Supporting Paper Housing Targets Consultation June – July 2011

Supporting Paper

Housing Targets Consultation

June – July 2011

Contents Page

1. Review of Neighbourhood Planning

2. Capacity of Broad locations • Issues and Options broad locations A – F (around Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield) • Issues and Options broad locations G – N (around the villages) • Alternative locations/sites (promoted through the responses to the Issues and Options Paper).

3. Background Matrix Appendices a. Appendix to matrix (distribution options) b. Affordable housing estimates

4. Summary of each target for consultation • 2925/146 urban capacity only • 5800/290 RSS Review and Option 1 figure • 7600/380 longer term trends • 10,000/500 East of England Plan pre-high court challenge (basis for Issues and Options consultation) • 14,400/720: ONS 2008 based Household projections.

Appendices a. Report to Cabinet Planning and Transportation Panel November 2009 - Proposed roll forward of the east of England Plan b. Report to Cabinet Housing and Planning Panel October 2010 – Welwyn Hatfield Local Development Framework Position Statement c. Report to Cabinet Housing and Planning Panel November 2010 – Welwyn Hatfield Local Development Framework Position Statement d. Report to Cabinet Housing and Planning Panel March 2011 – Welwyn Hatfield Core Strategy – Consultation on Housing Growth Numbers e. CLG Chief Planner - Steve Quartermain letter 6 July 2010 f. Net annual dwelling completions 1980/1981 – 2009/2010

5. List of technical studies (published on website)

- 1 - SECTION 1

REVIEW OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING

Best practice on sustainable neighbourhood planning

INTRODUCTION

The following is a review of a range of work carried out in relation to access to local facilities, which is fundamental to the concept of sustainable neighbourhoods. It specifically looks at catchment populations (and numbers of dwellings) that will be needed to support the provision of new services. It draws on both theoretical work and case studies of existing examples of „good practice‟ in order to guide future decisions around service provision in new neighbourhoods.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This review found that the context of a new neighbourhood (its relationship to other existing settlements) is clearly an important determining factor in the design of neighbourhoods and the services they provide. The majority of urban extensions, by their nature, adjoin existing communities. Depending upon the location of and accessibility to services already provided in established neighbourhoods, cross benefits between existing and new communities can arise.. Conversely some new neighbourhoods (e.g. Caterham Barracks), which may not be large enough to support services by themselves, provide new services that support adjoining established areas. However, it is often the case that a range of new facilities that are accessible to new communities will need to be planned for, in the interests of creating sustainable new neighbourhoods.

Based on a review of a new neighbourhood developed in Welwyn Hatfield Borough over the last decade, research carried out by Dacorum Borough Council to inform an Supplementary Issues and Options Paper and the theoretical work which was part of the Hertfordshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy (HIIS), the following indicative population/dwelling catchments can be used as a guide in deciding whether a neighbourhood is likely to support a service:

Service Indicative catchment Population Number of Dwellings Two-form Entry Primary 3,450 – 3,680 - 4,0002 1,500 – 1,600 – 1,740 School1 Secondary School (e.g. 6 9,200 – 11,5002 4,000 – 5,000 form entry)1 Local Shop1 1,500 650 Local Centre1 6,000 2,600 Employment Areas1 5750 2500

1 Assumed ratio of 2.3 persons per dwelling 2 Range applies where suggested by more than one reference source. References set out in Appendix A to this section. - 2 -

When planning for employment, location and scale of provision should be related to the likely employee and customer catchments. Some activities will be highly localised. In smaller developments, such opportunities could take the form of home working or small workspace provision appropriate to the local environment. However, on larger developments, e.g. those over 2,500 new dwellings, provision for a wider choice of local job opportunities could be made, enabling access by foot, bike or bus, and hence minimising the use of the car.

In terms of medical services, post offices and libraries, the neighbourhood context is important in determining future need (i.e. is it an extension of an existing residential area?)

The catchment population required to support a secondary school will partly depend upon capacity in existing schools. Secondary schools tend to attract students from a wider catchment area than primary schools and planning can be more complicated with students attending schools some distance from their place of residence. The HIIS illustrates the importance of working with other districts and the county council in deciding service provision. Where a secondary school is required to serve a new neighbourhood, it‟s size will vary depending on the catchment population required to support a viable scale of form entry..

The HIIS (Masterplan report 2008) recommends adhering to the NPFA 6-acre (2.4ha) standard for open space wherever possible (further supporting the importance of local context).

However, the context of the neighbourhood must be emphasised. Design is also important in supporting services – the case study work in Upton, Northampton and Dickens Heath, Solihull indicated that pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods encourage walking to local shops, rather than driving to out-of-town locations.

- 3 - THEORETICAL WORK

The following minimum standards for service provision are based on a range of existing national and local guidance, as well as academic work. A list of these documents is provided in Appendix 1.

Type of facility Indicative population Indicative dwelling catchments catchments Children‟s Centre Target ratio: 800 children (0-5 years) to be served by a children‟s centre Community Centre/ 4,000 1.7401 Village Hall Dentist 2440 1,0601 GP Surgery 1,800 per GP3 800 per GP. 5 4,0004 1740 Leisure Centre 24,000 10,4301 Library 30m2 per 1,000 population Local Shop 1,500 650 Local Centre 6,000 2,6001 Nursery/Pre School 2,000 870 1 Pharmacy (ideally 5,000 2,170 alongside GP) Post Office 5,000 2,1701 Primary School (2 FE) 3,450 – 3,680 -4,000 1,500 – 1,600 – 1,740 Pub 6,000 2,600 Secondary School (6 FE) 9,200 – 11,500 4,000 – 5,000

The table illustrates that below 1,500 dwellings, service provision cannot generally be sustained and for many services, a higher dwelling catchment will be required to sustain a neighbourhood with a good range of services and facilities. However, this table does not take into account the context of locations and their relationship with other existing settlements, where nearby services may be capable of serving new communities.

Recreation space is also an integral part of a neighbourhood. The Fields In Trust “6-acre” standard of open space per 1000 population can be applied to neighbourhoods as follows:

Recreational Facility Size of Open Space (ha)

Pitches, Green and Courts 1.6-1.8 Playgrounds 0.2-0.3 Informal Play Space 0.4-0.5 Total: 2.2-2.6

3 Whilst a 1,800 population catchment would support a sole GP surgery, multiple GP surgeries are more the norm and would therefore require a higher population catchment. 4 HIIS Masterplan report 2008. 5 HIIS Masterplan report 2008. - 4 - Further to this, the HIIS recommends:

Facility Size of Open Space (ha per 1000 population) Outdoor Sports Provision 1.8 Children‟s Play Provision (NEAP) 0.8 Natural/Semi-natural Green Space Provision 1 Allotments 0.2

However, the council‟s Sports Facilities Study, March 2011, recommends an open space provision standard of 1.35 ha per 1,000 population.

