Examination of the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan

Council’s Statement - Stage 9 Hearing session

Potential sites, for housing development, in villages excluded from the Green Belt that have limited or no proposals for residential development.

Settlement: Oaklands and Mardley Heath Policy Number: N/A Site References: OMH6, OMH7 and OMH9 Matter number: 2, 3 and 4 Issues: Green Belt, Infrastructure, Flooding, Highways, Ecology, Sustainability, Deliverability, Noise/Air Quality, Surrounding Character. Question Numbers: 13 - 41

Oaklands and Mardley Heath Matter 2 – Site OMH6, Land East of Danesbury Park Road The proposal would remove open land, formerly used as pasture, from the Green Belt and develop it for residential purposes. A larger parcel that included more open countryside, was assessed as making a moderate-high contribution to the Green Belt’s purposes. Considerations: 13) Should the harm applied to the larger Green Belt parcel be applied to this site? Either way provide an objective justification. Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) Yes, the Council consider that the assessment of ‘Moderate-High’ harm for Parcel P15 which covers this site and the wider area in the Green Belt Stage 3 Study (EX99) is justified . b) Whilst the site is bordered by trees and relatively well screened from the wider Green Belt, it lies to the west of the existing strong Green Belt boundary in this location, the A1(M). Land to the south of the site (and parcel P15) is a Local Wildlife Site and also contains a Local Nature Reserve. The land in parcel P15 needs to be considered as a whole and it is clear that the land at site OMH6 could not be considered for release by itself as it would not form an appropriate or logical Green Belt boundary. c) It should be noted that site the itself has been identified in the HELAA Addendum 2019 (included in EX219B ) as being unsuitable for residential development and as such it is not considered that exceptional circumstances exist which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt in this location.

14) Could an appropriate and defensible boundary to the wider Green Belt be established? If so how and where? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) No, the borough boundary with North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) lies immediately to the north and west of this parcel where land is similarly designated as washed over by the Green Belt. The boundary wanders either side of the A1(M) in this part of the borough. The A1(M) currently forms a strong, logical, clearly defined and defensible boundary for the Green Belt in this part of the borough and beyond. b) In both the North Herts Local Plan and the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan the Green Belt boundary is defined by the A1(M) which is considered by the Green Belt Stage 3 Study to represent a strong boundary. It is for this reason that the assessment considers there would be ‘moderate - high’ harm if the parcel were released from the Green Belt. No sub-parcel scenarios have been identified for this parcel and there is no obvious alternative boundary which would be as strong as the existing.

c) Duty to Cooperate meetings with North Herts considered what should be the appropriate approach to the boundary in this location and have affirmed the importance of maintaining a strong boundary in this location (DTC3a ). 15) Would there be any adverse ramifications for local infrastructure, services or facilities that could not be resolved during the plan period? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) As the site is considered to be unsuitable for development its impact on services and infrastructure has not been assessed in the preparation of the Local Plan. It is understood that there is the potential to expand St Mary’s primary school at Welwyn by one form of entry and any impacts would need to be considered in the context of what other sites are also coming forward. 16) Are there any flood risks that are unresolvable? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) No, the Council has not been advised of any unresolvable flood risks for this site. b) The Council has worked with both the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority throughout the assessment of site suitability. Stage 2 of the Council’s Site Selection process takes a number of issues into account when assessing physical or environmental constraints affecting the suitability of a site, of which flood risk is one. The assessment considered whether the majority of the site is subject to significant fluvial or surface water flood risk, considering the vulnerability of the proposed use, and whether flood risk could be mitigated and managed to an acceptable level. c) The Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2019 (included in EX219B) indicated that 100% of this site located within Flood Zone 1 and therefore has the lowest risk of fluvial flooding. This site was not subject to a site-specific Level 2 SFRA assessment as the site is not located in Flood Zones 2/3, it does not have an ordinary watercourse running through or adjacent to the site and the surface water risk was not deemed to be significant.

17) Would the impact on highway safety and/or the free flow of traffic, following the site’s development, be severe? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) Danesbury Park Road (and The Avenue) are privately maintained roads although highway rights exist. Road widths are limited along both the Avenue and Danesbury Park Road with no footways or street lighting provided from where the A1(M) crosses The Avenue. Safe and suitable access to the site for pedestrians cannot be achieved along the private road and the site’s location is unlikely to support any modal shift away from the car or encourage movements by sustainable transport modes. This site would therefore not comply with the objective of Hertfordshire County Council’s Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4). The County Council have advised that the site is not deliverable because of lack of suitable access.

