Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Conflicts with NPPF on Flooding. Para 100 and 101 requires that development should be directed away from sites at high risk of flooding. The site is known to flood, with the most recent event in February 2014, which was not explained by the LLFA models. The SFRA map clearly shows a major flow across the site in a 1 in 30 year flood event. A sequential approach has not been followed. There is no need or justification for allocation of SP2. To persisit with this is against National Policy and unreasonable given the mounting evidence.
Conflicts with NPPF on Flooding. Paragraph 100 requires that development should be directed away from sites at high risk of flooding. Local Plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development. Sites at high risk of flooding should only be developed where absolutely necessary. Para 101 states: The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. This policy has been disregarded and a sequential approach has not been taken.
The NPPF requires a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) to be completed to determine flood risk in relation to allocating sites for housing. The SFRA map clearly shows a major flow across the site in a 1 in 30 year flood event. The site is also assessed by Environment Agency as having a high to medium risk of surface water flooding. Actually the site is well-known to flood, with several events in living memory, the most recent being in February 2014. However that event was not explained by the models of the Lead Local Flood Authority because their models failed to take account of the already saturated ground. It is now emerging that the role of groundwater may not have been adequately considered in understanding the hydrology of this area. It is likely that during a wet season the groundwater levels could be significantly elevated under the SP2 site. The Mimram chalk stream emerges from the chalk aquifer nearby, just a few metres below. Certainly, extensive scientific investigation and evidence would be needed before development could go ahead on this site, which raises doubts how achievable this site would be.
It has been argued that development of this site provides an opportunity for the betterment of risk to the 3 properties in Cresswick that have been previously affected. According to the SUDS hierarchy, the only sustainable solution on this site would be infiltration basins (although there is evidence that even this will not work due to elevated ground water levels). A solution has been proposed by the developer, but the size of the basin turned out to be one and a half times the size of an Olympic Swimming pool, cutting 5m deep in to the hillside. In August 2016 the NHDC planning committee determined that the visual impact of these earthworks was unacceptable in terms of the core principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) and refused the application. Meanwhile I understand that these 3 properties have taken advice on property level protection and still consider that the negative impact of the development greatly outweighs the residual flood risk. The LLFA stated that the risk is not significant enough to warrant public expenditure.
Allocation of this site is against NPPF guidance which states that development should be directed away from flood risk altogether, towards sites with a lower flood risk. This development has been justified only on the basis of unsound policy SP2 solely to meet District totals; it is not justified by local need and is strongly opposed by the Parish Council. There are far more suitable locations in the District for development without flood risk. Since the housing requirement has fallen there is now too much housing allocation in the Local Plan and absolutely no need to introduce new sites at high flood risk. There is no need or justification for allocation of SP2, and to persist with this is not only against National Policy, it is ridiculous in the face of the mounting evidence.
Conflicts with NPPF on Sustainable Transport. Whitwell is one of the worst locations in the District for development in terms of these policies. Its remote location will result in excessive use of the private car. No Travel Plan has been submitted to justify the allocation of this 6ha site and there is no local need for development of this scale. The site SP2 has not been justified on any grounds, other than the unsound policy SP2 (Category A) which argues that any village with a primary school should be expanded to help meet district totals.

Conflicts with NPPF on Promoting Sustainable Transport, including paragraphs 30, 34, 36, 37.

Whitwell is situated in a relatively remote rural location in the district, in the middle of an area of high quality Chiltern countryside, which is being eroded from all sides, especially from the west (Luton) and east (Stevenage), under the duty to cooperate.

The nearest supermarket is 5 miles. The nearest school is 6 miles but due to the selection based on distance rules, most students have to travel at least 8 miles, often requiring two round trips daily by private car. Much of the working population drives a similar distance to railway stations for commuting to London. There is very little employment in the village and development here is likely to increase out-commuting from the district.

Whitwell is accessible only via narrow lanes with passing places, which, along with the High Street, are frequently congested. Public transport is severely limited, with just a 2-hourly bus to Hitchin and no service at evenings or Sundays. Therefore any development in Whitwell will result in a directly proportional increase in daily travel by private car.

No Travel Plan has been submitted to justify the allocation of this 6ha site, which could lead to over 100 new houses and over 200 private cars travelling more than 10 miles per day. This is a significant increase in carbon footprint, which is contrary to the NPPF.

