the seven sites proposed for removal by the Administration had been drawn from an earlier list put forward by the conservative group.

 

The area behind the Flower House ACF68b had raised concerns including past planning breaches such as the installation of unauthorized parks.

 

Members raised concerns about the site at CFS26c, access limitations caused by railway bridges were identified, and Network Rail had indicated that improvements would not be possible until after the works were completed. It was noted however that the site lay opposite another location providing access, and that around 150 homes would be within walking distance of the railway station, making the assessment more complex. Officers highlighted that pedestrian access through the station strengthened the sites sustainability profile, and that inspectors frequently relied on pedestrian connectivity when evaluating sites. It was further noted that vehicular access did not necessarily need to route through Kings Langley, and therefore it would be difficult to argue that a site adjacent to a railway station lacked sustainability.

 

Concerns were raised about overall housing numbers and the risk of the authority being used as an example due to national housing pressures. While acknowledging the desire to reduce allocations, it was felt that significant reductions may not be realistic.

 

The amendment was put to the vote and with 3 votes for and 6 against, the amendment fell.

 

The substantive motion as moved by the Chair and duly amended was put to the vote. The proposal motion was carried by General Assent.

 

The Chair closed the meeting at 9.55pm.