BEST PRACTICE IN URBAN EXTENSIONS AND NEW SETTLEMENTS

(TCPA, March 2007)

The Town and Country Planning Association produced a report in 2007, based on a review of relevant literature and historical context. This report included a number of new settlement and urban extension case studies.

Case Studies

1) Upton, Northampton Urban Extension SW of existing urban core of Northampton, linked with surrounding communities in Upton Grange and Duston to form a population mass that can sustain local amenities and viable public transport.

Number of Within School Medical Retail Business Community Dwellings Green Facilities Facilities (with Belt? Densities6)

1,022; No Primary No 700 Commercial - lower sq.m of office densities local space towards the shops edge of the site

6 Densities where available - 5 - 2) Newcastle Great Park Urban Extension Development straddles A1 (M), completing the Kingston Park residential area to the east of the A1 (M) and the retail area to the west. 485 hectare site Release of a large Greenfield site

Number of Within School Medical Retail Business Community Dwellings Green Facilities Facilities (with Belt? Densities)6 2,500 over Yes Yes, no No 20,000 80 hectares Park and ride 12 years details sq.m of to provide scheme, with 160 local local S106 housing shops employment agreement to association ensure public homes transport runs from start of development.

3) Hampton, Peterborough Urban Extension South of the city shares boundaries with existing residential areas, the development straddles the A15 road, abutting the East Coast Main Line railway to the east and Fletton Parkway to the north. 1,000 hectare brownfield site

Number of Within School Medical Retail Business Community Dwellings Green Facilities Facilities (with Belt? Densities)6 3,600 with No 2 primary, Medical Yes, no Commercial Police current 1 Centre details properties Station consent, secondary in centre 7,000 with outline permission. Average 35dph

- 6 -

4) Caterham Barracks, Surrey Urban Extension North west of urban centre of Caterham, adjoined on 2 sides by 1930s development, with a housing development to the south 23 hectare site, made up of 3 parcels of land.

Number of Within School Medical Retail Business Community Dwellings Green Facilities Facilities (with Belt? Densities)6 348 No No 50-bed 2,500 5,297 sq.m, Community including nursing sq.m 12 live-work farm, 96 home. offices gymnastic affordable Health- centre, units care outdoor sport service and recreation spaces, internet café, youth centre, cinema, exhibition and conference spaces

5) Dickens Heath, Solihull New Settlement 3 miles from Solihull Clearly defined boundaries To house 4,000

Number of Within School Medical Retail Business Community Dwellings Green Facilities Facilities (with Belt? Densities)6 1,672; 6- Yes Two-form Doctors Convenience Commercial Church, 10dph on entry Surgery shops buildings Library, the primary with mixed- Public periphery, school, use in urban House and 10-14dph secondary core Village Hall towards the school village, 14- 18dph near the urban core

- 7 -

6) South Woodham Ferrers, Essex New Settlement Expansion (outwards and around) of existing urban area Existing site north of development Estimated population 17,000 - 18,000

Number of Within School Medical Retail Business Community Dwellings Green Facilities Facilities (with Belt? Densities)6 4,600 No Community No 12,000sq 3 industrial Church, school and m, areas and Library and a primary developed craft Country Park school. with Asda workshops Development and within mixed to north of relying on use central site included catchment area a eight form area entry bigger secondary than town school

CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM TCPA BEST PRACTICE REPORT

It is evident that the context of the site is important. The new development of Dickens Heath in Solihull was 3 miles from the urban centre of Solihull and so for a sustainable settlement to be developed the provision of a primary and secondary school, a doctors surgery and a library were considered necessary.

Conversely, Upton is located south-west of the urban core of Northampton and as such benefits from existing services in Northampton. Thus, no new services were provided in this new neighbourhood other than a primary school which the 1,022 new dwellings support.

The Caterham Barracks study demonstrates that whilst a lower number of dwellings (348) was not sufficient to support a new primary school, , the context of this particular development, in that it abuts existing residential areas, demonstrates that even such a small new neighbourhood can form part of a wider population catchment that when taken together, can sustain new services and facilities that serve both new and existing communities, e.g. medical services here were designed to serve a new community and the adjoining neighbourhoods. (Viability and connectivity to existing neighbourhoods will be crucial to such plans).

It is also worth noting the Hampton urban extension in Peterborough, the largest site referred to in the TCPA report, both in terms of size (1000ha of brownfield land) and dwelling numbers (3,600 with current consent, 7,000 with outline permission). This site, although it shares its boundaries with other residential areas, was still large enough to support two primary schools, a secondary school and a Police Station.

- 8 -

HERTFORDSHIRE INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY (HIIS)

The HIIS (final technical report 2009) supports the view that „development should be viable in the context of the specific characteristics of the sites allocated for development in their area‟. Further to this, the strategy recommends that districts and county councils need to work together to determine more clearly their needs in response to growth and justify this.

Facility Indicative Population Threshold

Nursery School 2000 Primary School (Two-form Entry) 4000 Doctors‟ Surgery 4000 Pharmacy 5000 Community Centre 4000 Pub 6000 Post Office 5000

For libraries, the strategy refers to information produced by the Museums and Library Archives (MLA) – „A Standard Charge Approach 2008‟7. The MLA recommends a figure of 30m2 per 1,000 population as a benchmark for local authorities. The Consultants‟ view is that it is quite high however, and recommends a more local review.

If we were to translate the indicative population catchments from the HIIS work to indicative dwelling thresholds (by applying an average indicative household size of 2.3 dwellings per household), the following number of dwellings would in theory be required to support the range of facilities listed. (The thresholds would vary depending on the average size of household applied).

Facility Indicative Dwelling Threshold

Nursery School 870 Primary School (Two-form Entry) 1740 Doctors‟ Surgery 1740 Pharmacy 2170 Community Centre 1740 Pub 2600 Post Office 2170

7 www.mla.gov.uk/website/publications - 9 -

DACORUM

Research undertaken by Dacorum Borough Council to inform their November 2006 Supplementary Issues and Options Consultation relating to Growth at Hemel Hempstead, found that a typical residential neighbourhood has about 2,500 people in 1,000-1,100 dwellings. This is usually of sufficient size to require (and support) a one form entry primary school.

The same research found that, in order for neighbourhoods to be considered „sustainable‟, community facilities had to be within certain distances of dwellings:

Facility Dacorum - Distance from Shaping Neighbourhoods, Dwelling (m) 2nd edition, by Barton, Grant and Guise 2010 (60 persons per hectare) (m) Primary Schools 600 700 Bus Stop 400 400 Local Shop 800 400/700 Community Hall 800 600 Local Park 400 400 - 800 Secondary School 1,500 1,000/1,200 Health Facility 1,000 1,000

The HIIS considered a range of broad, theoretical locations for urban extensions within Dacorum borough and examined what services different size neighbourhoods could support.