18) What impact would the proposal have on ecological assets and to what extent could this be mitigated or compensated for? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) A number of trees on site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO1 1972 – T166 to T175). If development were to come forward on this site it would need to allow for the retention of trees and appropriate buffering.. b) The site lies adjacent to a Wildlife Site WS18 and in close proximity to others to the south: WS14, WS22 and LNR1. A buffer along the southern boundary to the adjoining wildlife site WS18 would be required. c) HCC Ecology advise that a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal would be required (at planning application stage) as the site has habitat potential for reptiles, nesting birds, badgers and great crested newts, bat roost have also been noted within 100m of the site. The dividing hedgerow through the site should be retained if possible. HCC Ecology note the opportunity to ensure and enhance habitats connecting with existing mature trees, hedgerows and grassland in this area. If whole site or a significant area is lost to development, biodiversity offsetting to mitigate for loss of semi-natural habitats should be considered. Light spill onto adjacent trees/woody habitats should be avoided. 19) Is the site’s location sustainable in the context of its accessibility on foot or by cycle to retail and community facilities and frequent public transport? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) As discussed in response to question 17 the site’s location does not support safe pedestrian access. However, the site is within suitable cycling distance to local facilities and services. The site is located approximately 600m from the nearest bus stop which has a regular 6 day a week service and 1km, as the crow flies, from the local amenities which serve Oaklands and Mardley Heath and are designated as a ‘Small Village Centre’ in Policy SADM4 and shown in Inset Map 3. Consideration would be required for distances required to travel along Danesbury Park Road and The Avenue which are both private roads with limited road width and no street lighting until after the road crosses under the A1(M).

20) Would the proposal clearly be deliverable within the first five years following adoption? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) No, whilst assessing the sites suitability, availability and achievability in the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment 2019 (included in EX219B), the promoter indicated a willingness to make the site available within 5 years. However, it was noted that the land is subject to various charges and restrictive covenants. The promoter indicated there was a need for mutual agreement to resolve these issues. These covenants are still in place and therefore it is not considered that the land is available and would not be deliverable within the first five years following adoption nor within the Plan period.

21) Are there any other matters that weigh against this site being proposed for residential development? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) There are no other matters which the Council is aware which would weigh against the allocation of the site.

Matter 3 – Site OMH7, 22 The Avenue

The proposal would redevelop a commercial property, largely used for the parking of vehicles and which is washed over by the Green Belt, with 2 dwellings. Considerations 22) What justification is there for the retention of this site and the wider area containing built development as land washed over by the Green Belt. Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) This site and the wider area lies within Parcel P15 of the Green Belt Stage 3 Study (EX99 ). The parcel is described as consisting of ‘ a number of pastoral fields with lower density residential development towards the north along The Avenue. ’ The borough boundary with North Herts District Council lies immediately to the north and west of this parcel where land is similarly designated as washed over by the Green Belt. The boundary wanders either side of the A1(M) in this part of the borough. b) In both the North Herts Local Plan and the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan the Green Belt boundary is defined by the A1(M) which is considered by the Green Belt Study to represent a strong boundary. It is for this reason the assessment considers there would be ‘moderate - high’ harm if the parcel were released from the Green Belt. No sub-parcel scenarios have been identified for this parcel and there is no obvious alternative boundary which would be as strong. c) Duty to Cooperate meetings with North Herts considered what should be the appropriate approach to the boundary in this location and have affirmed the importance of maintaining a strong boundary in this location (DTC3a ). d) The site itself has been identified in the HELAA Addendum 2019 (included in EX219B ) as having capacity for 2 dwellings and as such it is not considered that exceptional circumstances exist which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt in this location.

23) Would the impact on highway safety and/or the free flow of traffic, following the site’s development, be severe? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) The proposed development would take its vehicle access from The Avenue, via the existing driveway which currently serves several dwellings along its length. The HELAA Addendum 2019 (included in EX219B ) noted that servicing the site via the narrow access would be difficult. It may be possible to deliver a very small number of dwellings (e.g. 2 net gain) but detailed proposals would be required to demonstrate how a development could be successfully achieved given the access constraints as considered in recent applications/appeals.

b) It was indicated in the recent planning application for this site (6/2018/0650/FULL) that the access road from The Avenue into the site could be widened to 4.1m which

would meet the minimum width required in ‘Roads in Hertfordshire’ (INF/7 ) Road Design Criteria for a shared access 1. Appropriate access for emergency and refuse vehicles would need to be achieved.