In conclusion, Whitwell is one of the worst locations in the District for development in terms of sustainable transport, pollution and carbon emissions. There is no proven local need for development of this scale, indeed the evidence of the Parish Council is to the contrary. It will be to the detriment of the character and amenity of the village and surrounding environment. Allocation of site SP2 has not been justified on any grounds, other than the unsound policy SP2 (Category A) which argues that any village with a primary school should be expanded to help meet district totals, over-riding any other local consideration or evidence.

Conflicts with NPPF on Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. Whitwell's special rural location, midway between surrounding towns, provides an important amenity for them with its recreational paths and routes in unspoilt Chiltern landscape at the source of the Mimram chalk stream. Development of this site will degrade this amenity, having an unacceptable visual impact. This is also contrary to NHDC evidence in Area 203 Landscape Character Evaluation. This site is in the most sensitive water source protection zone and problems of surface water flooding and sewerage capacity pose an unnecessary risk to groundwater and the chalk stream.
Conflicts with NPPF on conserving and enhancing the natural environment. NPPF core principles in Para 17 include: "contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value..."

Whitwell is situated in a relatively remote rural location for the District, in the middle of an area of high quality Chiltern landscape, which is being encroached from all sides, notably from the west (Luton) and east (Stevenage), under the duty to cooperate. The village and its environs provides a valuable amenity to these towns and also attracts many walkers and cyclists from further afield (see photos).

The surrounding area is proposed as Greenbelt in the Submission Local plan and this field would become Greenbelt except for its designation as Category A village according to unsound policy SP2, which allows planners to expand the boundary to accommodate development in order to meet District totals. In the 1996 Local Plan, this area, including site SP2, was previously protected with designation as Landscape Conservation Area (LC1). Those policies expired in 2007.

Since 2013 the Chilterns Conservation Board have proposed this area as suitable for inclusion in the Chiltern AONB, joining up with the existing AONB, the other side of the A505 to the north.

Contrary to NPPF Para 170, the plan fails to recognise NHDC own landscape character evaluation for Whitwell Valley Area 203, which concludes that:
"large urban extensions and new settlements (>5ha) would not be appropriate within this Character Area, due to its relatively remote, rural and undeveloped character. It would be of an inappropriate scale and would introduce elements that would urbanise the landscape, altering the character and removing the existing key characteristics. Visual impacts would also be high due to the cross valley views currently experienced."
SP2 is a site of nearly 6ha and therefore the allocation of the site is contrary to the independent report findings for reason of visual impact.

The site is currently a productive agricultural field forming a prominent and integral part of the surrounding valley landscape (see photo). It is much appreciated by local community and visitors, being highly visible from footpaths in the area. Many popular recreational routes meet in the Village, including the Hertfordshire Way, Chiltern Way and Chiltern Cycleway.

NHDC planning officer has recognised the visual sensitivity of the site and has required that any development should be restricted to the lower part of the site. This would be harmful in itself but would inevitably lead to future development on the remainder of the site.

Adjacent to the site on the South is an ancient Green Lane dating back to Roman times, identified as Byway 36. This links with the Chiltern Way and forms part of a popular walk out of the village, with open views across the field in question to the opposite side of the valley. It is proposed to incorporate this as a "green corridor through the site" which seems an inappropriate urban construction. On the contrary the rural character of the lane and views from it across the valley should be conserved.

Adjacent to the site to the West is Bendish Lane, which is a popular and picturesque section of the Chiltern Cycleway. This pretty narrow lane, winding down the hill from Bendish, directly links the conservation areas of Bendish and Whitwell, with currently no development in between. Development on SP2 would fill in a large portion of this precious space and would transform the views from rural to urban.

This site lies entirely outside the currently defined settlement boundary and has no access from within the village. A new housing estate on this site will require a new access road from Bendish Lane, opposite the school entrance. This will increase the traffic and spoil the rural character of this lane and its views, including the setting of St Marys Chapel (Listed Building), which presently greet the visitor approaching the village.