Conclusions from the Dacorum HIIS work

The HIIS master planning work of the broad locations suggests that a neighbourhood with a population of 2,470 and with 1,160 dwellings can support a primary school.

The HIIS work also suggests that with a population of 5,450 or 2,500 dwellings, it would be necessary to provide employment sites to encourage the development of a sustainable neighbourhood and prevent the settlement become a „dormitory settlement‟ as people commute to other areas for work.

- 10 - WELWYN HATFIELD

HIIS MASTER PLANNING WORK

Several theoretical broad locations for urban extensions were considered in Welwyn Hatfield through the HIIS Master planning work, to examine indicative catchment populations for service provision to support8 new neighbourhoods (Appendix 2).

All the broad locations considered through this work had the capacity to accommodate over 2,400 dwellings and a population exceeding 5,000. Each broad location was considered to have the potential population catchment to support a primary school and all of the locations were considered to have the catchment population necessary to support two neighbourhood centres, although the specific geography and distribution of development at each broad location meant that this was a more refined approach than a simple mathematical ratio such as that referred to in academic work9. Three of the broad locations made provision for employment land and the other location was adjacent to an existing business park. This demonstrates that on-site or nearby employment is important if developments are to achieve a suitable level of sustainability. This also supports the work from Dacorum that the threshold for employment on-site or nearby is approximately 2,500 dwellings.

HATFIELD AERODROME

The redevelopment of the former Hatfield Aerodrome site was reviewed as an example of a new neighbourhood in Welwyn Hatfield to examine the range of services provided compared to those envisaged in the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) published in 1999. Hatfield Aerodrome is a 323.8ha site situated to the east of the main settlement of Hatfield. 46.5ha were set aside for a business park, with a 12.1ha site set aside for the University of Hertfordshire. There was also a need to provide accommodation for 1,600 students close to the University. The SPG envisaged 1,660 dwellings with the majority of these (870 dwellings) in the south of the site. Below is a comparison of the site that was envisaged in the SPG with the site as it now currently stands.

Services Envisaged in the SPG Services Provided

Health/Medical Centre None on-site 2 form entry primary school 2 form entry primary school Potential for a community hall and day- Community hall care provision Convenience Retail/Unit Shops Neighbourhood centre with convenience shops Hotel One hotel provided within the masterplanned area Additional Secondary School (if None on-site necessary) Contribution to library services No library on-site but contribution to service provided.

8 Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Investment Strategy (2008) Masterplan Report 9 Shaping Neighbourhoods, 2nd edition, by Barton, Grant and Guise (2010) - 11 - Note: Higher densities than anticipated have been achieved on this site, with around 2,200 dwellings completed to date and a final phase of around 160 dwellings under construction/to be completed.

CONCLUSIONS

The context of any new neighbourhoods, in particular, their relationship to other existing settlements is crucial to the successful planning of sustainable new communities.

There is no precise ratio that can be applied universally to all new neighbourhoods because local circumstances will vary from location to location. However, there is a sufficient range of academic work, best practice, case study examples and technical work to draw upon.

Together, these suggest indicative catchment populations that will be required to support a range of services and facilities, some or all of which may be required to help create sustainable new communities. These are set out within this paper.

These would suggest that the provision of 1,500 new homes would create a sufficient population catchment to support a basic range of services and facilities, such as a two form entry primary school, a day nursery/pre-school nursery and a small range of local shops. If a fuller range of local services and facilities are considered necessary to create a larger neighbourhood centre then a greater population catchment is likely to be required.

- 12 - References Section 1: Appendix 1

Type of facility Source Children‟s Centre Sourced from the Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Investment Strategy, final technical report 2009. Community Sourced from the 2010 Shaping Neighbourhoods, 2nd edition, by Barton, Centre/ Village Grant and Guise. Hall Dentist NHS: http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/primary- care/dentistry/nhs-dental-statistics-2007-08-annual-report GP Surgery The standard was sourced from the Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Investment Strategy, final technical report 2009. Leisure Centre Sourced from the 2010 Shaping Neighbourhoods, 2nd edition, by Barton, Grant and Guise. Library HIIS final technical report 2009, (based on published information by the Museums and Library Archives (MLA) – „A Standard Charge Approach 2008) Local Centre Sourced from the 2010 Shaping Neighbourhoods, 2nd edition, by Barton, Grant and Guise. Nursery/Pre Shaping Neighbourhoods, 2nd edition, by Barton, Grant and Guise, 2010 School and HIIS Masterplan report 2008. Pharmacy Catchment sourced from HIIS Masterplan report 2008. Pharmacies are often provided alongside GP surgeries providing a supportive patient service. Post Office Sourced from the 2010 Shaping Neighbourhoods, 2nd edition, by Barton, Grant and Guise. Primary School Targets for primary schools have been based on: Advice from Herts County Council (education provider), Responses to the Welwyn Hatfield Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper 2009. Shaping Neighbourhoods, 2nd edition, by Barton, Grant and Guise (2010). Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Investment Strategy (2008, Masterplan report). Pub Sourced from the 2010 Shaping Neighbourhoods, 2nd edition, by Barton, Grant and Guise and HIIS Masterplan report 2008 Secondary Targets for schools have been based on: School Advice from Herts County Council (education provider), Responses to the Welwyn Hatfield Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper 2009. Shaping Neighbourhoods, 2nd edition, by Barton, Grant and Guise (2010). Best Practice in Urban Extensions and New settlements. TCPA, 2007

- 13 -

Theoretical Locations in Welwyn Hatfield (HIIS Master planning work) Section 1: Appendix 2

Location Size (ha) No. of Densities Population Schools Employment Other Facilities Dwellings

A 118.4; 90 for 2450 Southern section with a central zone of 5200 Primary 8.8ha in northern 2 neighbourhood residential 50dph, with surrounding area of 40dph (1.8ha site section to form a centres with and 30dph around the site boundary. in southern buffer between convenience Northern section with central zone of section) residential areas retailing 40dph and 50dph to the north east and and railway south B 137.7; 9.2 for 2900 50dph core, surrounding the 6200 Primary 6.1ha site in south Neighbourhood residential neighbourhood centre and primary (3.1ha site) east of location, centre with school. „Inner ring‟ of 40dph and 40pdh adjacent to convenience „buffer‟ abutting employment area. existing business retailing 50dph ring around on the boundary of park the site C 171.2; 116.3 3550 Two 50dph blocks adjacent to 7500 Primary 19ha site 2 neighbourhood for residential neighbourhood centre and primary (2.6ha site) separated from centres; largest in school. 40dph „blocks‟ in the centre of residential area by the north of the the location and adjoining existing railway site; convenience residential area. 30pdh areas in the retailing west of the site towards the green belt D 172; 136.5ha 4060 6.5ha zone of 50dph adjacent to 8600 Primary Adjacent to 2 neighbourhood for residential neighbourhood centre and primary (2.1ha site) existing business centres with school. Zone of 40dph surrounds this, park convenience with 30dph towards the northern and retailing south-western fringe