24) What impact would the proposal have on ecological assets and to what extent could this be mitigated or compensated for? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) The site is currently partially previously developed and contains the residential dwelling of 22 The Avenue with associated outbuilding and an area of garden land to the north of the dwelling which contains a single storey structure. The undeveloped area of the site is characterised as rough grassland with bordering hedgerows and trees, however, a significant amount of hardstanding has been unlawfully laid on site and is the subject of an enforcement notice. An established tree belt also runs along the eastern boundary of the site alongside the A1(M).

b) There are no recognised sites of ecological value on site or close to the site boundary and the site has low ecological sensitivity. HCC Ecology advised there may be the potential for nesting birds in boundary trees and for this reason the retention of these trees is advised as well as ensuring that light spill on trees or surrounding wooded areas is avoided. Biodiversity Net Gain measures such as native planting and wildflower sowing should be considered on site as well as habitat boxes for bats, birds, hedgehogs and invertebrates.

25) Is the site’s location sustainable in the context of its accessibility on foot or by cycle to retail and community facilities and frequent public transport? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) The site is located along The Avenue, west of the A1(M), which has no available footpaths for pedestrians and it is not within the ability of the promoter to deliver improvements through development of this site.

b) The site is located approximately 600m from the nearest bus stop which has a regular 6 day a week service and the 1200m from the local amenities which serve Oaklands and Mardley Heath and are designated as a ‘Small Village Centre’ in Policy SADM4 and shown in Inset Map 3. The initial walk from the site would be along the private road with no footpaths until the A1(M) underpass.

11 Hertfordshire County Council: Roads in Hertfordshire https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/media- library/documents/highways/development-management/section-4-design-standards-and-advice.pdf 7

26) Would there be any adverse ramifications for local infrastructure, services or facilities that could not be resolved during the plan period? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) With a capacity of 2 dwellings it is unlikely to have an adverse impact on local infrastructure.

27) Would there be unmitigable harm to living conditions on the site as a result of noise or atmospheric pollution from the nearby motorway? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) This site has been assessed as suitable for residential development in the HELAA 2016 ( HOU/19 ) and as potentially suitable for development in HELAA Addendum 2019 ( EX219B ). The HELAA notes the potential for noise and air pollution, due to the proximity of the A1(M). The Council’s Environmental Health team provided advice as part of the plan making process and this was used to inform the assessment of site suitability. Environmental Health raised no in principle objections to the allocation of these sites. The estimated dwelling capacity was moderated from 40dph to 30dph in the HELAA 2016 to allow for the implementation of appropriate mitigation on site.

b) An Air Quality Impact Assessment was submitted with the most recent application for 4 dwellings on this site (6/2018/0650/FULL), whilst the application and appeal were refused, the assessment concludes that the proposals were considered acceptable in terms of the potential air quality impacts across the development, and no objections were raised by the Council’s Environmental Health team.

c) Environmental Health have advised that addressing noise concerns to within WHO guideline levels would need to be demonstrated at application stage. A noise report was submitted with planning application 6/2018/0650/FULL and no objections were raised with the proposed mitigation which included extending the bunding along the site boundary adjoining the A1(M) together with a close boarded fence on the top. The layout of the dwellings and the internal layout of the properties were proposed to ensure that there are no habitable rooms were built with direct lines of sight onto the A1(M) together with measures finalised at detailed design stage which could include glazing, acoustically treated assisted ventilation, improvements to the acoustic performance of the roof construction. It was considered that, subject to planning conditions, the site could secure a reasonable level of amenity for residents.

d) It is therefore considered that it would be possible for a scheme to come forward which could appropriately mitigate noise and air pollution from the A1(M) and would be further considered at planning application stage dependant on the detailed scheme proposed.

28) Given the character of the surroundings, is it likely that this site, if redeveloped, would contain sufficient dwellings to warrant its status as a Local Plan proposal? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) No, the revised dwelling capacity considered suitable for this site is 2 dwellings as noted in the HELAA 2019 Addendum ( EX219B ). The threshold for allocation on Green Belt sites adjoining the excluded villages is 5 dwellings. b) In the 2016 HELAA (HOU/19 ), the site was found suitable, achievable (estimated delivery 6-10 years) for 12 dwellings. However, subsequently to the HELAA 2016, a planning application was refused in 2017 for reasons relating to excessive noise and air quality issues from the A1(M), character of surrounding area and flood risk. A subsequent application for 4 dwellings (3 net) was also refused for reasons relating to the character of the area and Green Belt grounds. Both applications were appealed and were dismissed (04/19) not only due to the harm which would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt for either 4 or ‘up to 12’ homes but also because they would be out of keeping with the character of the immediate area. In light of recent decisions, the HELAA Addendum 2019 considered that the 2016 HELAA estimated capacity is unlikely to be achieved even if the site were removed from the Green Belt and therefore a reduction in capacity to 2 dwellings was considered appropriate. c) Therefore, even if the site was released from the Green Belt it has been considered that 4 dwellings (3 net) on this site would represent an over intensification of the site and would be poorly related to the established open and spacious character of the immediate area failing to maintain or enhance its character. The site is therefore not considered to meet the threshold for allocation.