The river Mimram emerges from the chalk aquifer behind the famous water cress beds at Nine Wells in west Whitwell. In fact this is the ancient origin of the name of the village, meaning "White Spring". The Mimram is one of only 200 chalk streams in the world and provides some rare and valuable habitats (see photo). The water is also abstracted to drinking water supply. The site SP2 is in a highly sensitive location for groundwater. The stream source only 100m away and 10m lower). In fact it is designated the most sensitive Source Protection Zone 1 (defined a the 50 day travel time from any point below the water table to the source).

Thames Water have confirmed that the existing sewerage system does not have capacity for the proposed development at peak time, so sewerage would need to be pumped to an underground tank for managed discharge at off-peak times. This poses an unnecessary risk to the water cress beds, habitats and drinking water. Unfortunately this evidence emerged only after finalisation of the submission local plan documents.

The site is also subject to surface water flooding, most recently in February 2014. A recent planning application determined that this would require Sustainable Urban Drainage basins one and a half times the volume of an Olympic Swimming pool, cutting 5m deep into the hillside. Alternative solutions may be technically possible but less reliable and sustainable. In August 2016, after finalisation of the submission local plan documents, NHDC planning committee found these earthworks would have an unacceptable visual impact and refused the application. Now there is new emerging evidence that infiltration may not even work at all on this site when ground water levels are elevated during a wet season. It is requested that this evidence may be presented at the hearing stage.

In conclusion, the site is in conflict with NPPF including paragraphs 109 and 110 in that it fails to "conserve and enhance the natural environment." Particular issues for this site are the visual impact, especially impacting recreational routes and lanes, and risk to ground water and the Mimram chalk stream.

Conflicts with NPPF on Plan-making. NPPF requires that true community consultation must be undertaken. Site SP2 has been added to the local plan at a late stage, after all the scheduled opportunities for public engagement and consultation. This means that the community has had insufficient opportunity to respond. The present consultation requires a very specific legal format of response, which has discouraged many from engaging
Conflicts with NPPF on Plan-making. NPPF requires that true community consultation must be undertaken. Para 150 states: Local Plans are the key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities. Para 155 states: early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential.

By introducing SP2 at such a late stage, these requirements of NPPF have not been met. Site SP2 was been added to the draft local plan at the final stage of preparation after all opportunities for public engagement and consultation had passed. This means that the community has not had a sufficient and reasonable time to respond, especially when compared to other sites. The present consultation exercise is no substitute because it requires a very specific and sophisticated format of response, which has discouraged most people from having their say.

Articles 18-20 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 outline the requirement for a Statement of Community Involvement. NHDC published their Statement of Community Involvement for the Local Plan in December 2012 and revised in 2015. This document specifies the timeframe and stages to be adopted Development Plan. This includes three separate phases of consultation prior to submission of the plan. The agricultural field now allocated as SP2 was previously designated as new Green Belt in the "Preferred Options" consultation 2014-2015. This was enthusiastically supported in representations from the local community (including from myself). The late inclusion of SP2 in the current version of the plan runs counter to the published SCI and did not provide local communities with adequate time or due process to respond.

In suddenly introducing this site, the draft local plan a) has not engaged sufficiently and early enough with the community; b) disregards the previous representations from our community and St Pauls Walden Parish Council supporting green belt protection to this land; and c) disregards the findings of the NHDC planning committee who found the site inappropriate for development in August 2016.

This part of the plan, which allocates site SP2 for housing, is unsound since it has not been prepared consistently with National Policy on Plan-Making. Therefore in order to make it consistent and legally compliant, the site SP2 should be deleted from the plan and the area reinstated as Green Belt.
The decision to include SP2 in the plan is not justified, not needed and is contrary to NHDC's own evidence.

Contrary to NPPF Para 170, the plan fails to recognise NHDC own landscape character evaluation for Whitwell Valley Area 203 (Attached), which concludes that:

Large urban extensions and new settlements (>5ha) would not be appropriate within this Character Area, due to its relatively remote, rural and undeveloped character. It would be of an inappropriate scale and would introduce elements that would urbanise the landscape, altering the character and removing the existing key characteristics. Visual impacts would also be high due to the cross valley views currently experienced.

SP2 is a site of nearly 6ha, so its allocation is contrary to the independent report findings for reason of visual impact.