- 14 -

SECTION 2

A: Estimated capacity at broad locations around Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Issues and Broad Location Issues and Options Post Issues & Potential for new Options Capacity range options (25 d.p.h. neighbourhoods 10 Reference (rounded 20-30 and any known at 25 d.p.h. d.p.h.) adjustment)

A North East of WGC 600-1000 872 0.58

B South East of WGC 3,400 – 5,000 200011 1.33

C North West of 2,000-2,900 2,480 1.65 Hatfield

D West of redeveloped 3,300 – 4,800 260012 1.73 part of Hatfield Aerodrome

E West of Ellenbrook 2,100 – 2,900 90013 0.63 and Roehyde

F South of Hatfield 900-1,300 1,097 0.73

TOTAL ESTIMATED 12,300 – 17,900 9,949 CAPACITY

An illustrative net density of 25 dwellings per hectare for broad locations has been chosen. On large sites, such as these, account has to be taken the need to provide roads, play space, schools, shops and other facilities. Accordingly, the net housing density on larger sites tends to be lower than on small sites. Gross to net ratios for different sizes of site are set out in research carried out on behalf of the government by URBED and Llewelyn Davies. This shows that on sites over 2 hectares, the net density of housing development is typically 50 to 75% of the net density (mid-point 62.5%): http://www.urbed.coop/journal_docs/Tapping%20the%20potential%20report.pdf . So building new housing at a gross density of 40 dwellings per hectare could, typically result in a net density of 25 dwellings per hectare being achieved. This set of gross to net ratios was also used in the government‟s draft practice guidance on Housing Land Availability Assessments: Identifying appropriate land for housing development, December 2005.

10 Assumption, minimum size of new neighbourhood 1,500 new homes in order to sustain a basic range of services and facilities. To sustain a fuller range of services and facilities, new neighbourhood may need to be larger depending upon context with adjoining settlement. 11 Advice from agent post Issues and Options Paper that 25 dph is a more realistic density. 12 Revised figure reflects that part of the broad location only in Welwyn Hatfield following deletion by the High Court of part of the East of England Plan Policy LA3 which had previously allowed for the potential for some development to take place in St Albans District. Apportioned at 64.78%. 13 As per broad location (D), i.e. deletion of part of RSS policy LA3. Apportioned at 38.34%.

- 15 -

B: Estimated capacity at broad locations around the Villages

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Issues and Broad Location Issues and Options Post Issues & Potential for new Options Capacity range Options neighbourhoods 14 Reference (broadly rounded at (estimated at 25 d.p.h. 20-30 d.p.h.) (notes capacity at 25 of any adjustments) d.p.h.)

G East of Welham 600 - 900 705 0.47 Green

H West and South of 2600 - 3900 3250 2.17 Brookmans Park

I West and South 1,700 – 2,50015 1600 1.07 West of Cuffley

J South and north west 500 - 700 700 0.47 of Welwyn

K Oaklands and 200 - 300 280 0.19 Mardley Heath

L North of Woolmer 100 - 200 115 0.08 Green

M East of Little Heath 100 - 200 115 0.08

N East of Digswell 100 - 200 170 0.11

TOTAL ESTIMATED 5,900 – 8,900 6,935 CAPACITY

An illustrative net density of 25 dwellings per hectare for broad locations has been chosen. On large sites, such as these, account has to be taken the need to provide roads, play space, schools, shops and other facilities. Accordingly, the net housing density on larger sites tends to be lower than on small sites. Gross to net ratios for different sizes of site are set out in research carried out on behalf of the government by URBED and Llewelyn Davies. This shows that on sites over 2 hectares, the net density of housing development is typically 50 to 75% of the net density (mid point 62.5%): http://www.urbed.coop/journal_docs/Tapping%20the%20potential%20report.pdf . So building new housing at a gross density of 40 dwellings per hectare could, typically result in a net density of 25 dwellings per hectare being achieved. This set of gross to net ratios was also used in the government‟s draft practice guidance on Housing Land Availability Assessments: Identifying appropriate land for housing development, December 2005.

14 Assumption, minimum size of new neighbourhood 1,500 new homes in order to sustain a basic range of services and facilities. To sustain a fuller range of services and facilities, new neighbourhood may need to be larger depending upon context with adjoining settlement. 15 Capacity revised post Issues and Options Paper to reflect potential within Welwyn Hatfield only.

- 16 -

C: Alternative Locations submitted in response to the Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper 2009 (outside the broad locations already identified in the Issues and Options Paper). Area Site ID Site Name/Location CSIO Number Site Area Estimated capacity (25 dph) 14 (approx AS1 Creswick, South West WGC 6770 350 residential area) AS2 East of Digswell Hill to west of WGC 127 2.7 68 AS3 Between Stanborough and Lemsford 6590 11.9 298 AS6 The Holding, Stanborough 6590 35.1 878 AS4 North of Oldings Corner 6722 9.4 235 AS5 South of Bulls Lane (Skimpans Farm) 6690 4 100 AS7 Friday Grove Farm, Brookmans Park 6639 / 6651 7.6 190 AS7A Raybrook Farm, Brookmans Park16 6502 4.0 100 AS8 South of Bluebridge Ave, Brookmans Park 6645 10.5 263 AS9 See AS19,20, 21 and 22 n/a n/a n/a AS10 East Cuffley 6640 4.3 108 AS11 N/NE Welwyn 4500 4 100 AS12 East of Great North Road, Woolmer Green 5353 24.8 620 AS19 Peplins Wood, Brookmans Park 6645 7.6 190 AS20 West of Golf Club Road, Brookmans Park 6645 0.7 18 AS21 East of Golf Club Road, Brookmans Park 6645 0.54 14 AS22 Bell Bar/Bell Lane 6645 5.4 135 AS13 South of Northaw 6798 1.4 35 AS14 North of Northaw 6691 11.5 288 AS15 Northaw Place, Coopers Lane 6742 3.8 95 AS16 East of Swanland Road, parallel to A1(M) west of Brookmans Park 2280 4.6 115 AS17 Out of borough n/a n/a n/a AS18 Reserved school site, south of Welwyn 6643 6.3 158 AS2317 South of Northaw Road West n/a 4.13 103

16 Correction notified by respondent to consultation, July 2011. 17 Site not suggested in response to Issues and Options Paper. Site suggested via Housing Team in September 2010. Not included in table reported to CHPP. - 17 -