29) Would the proposal clearly be deliverable within the first five years following adoption? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) The HELAA 2016 ( HOU/19 ) estimated the delivery timescale of this site would likely be within years 6-10 years due to a restrictive covenant on site. The site was re- promoted to the Council through the Call for Sites 2019 and the landowner indicated that there were no longer any legal constraints which would prevent or delay development and the delivery timescales for development of this site were reassessed as deliverable in years 1-5 of the plan period.

30) Are there any other matters that weigh against this site being proposed for residential development? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) There are no other matters which the Council is aware which would weigh against the allocation of the site.

Matter 4 – Site OMH 9, Rear of 19-23 The Avenue

The proposal would develop the rear gardens of four properties for residential purposes. The site is within the Green Belt and a larger area, of which it is a part and included more open countryside, was assessed as making a moderate-high contribution to the Green Belt’s purposes. The site could accommodate about twelve dwellings. Considerations 31) Is there any objective basis on which the assessed Green Belt harm should be challenged, or the weight attached to it reduced? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) No, this site along with the other sites at Oaklands and Mardley Heath west of the A1(M) and the wider area lies within Parcel 15 of the Green Belt Stage 3 Study (EX99 ). The parcel is described as consisting of ‘ a number of pastoral fields with lower density residential development towards the north along The Avenue. ’ The borough boundary with North Herts District Council lies immediately to the north and west of this parcel where land is similarly designated as washed over by the Green Belt. The boundary wanders either side of the A1(M) in this part of the borough. b) The site itself is located to the rear of residential properties along The Avenue and is undeveloped vacant grassland with a number of trees on site. The site has a sloping topography which is elevated to the west, with levels falling down towards The Avenue. Trees border the site to the north-east and south limiting views into the wider countryside.

c) As noted in previous responses to Green Belt questions relating to sites included in Parcel P15 , both the North Herts Local Plan and the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan outline the logical Green Belt boundary in this area as the A1(M), this is considered by the Green Belt Study to represent a strong boundary. It is for this reason the assessment considers there would be ‘moderate - high’ harm if the parcel, or any land within, were released from the Green Belt. No sub-parcel scenarios have been identified for this parcel and there is no obvious alternative boundary which would be as strong.

d) The assessment is justified and there is considered to be no opportunity to reduce the harm nor any objective challenge to the assessment made.

32) Could an appropriate and defensible boundary to the wider Green Belt be established? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) Please refer to the response to question 31.

33) Would the impact on highway safety and/or the free flow of traffic, following the site’s development, be severe? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) The County Council as highway authority has not identified a ‘severe’ or ‘unacceptable’ impact on highway safety and has not objected to the development on highway grounds. b) Access is proposed from The Avenue, between 17 and 19 The Avenue. There is the opportunity to provide suitable access from the main road, however, access into the site to the rear of the gardens would be constrained by a narrowing of the land between 15 The Avenue and the rear of 19 The Avenue as shown in Appendix A. The narrow access measures approximately 24m in length and is approximately 5.6m wide. c) As noted in the HELAA Addendum 2019 ( EX219B ) any development will need to comply with the requirements of Roads in Hertfordshire. Safe and appropriate access including for emergency and service vehicles, minimum carriageway widths and the types of permitted road connections will be assessed in light of the scale of development being proposed at planning application stage. Visibility from any access will need to be provided in accordance with Manual for Streets 2.

34) What impact would the proposal have on ecological assets and to what extent could this be mitigated or compensated for? Welwyn Hatfield Response:

a) The site is predominately grassland with bordering trees and hedgerows, a number of trees are also located throughout the site along with a hedgerow which separates the south-western corner of the site. To the southern boundary lies a Tree Preservation Order 1, Group 5 (1972). These trees also form the separating line between the site and adjoining Wildlife Site (Grassland East of Danesbury Hospital) to the south-west.

b) HCC Ecology have advised that the ecological sensitivity of the site is low-medium dependant on whether trees would be affected by development. There is a badger road casualty record from the nearby A1(M) to the east and there may be potential for nesting birds in trees and roosting bats in mature trees, if suitable roosting features are present. HCC Ecology noted the need to consider Biodiversity Net Gain measures such as native planting, wildflower sowing, habitat boxes for bats, birds, hedgehogs and invertebrates and orchard planting on site.

c) No ecological surveys have been received to support the assessment of this site at this stage. However, if semi-natural habitats will be lost to development, and cannot

2 Department for Transport, Manual for Streets (2007) Available at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets

be mitigated for within the site boundary, biodiversity offsetting would need to be considered.

