Examination of the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 1 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. 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. 5 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.