- 18 -

SECTION 3

BACKGROUND MATRIX TO INFORM HOUSING TARGETS CONSULTATION

Criteria for column D

1. What would be the distribution strategy?

2. How much land would need to be released from the Green Belt?

3. Percentage increase on existing total stock

4. What would be the impact on affordable housing provision?

5. How would this target affect the scale of town centre development?

6. What would be the impact (if any) on deliverability? SHLAA

7. What would be the impact (if any) on viability?

8. Would the delivery of necessary investment in regeneration areas be affected and if so how?

9. What would be the implications for infrastructure requirements?

10. How would this target affect employment provision locally?

11. Any other matters

- 19 -

March 2011

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Annual / 20 yr target 146/2925 290/5800 380/7600 500/10000 720/14400 East of England Plan - Pre- The Council‟s interim target High Court Challenge and (East of England Plan Continuation of the 30 2008 CLG based Description Urban Capacity Only baseline for WH Core Review 2011-2031 year trend Household Projections Strategy Issues and Options (Option 1) Consultation in 2009 Criteria What would be Distribution of The distribution strategy The distribution strategy The distribution strategy The distribution strategy 1 the housing development would focus in the first would focus in the first would focus in the first would focus in the first Distribution would be focussed instance on urban capacity instance on urban instance on urban capacity instance on urban Strategy? mainly in Welwyn (as per scenario 1). Would capacity (as per scenario (as per scenario 1). Would capacity (as per scenario Garden City and then need to release land 1). Would then need to then need to release land 1). Would then need to Hatfield with smaller from the Green Belt to release land from the from the Green Belt to release land from the scale development in provide 2,875 homes. Best Green Belt to provide provide 7,075 homes. Best Green Belt to provide some large villages practice suggests that a 4,675 homes. Best practice suggests that a 11,475 homes. Best and the new neighbourhood needs practice suggests that a new neighbourhood needs a practice suggests that a redevelopment of a minimum of around 1,500 new neighbourhood minimum of around 1,500 new neighbourhood previously developed homes to support a basic needs a minimum of homes to support a basic needs a minimum of sites in the Green range of shops and around 1,500 homes to range of shops and around 1,500 homes to Belt. services. At 25 dph, there support a basic range of services. At 25 dph, there support a basic range of are three broad locations shops and services. At 25 are three broad locations shops and services. At around WGC and Hatfield dph, there are three broad around WGC and Hatfield 25dph, there are three (B, C or D) that are each locations around WGC B, C or D) that are large broad locations around large enough to and Hatfield (B, C or D) enough to accommodate a WGC and Hatfield that are accommodate a new that are large enough to new neighbourhood of at large enough to neighbourhood of at least accommodate a new least 1,500 homes. 7,075 accommodate a new 1,500 homes. 2,875 new neighbourhood of at least new homes could be neighbourhood of at least homes could be distributed 1,500 homes. 4,675 new distributed between these 3 1,500 homes and have between 2 of these 3 broad homes could be of these broad locations the joint capacity to locations through the accommodated at either 2 through the creation of three accommodate 7080 new creation of two new of these broad locations large new neighbourhoods homes. Therefore, 4,395 neighbourhoods. No large (C and D) through the No large scale expansion on would need to be scale expansion on this creation of two new this scale would be required delivered elsewhere. scale would be required neighbourhoods or around any of the borough‟s There are broad locations around any of the distributed between the 3 large villages. around two of the larger

- 20 -

borough‟s large villages. broad locations (B, C or villages that could D) through the creation of accommodate this level of three smaller growth, but would result in neighbourhoods. No large significant expansion of scale expansion on this both of those settlements scale would be required, (by at least 45% in terms around any of the of area). Alternatively, borough‟s large villages. this level of growth could be accommodated by a dispersed pattern of growth around a number of settlements in Welwyn Hatfield. This would involve the expansion of towns and / or villages by amounts less than the best practice minimum of 1,500 dwellings, so there would be limited opportunities to support new infrastructure and services.

- 21 -

18 Assumes an average density of around 25 dwellings per hectare, reflecting the need for development other than housing i.e. supporting social, environmental and economic infrastructure. 19 Assumes an average density of around 25 dwellings per hectare, reflecting the need for development other than housing i.e. supporting social, environmental and economic infrastructure. 20 Assumes an average density of around 25 dwellings per hectare, reflecting the need for development other than housing i.e. supporting social, environmental and economic infrastructure. 21 Assumes an average density of around 25 dwellings per hectare, reflecting the need for development other than housing i.e. supporting social, environmental and economic infrastructure.

- 22 -

- 23 -

22 http://www.welhat.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3099&p=0 23 This is based on a 20 year calculation but a reduced threshold would not be operative until at least 2013. 24 http://www.welhat.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3099&p=0

- 24 -

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5

Annual / 20 yr target 146/2925 290/5800 380/7600 500/10000 720/14400

East of England Plan - Pre- The Council‟s interim target High Court Challenge and (East of England Plan Continuation of the 30 2008 CLG based Description Urban Capacity Only baseline for WH Core Review 2011-2031 year trend Household Projections Strategy Issues and Options (Option 1) Consultation in 2009 Criteria 5 How would This scenario would A new neighbourhood Likely to start to impact on The Retail and Town Centre This scenario would this target have a minimal centre would be required the need for further retail Needs Assessment, 2007 involve a change to both affect the impact on our for each broad location. It floorspace in the town tested this scenario and our town centre strategies scale of town adopted strategies for is doubtful whether the centres, but highly concluded that 28,900 sq.m to deliver over and above centre both Welwyn Garden development of one new dependent on where the of retail floorspace (gross) the uplift associated with development? City and Hatfield neighbourhood would new neighbourhoods are would be needed in WGC 10,000 new homes and Town Centres. impact substantially on our located. For example if town centre and 4,400 sq.m would result in the existing strategies for our two new neighbourhoods of retail floorspace (gross) expansion of both town town centres. are located in the Hatfield would be needed in Hatfield centres. This would be area, given the physical Town Centre to likely to mean that we constraints on the town accommodate this growth. would need to produce an centre, it may be This would involve a change Area Action Plan for WGC necessary to expand the to both our town centre Town Centre. If new retail role of the Galleria. strategies to deliver this floorspace in WGC is uplift, and would result in directly linked to housing the expansion of both town growth, it is not easy to centres. This would be likely see how such levels of to mean that we would need floorspace could be to produce an Area Action achieved within existing Plan for WGC Town Centre. environmental constraints.

25 This is based on a 20 year calculation but a reduced threshold would not be operative until at least 2013. 26 http://www.welhat.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3099&p=0 27 This is based on a 20 year calculation but a reduced threshold would not be operative until at least 2013. 28 http://www.welhat.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3099&p=0 29 This is based on a 20 year calculation but a reduced threshold would not be operative until at least 2013. 30 http://www.welhat.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3099&p=0 31 This is based on a 20 year calculation but a reduced threshold would not be operative until at least 2013.