35) Should some or all of the trees on the site be retained and their retention referred to in the policy criteria? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) The trees/hedges which form the boundary to the site need to be retained where possible and if a planning application was received for this site it would need to be informed by a tree and ecological survey. Any loss of trees or hedges would need to be mitigated with replacement planting. HCC Ecology have advised the need to avoid light spill onto the adjacent wooded areas and to buffer the adjacent Wildlife Site to the south. b) A buffer to the TPO area (TPO1 G5) to the south of the site would also need to be accommodated within any detailed proposals, this was considered in the HELAA Addendum 2019 ( EX219B ) and the net developable area was reduced to account for this.

36) Is the site’s location sustainable in the context of its accessibility, on foot or by cycle, to retail and community facilities and frequent public transport? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) Oaklands and Mardley Heath is categorised in Policy SP3: Settlement Hierarchy as a Small Excluded Village/Settlement, this is considered to form part of the fourth tier of locations in the borough. Fourth tier settlements are considered to be sustainable locations for a limited amount of new development compatible with the scale and character. b) The site is located approximately 400m from the nearest bus stop which has a regular 6 day a week service, and 800m from the local amenities which serve Oaklands and Mardley Heath and are designated as a ‘Small Village Centre’ in Policy SADM4 and shown in Inset Map 3. The local amenities include a public house, butchers, convenience store, post office and several other local shops. c) Currently, there are no footpaths serving The Avenue to the west of the A1(M). The absence of footways would be prejudicial to pedestrian safety, although the site entrance is not a significant distance from the existing footpath. it would be in the gift of the landowner to provide pedestrian access across the front of the land along 17 The Avenue. The current lack of provision means development may be unlikely to encourage modal shift to sustainable transport modes and ensure access is safe and suitable for all highway users. If development of this site were to come forward, a requirement to make provision for pedestrian access would need to be included in the Site Specific Considerations.

37) Would there be any adverse ramifications for local infrastructure, services or facilities that could not be resolved during the plan period?

Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) The capacity of the site has been assessed as 12 dwellings in the HELAA Addendum 2019 ( EX219B ) and as such it is unlikely to have any adverse ramifications for local infrastructure.

b) Thames Water do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater networks in relation to this site at this stage, however, liaison with Thames Water is advisable at earliest opportunity to agree phasing of any development.

38) Would there be unmitigable harm to living conditions on the site as a result of noise or atmospheric pollution from the nearby motorway? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) Amenity issues for the site arise from the proximity of the A1(M) which means noise is likely to be a constraint on the site. Environmental Health has indicated that at planning application stage, a noise and air survey and reports would be required and a report would need to demonstrate that future occupants would not be adversely affected and that satisfactory internal and external residential environments can be delivered. In light of this (and other) constraint(s), adjustments have been made to the estimated developable area and the density estimate to take account of the need for mitigation measures to be put in place.

39) Are there any flood risks that are unresolvable? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) No, the Council has not been advised of any unresolvable flood risks for this site.

b) The Council has worked with both the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority throughout the assessment of site suitability. Stage 2 of the Council’s Site Selection process takes a number of issues into account when assessing physical or environmental constraints affecting the suitability of a site, of which flood risk is one. The assessment considered whether the majority of the site is subject to significant fluvial or surface water flood risk, considering the vulnerability of the proposed use, and whether flood risk could be mitigated and managed to an acceptable level. c) The Level 1 and 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2016 ( ENV/10 ) indicated that 100% of this site located within Flood Zone 1 and therefore has the lowest risk of fluvial flooding. This site was not subject to a site-specific Level 2 SFRA assessment as the site is not located in Flood Zones 2/3, it does not have an ordinary watercourse running through or adjacent to the site and the surface water risk was not deemed to be significant.

40) Would the proposal clearly be deliverable within the first five years following adoption? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) There are multiple landowners for this site, however, a willingness to work together has been indicated to the Council. The Council’s evidence on delivery timescales indicates that delivery of a site of this size would be achievable in the first five years of the Plan.

41) Are there any other matters that weigh against this site being proposed for residential development? Welwyn Hatfield Response: a) There are no other matters which the Council is aware which would weigh against the allocation of the site.

Appendix A: Site OMH9. Showing site entrance from main road alongside 22 The Avenue and access to the site (red arrow) via rear of 22 The Avenue.