The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Update 2016) Appendix 3 compares 5 sites in the Parish. According to this analysis (see attached), there are no clear winners, but SP2 has some conspicuous negative features: it is has high surface water flooding; it is the only site within the sensitive water source protection zone (SPZ1); it is by far the largest site but extraordinarily land-hungry, at only 7 dwellings per hectare.

The Sustainability Appraisal (update 2016) presents evidence in the form of appraisal matrices for these preferred sites (Appendix 6) and non-preferred sites (Appendix 7). Each site is rated positive, negative or neutral against 14 objectives. On this evidence, the preferred site SP2 actually ranks the lowest (most negative) of all the sites (see attached). Thus it is clear that the decision to allocate the site is contrary to the evidence presented to support the plan.

SP2 was the most recent site to be introduced, when a planning application was submitted after the last round of public consultation. In this latest version of the Local Plan, all other sites have been rejected in favour of SP2. However, this application was eventually tested by the NHDC planning committee in August 2016 and rejected, finding that the visual impact of the required SUDS would be unacceptable (see attached decision notice). That process brought a huge weight of new evidence into the public domain, which has not been taken into account in the present Submission Local Plan. Unfortunately by that late stage planners felt it necessary to allocate a site to the village at all cost and despite strong representations from the Parish Council, would not make any further changes to the Local Plan documents.

Housing Need is identified only in terms of District totals and unsupported generalisations in the unsound policy SP2 which is based on the false premise that any village with a primary school needs to expand to avoid social and economic harm. There is no evidence of any such local need for expansion of Whitwell. On the contrary, the school is already thriving and the local community are strongly opposed to the loss of countryside amenity and rural village character. This has been argued at every opportunity by the Parish Council, with the full support of the school. Now the district house target as reduced, increasing the buffer to 7%. The Local Plan now provides too much housing at the expense of precious countryside.

In conclusion, the allocation of site SP2 is not the most appropriate strategy, and is not justified when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.

3.3 Clarify that housing allocations that expand rural villages should be justified on the need of the village, not on the wider need of the district.

This policy is unsound and not consistent with National Policy on sustainable development and potentially in conflict with the Spatial Vision above in Para 3.3. Specifically, in Para 4.13, the classification of Category A villages is based on a false premise rather than on proportionate evidence.

This policy effectively permits district planners to expand the boundaries of remote rural villages at will, at the expense of precious countryside and without regard to the best interest of the community, simply in order to meet the District's overall housing totals.

This goes beyond the vision in Para 3.3 above, which makes it clear that this should be only where needed for villages to thrive. The background documents relating to this policy make the argument in terms of preventing social and economic harm. This is a false premise. Just because a village has a primary school, which may be (as is the case in Whitwell) already full and thriving, it does not follow that the village needs to expand to become a town, at the expense of valuable countryside. Smaller village have a special character and community spirit that should be fostered and protected.

Furthermore, where the nearest secondary schools, supermarkets, train stations, shopping and employment, are all many miles away by private car through narrow country lanes (as is also the case in Whitwell), this is clearly contrary to the NPPF on sustainability.

Before designating a village as in need of expansion (Category A), specific local evidence should be gathered on a case by case basis, with regard to housing need and demand, views of the community, and sustainability, including daily travel patterns and carbon impact

Text has minor errors and omits essential characteristics that are relevant in the context of the plan, including the special natural features and recreational amenity.

It is not clear whether this policy requires ANY or ALL of the criteria. The word "and" in (d) implies ALL. However there is a risk that this could be misinterpreted to mean ANY, which would be too permissive and in conflict with NPPF.

The plan provides too much housing at the expense of precious countryside. North Herts is supposed to be a rural district, but it plans 14,000 houses for the district, plus 2,000 for Luton plus 3,000 for Stevenage. That makes 19,000 which is about 50% increase in 15 years. In what sense is this objective or sustainable or even common sense? We are privileged in North Herts to still have access to some beautiful countryside and landscape. Is it really good stewardship to base policy on the premise that as long as people want to come here, we should keep building over the countryside until they no longer want to? On that reasoning, it is inevitable that the London conurbation will expand to fill Hertfordshire. Is this going to continue until we reach equilibrium when everywhere in the UK, and eventually the world, becomes equally undesirable? Given the terrible wealth inequality in the world these are tough questions, but have our planners and policy makers really thought this through, and do they have a mandate for such profound decisions? Maybe now is the time to stand up and push back.