- 25 -

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Annual / 20 yr target 146/2925 290/5800 380/7600 500/10000 720/14400 East of England Plan - Pre- The Council‟s interim target High Court Challenge and (East of England Plan Continuation of the 30 2008 CLG based Description Urban Capacity Only baseline for WH Core Review 2011-2031 year trend Household Projections Strategy Issues and Options (Option 1) Consultation in 2009 Criteria 6 What would Most sites are Assuming that the objective Assuming that the Assuming that the objective Assuming that the be the impact available in the early to make best use of PDL objective to make best to make best use of PDL objective to make best (if any) on years of the plan. As prior to releasing land from use of PDL prior to prior to releasing land from use of PDL prior to deliverability? these would be the Green Belt prevails, releasing land from the the Green Belt prevails, releasing land from the SHLAA minimum targets, if housing completions on Green Belt prevails then then housing completions Green Belt prevails, then all sites come forward land to be released from housing completions in would need to come on housing completions early, a 5 year land the Green Belt would need areas of urban extension stream as early as 2016/17. would need to come on supply may not exist to come on stream by would need to come on If the Core Strategy is stream as early as 2015. in the latter stages of 2021. If Core Strategy is stream by 2018/19. If the adopted in 2013 and around If the Core Strategy is the plan and land adopted in 2013, sufficient Core Strategy is adopted 7 years would be required to adopted in 2013 and may then need to be lead-in time would exist to in 2013 and around 7 master-plan any strategic around 7 years would be released from the master-plan two new years would be required allocation, then clearly, required to master-plan Green Belt. neighbourhoods. Housing to master-plan any there would be insufficient any strategic allocation, could start to be delivered strategic allocation, then time to achieve first delivery then clearly, there would at the broad locations there is a clear risk that by 2016/17. One broad be insufficient time to around Welwyn Garden first delivery may not be location around Hatfield is achieve first delivery by City and Hatfield by 2021. achieved by 2018/19. also partly subject to 2015. One broad location However, one broad One broad location (mineral) constraints which around Hatfield is also location around Hatfield is around Hatfield is also has the potential to further partly subject to (mineral) partly subject to (mineral) partly subject to (mineral) affect the timing of delivery. constraints which has the constraints, which has the constraints which has the . potential to further affect potential to affect the timing potential to further affect the timing of delivery. of delivery. the timing of delivery.

- 26 -

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Annual / 20 yr target 146/2925 290/5800 380/7600 500/10000 720/14400 East of England Plan - Pre- The Council‟s interim target High Court Challenge and (East of England Plan Continuation of the 30 2008 CLG based Description Urban Capacity Only baseline for WH Core Review 2011-2031 year trend Household Projections Strategy Issues and Options (Option 1) Consultation in 2009 Criteria 7 What would The focus for First focus for development First focus for First focus for development First focus for be the impact development would would be within two main development would be would be within two main development would be (if any) on be in two main towns towns where there is no within two main towns towns where there is no within two main towns viability? where there is no evidence to suggest that where there is no evidence to suggest that where there is no evidence to suggest development would not be evidence to suggest that development would not be evidence to suggest that that development generally viable. However, development would not generally viable. However, development would not be would not be should current economic be generally viable. should current economic generally viable. However, generally conditions continue or However, should current conditions continue or should current economic viable.(Development worsen, negotiations may economic conditions worsen, negotiations may conditions continue or Economics Study become more challenging. continue or worsen, become more challenging. worsen, negotiations may 2010 32) However, There is currently no negotiations may become There is currently no become more challenging. should current evidence to suggest that more challenging. There evidence to suggest that the There is currently no economic conditions the development of new is currently no evidence to development of new evidence to suggest that continue or worsen, neighbourhoods would not suggest that the neighbourhoods would not the development of new negotiations may be generally viable but this development of new be generally viable but this neighbourhoods would not become more would need to be neighbourhoods would would need to be be generally viable but challenging. considered in greater detail not be generally viable considered in greater detail this would need to be as part of the development but this would need to be as part of the development considered in greater of the Community considered in greater of the Community detail as part of the Infrastructure Levy detail as part of the Infrastructure Levy charging development of the charging schedule which development of the schedule which will explore Community Infrastructure will explore the need for Community Infrastructure the need for social, Levy charging schedule social, economic and Levy charging schedule economic and which will explore the environmental which will explore the environmental infrastructure need for social, economic infrastructure that would be need for social, economic that would be required to and environmental required to create and environmental create sustainable infrastructure that would sustainable communities. infrastructure that would communities. be required to create be required to create sustainable communities.

32 http://www.welhat.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3099&p=0

- 27 -

sustainable communities.

- 28 -

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Annual / 20 yr target 146/2925 290/5800 380/7600 500/10000 720/14400 East of England Plan - Pre- The Council‟s interim target High Court Challenge and (East of England Plan Continuation of the 30 2008 CLG based Description Urban Capacity Only baseline for WH Core Review 2011-2031 year trend Household Projections Strategy Issues and Options (Option 1) Consultation in 2009 Criteria 9 What would Unlikely to provide This scenario would give This scenario would give This scenario would give This scenario would give be the the critical mass rise to the need for new rise to the need for new rise to the need for new rise to the need for new implications needed to support local infrastructure to be local infrastructure to be local infrastructure to be local infrastructure to be for new infrastructure in provided to support the provided to support the provided to support the provided to support the infrastructure the borough. More creation of a new creation of new creation of new creation of new requirements? pressure will be neighbourhoods, for neighbourhoods, for neighbourhoods, for neighbourhoods, for placed on existing example a new school, example a new school, example a new school, example a new school, services as a result. community centre, GP community centre, GP community centre, GP community centre, GP Areas of existing surgery, green surgery, green surgery, green surgery, green green infrastructure infrastructure, CHP and infrastructure, CHP and infrastructure, CHP and infrastructure, CHP and within settlements District heating etc. District heating etc. District heating etc. The District heating etc. The may be affected Upgrades to existing Upgrades to existing Hertfordshire Infrastructure Hertfordshire resulting in pressure infrastructure for example infrastructure for example and Investment Study also Infrastructure and for new provision. sewerage works may be sewerage works may be identifies where more Investment Study also Surface water runoff needed depending on needed, depending on strategic infrastructure is identifies where more would increase with location and growth in the location and growth in the required across the county strategic infrastructure is concentrated waste water catchment. waste water catchment. to deliver growth. Upgrades required across the development. to existing infrastructure for county to deliver growth. example sewerage works Upgrades to existing may be needed, depending infrastructure for example on location and growth in sewerage works may be the waste water catchment. needed, depending on Levels of growth of this location and growth in the order would also have waste water catchment. significant impacts on Depending on location, capacity of the existing impacts on transport transport network, including infrastructure, including the A1(M). the A1(M) could be substantial.

- 29 -

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Annual / 20 yr target 146/2925 290/5800 380/7600 500/10000 720/14400 East of England Plan - Pre- The Council‟s interim target High Court Challenge and (East of England Plan Continuation of the 30 2008 CLG based Description Urban Capacity Only baseline for WH Core Review 2011-2031 year trend Household Projections Strategy Issues and Options (Option 1) Consultation in 2009 Criteria How would There are 78,000 There are 78,000 jobs in There are 78,000 jobs in There are 78,000 jobs in the There are 78,000 jobs in 10 this target jobs in the borough the borough (ONS Jobs the borough (ONS Jobs borough (ONS Jobs the borough (ONS Jobs affect (ONS Jobs Density, Density, available at Density, available at Density, available at Density, available at employment available at NOMIS33) NOMIS36) and there are NOMIS39) and there are NOMIS42) and there are NOMIS45) and there are provision and there are approx. approx. 45,650 dwellings in approx. 45,650 dwellings approx. 45,650 dwellings in approx. 45,650 dwellings locally? 45,650 dwellings in the borough (CLG Live in the borough (CLG Live the borough (CLG Live in the borough (CLG Live the borough (CLG Table 100, 2010)37. This Table 100, 2010)40. This Table 100, 2010)43. This Table 100, 2010)46. This Live Table 100, means that there are 1.709 means that there are means that there are 1.709 means that there are 2010)34. This means jobs for every dwelling in 1.709 jobs for every jobs for every dwelling in the 1.709 jobs for every that there are 1.709 the borough (which also dwelling in the borough borough (which also dwelling in the borough jobs for every equates currently, to 1.04 (which also equates equates currently, to 1.04 (which also equates dwelling in the jobs for every working age currently, to 1.04 jobs for jobs for every working age currently, to 1.04 jobs for borough (which also person living in the every working age person person living in the borough. every working age person equates currently, to borough. Maintaining this living in the borough. Maintaining this alignment living in the borough. 1.04 jobs for every alignment between homes Maintaining this alignment between homes and jobs, Maintaining this alignment working age person and jobs, would suggest between homes and jobs, would suggest that we between homes and jobs living in the borough). that we would need to would suggest that we would need to create the would suggest that we Maintaining this create the capacity for a would need to create the capacity for a further 17,100 would need to create the alignment between further 9,900 jobs. Analysis capacity for a further jobs. Analysis in the capacity for a further homes and jobs, in the Hertfordshire London 13,000 jobs. Analysis in Hertfordshire London Arc 24,600 jobs. Analysis in would suggest that Arc Jobs Growth and the Hertfordshire London Jobs Growth and the Hertfordshire London we would need to Employment Land study 38 Arc Jobs Growth and employment Land study44 Arc Jobs Growth and

33 https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038431802/report.aspx 34 http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/stockincludingvacants/livetables/ 36 https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038431802/report.aspx 37 http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/stockincludingvacants/livetables/ 38 http://www.welhat.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=767 39 https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038431802/report.aspx

- 30 -

create the capacity suggests a scenario of Employment Land study41 suggests a scenario of Employment Land study 47 for a further 5,000 future economic demand suggests a scenario of future economic demand suggests a scenario for jobs. Analysis in the that could result in the future economic demand that could result in the future economic demand Hertfordshire London creation of capacity for that could result in the creation of capacity for that could result in the Arc Jobs Growth and 16,200 jobs and the creation of capacity for 16,200 jobs and the creation of capacity for Employment Land opportunity exists within the 16,200 jobs and the opportunity exists within the 16,200 jobs and the study 35 suggests a borough to accommodate opportunity exists within borough to accommodate opportunity exists within scenario of future this level of jobs growth the borough to this level of jobs growth the borough to economic demand without requiring the accommodate this level of without requiring the release accommodate this level of that could result in release of any Green Belt jobs growth without of any Green Belt land. If jobs growth without the creation of land. If the full economic requiring the release of the full economic demand requiring the release of capacity for 16,200 demand for jobs were to be any Green Belt land. If for 16,200 jobs were to be any Green Belt land. If jobs and the met, there would be a the full economic demand met, there could be a slight the full economic demand opportunity exists significant increase in for jobs were to be met, increase in people for 16,200 jobs were to be within the borough to people commuting into there would be a small commuting out of the met, there could be a accommodate this Welwyn Hatfield from increase in people borough for work. significant increase in level of jobs growth elsewhere. commuting into Welwyn people commuting out of without requiring the Hatfield from elsewhere. Welwyn Hatfield. release of any Green Belt land. If the full economic demand for jobs were to be met, there would be a significant increase in people commuting into Welwyn Hatfield from elsewhere.

40 http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/stockincludingvacants/livetables/ 42 https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038431802/report.aspx 43 http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/stockincludingvacants/livetables/ 44 http://www.welhat.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=767 45 https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038431802/report.aspx 46 http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/stockincludingvacants/livetables/ 35 http://www.welhat.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=767 41 http://www.welhat.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=767 47 http://www.welhat.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=767

- 31 -

- 32 -

DISTRIBUTION OPTIONS SECTION 3: APPENDIX A

Distribution Options (Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield and the Villages) March 2011

Housing Green Number of Broad Locations / Target Belt Combinations at 25 dph release for xx homes 1 0 None required 2 2875 Split between 2 broad locations (at B, C or D) in two new neighbourhoods48. 3 4675 Minimum: 2 broad locations49 (at C and D) Maximum: 3 broad locations (at B, C and D) 4 7075 Split between 3 broad locations (at B, C and D) 5 11475 Cannot be wholly accommodated at broad location B, C and D where total capacity at 25 dph = 7080. Therefore 4395 would need to be delivered at other broad locations. Scenarios with A, E and F (around WGC and Hatfield) being developed Broad locations A, E and F around Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield have the total capacity to deliver 2,869 jointly (at 25 dph) but none is large enough on its own to create a sustainable new neighbourhood. Accordingly, none would be likely to generate the requirement for new social / economic infrastructure such as local shops, schools etc. But it would also be the case that existing nearby neighbourhood facilities either do not exist or could not be expanded to support this scale of development.

However, if all of the smaller broad locations around WGC and Hatfield (A, E and F) were to be developed, this would still leave a requirement for further land to be identified to accommodate 1,526 dwellings. 1,526 could be distributed around the large villages in either one area of concentrated growth at either Cuffley or Brookmans Park or through a more dispersed pattern around any combination of G to N.

If 1,526 dwellings were to be accommodated through concentrated growth around either Brookmans Park (H) or Cuffley (I), this would lead to a significant increase in the size of either village and could potentially create two centres within one expanded village. . 1,526 dwellings would require 61.04ha, increasing the size of Cuffley by 44.2% or Brookmans park by 53.5%.

Scenarios with A, E and F (around WGC and Hatfield) not being developed If the smaller broad locations around WGC and Hatfield (A, E and F) were not developed, there are 2 broad locations around our large villages that jointly could have the capacity to accommodate 4,395 new homes. . However, this would lead to a significant increase in the size of either village and could potentially create two centres within one expanded village. If up to 1,600 homes were provided at west and south west of Cuffley, this would require 62.5 ha and would increase the size of Cuffley by 45.3%. If 2725 (rounded 2,800) new homes were provided west and south of Brookmans Park, this would require 112ha and would increase the size of Brookmans Park by 98%.

48 With a small oversupply of 125 dwellings in order to create critical mass for a new neighbourhood. 49 Only in certain combinations as not all broad locations have the joint capacity to accommodate overall Green Belt requirement.

- 33 -

Other small broad locations around our large villages exist with a total joint capacity of 2,085 (G, J, K, L, M and N) but none of these are large enough on their own to create sustainable new neighbourhoods. If all of these (village) locations (G, J, K, L, M and N) were to be developed, this would still leave a requirement to allocate land for 2,310 new dwellings..

Alternative Sites In response to the Issues and Options Paper in 2009, alternative sites were promoted. The majority of these locations are small and none are sufficiently large in their own right to generate the capacity for a new sustainable neighbourhood. Some are detached from villages or towns. Jointly, these alternative locations have the capacity to accommodate around 4,800 homes. Developing at some or all of these various locations would see incremental growth around towns and villages or in countryside locations.

- 34 -

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ESTIMATES SECTON 3: APPENDIX B

Affordable Housing Potential by Urban Total Affordable Housing Estimates Capacity 20 Year 30% Affordable Target Annual Housing Potential Option Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 (2011 - Target by Urban Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario 2031) Extension 1 2 3 4 No % No % No % No %

A 2,925 146 588 640 616 518 0 588 20% 640 22% 616 21% 518 18%

B 5,800 290 588 640 616 518 863 1450 25% 1503 26% 1478 25% 1381 24%

C 7,600 380 588 640 616 518 1403 1990 26% 2043 27% 2018 27% 1921 25%

D 10,000 500 588 640 616 518 2123 2710 27% 2763 28% 2738 27% 2641 26%

E 14,400 720 588 640 616 518 3443 4030 28% 4083 28% 4058 28% 3961 28%

Urban Capacity Scenarios

(Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are informed by the Development Economics Study 2010. Scenario 4 draws upon the adopted District Plan Policy)

Scenario 1 = Threshold of 15 in towns and villages. 30% affordable in WGC, 25% in Hatfield and 35% in villages Scenario 2 = Threshold of 5 in towns and villages. 30% affordable in WGC, 25% in Hatfield and 35% in villages Scenario 3 = Threshold of 15 in towns and 5 in villages. 30% affordable in WGC, 25% in Hatfield and 35% in villages Scenario 4 = Threshold of 25 in towns and villages. 30% affordable in all location (District Plan 2005 Policy H7) Assumptions

All sites with full and outline planning permission (as at 31st March 2010 and as published in the 2009/10 AMR) have been removed from these calculations as affordable housing element has already been agreed.

- 35 -

SECTION 4

SUMMARY OF EACH CONSULTATION TARGET

TARGET 1: Urban capacity

Taking into account sites identified in the Welwyn Hatfield Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, October 2009 and subsequent monitoring data, there is capacity for about 2,925 additional dwellings on sites mainly within the borough‟s towns and larger villages. If new housing were only to be built at these locations over the period to 2031, this would result in an average annual rate of new housing provision of 146 dwellings. In practice, however, build rates have been much higher than this. If high demand means that homes are built on all the urban capacity sites early on, green belt sites may then be needed, but will not have been planned for.

Urban capacity was calculated from the council‟s housing trajectory as set out in the council‟s Annual Monitoring Report 2009/10, December 2010.

TARGET 2: East of England Plan Review 2011 – 2031 (Option 1 targets and the Council’s interim housing target)

This target would result in an average annual rate of housing construction of 290 new dwellings per year, or 5,800 from 2011 to 2031 (see paragraph 4.1 above). Taking into account sites identified in the Welwyn Hatfield Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, October 2009 and subsequent monitoring data, there is capacity for about 2,925 additional dwellings on sites within the borough‟s towns and larger villages. This equates to about 10 years‟ supply, meaning that we could protect the borough‟s green belt until about 2021. Land for about 2,875 dwellings would also need to be released from the green belt for the supply of housing sites to continue beyond 2020. Best practice indicates that, to create a neighbourhood large enough to have its own facilities, at least 1,500 dwellings need to be built. This target would be likely to result in the development of two new neighbourhoods in the green belt around Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield.

Relevant committee reports are set out at appendices A to D of this section. A letter from DCLG‟s Chief Planning Officer stating that local planning authorities may base revised housing targets on the level of provision submitted to the original regional spatial planning examination, supplemented by more recent information as appropriate appears at Appendix E of this section.

TARGET 3: Long term trend

This target reflects the average rate of housing construction in Welwyn Hatfield over the last thirty years and would result in an average annual rate of 380 new dwellings per year, or 7,600 from 2011 to 2031. Taking into account sites identified in the Welwyn Hatfield Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, October 2009 and

- 36 -

subsequent monitoring data, there is capacity for about 2,925 additional dwellings on sites within the borough‟s towns and larger villages. This equates to about 7½ years‟ supply, meaning that we could protect the borough‟s green belt until about 2018. Land for about 4,675 dwellings would also need to be released from the green belt for the supply of housing sites to continue beyond 2018. This target would be likely to result in the development of two or three new neighbourhoods in the green belt around Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield.

A graph setting out the net completion rates in the borough since 1980/1981 is at the end of this section, in Appendix F of this section.

TARGET 4: The East of England Plan 2008

This target takes the figure set out in the East of England Plan for 2001 to 2021 and projects it forward for the period 2011 to 2031. It would result in an average annual rate of housing construction of 500 new dwellings per year, or 10,000 from 2011 to 2031. Taking into account sites identified in the Welwyn Hatfield Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, October 2009 and subsequent monitoring data, there is capacity for about 2,925 additional dwellings on sites within the borough‟s towns and larger villages. This equates to about 6 years‟ supply, meaning that we could protect the borough‟s green belt until about 2017. Land for about 7,075 dwellings would need to be released from the green belt for the supply of housing sites to continue beyond 2017. This target would be likely to result in the development of three new neighbourhoods in the green belt around Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield.

This target was the basis for consultation in our Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper in 2009. The target was subsequently deleted in the High Court in May 2009.

TARGET 5: Household projections

This target uses a projection of household growth produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in 2010 and based on figures for 2008. For Welwyn Hatfield, it would suggest an average annual rate of housing construction of 720 new dwellings per year, or 14,400 from 2011 to 2031. Taking into account sites identified in the Welwyn Hatfield Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, October 2009 and subsequent monitoring data, there is capacity for about 2,925 additional dwellings on sites within the borough‟s towns and larger villages. This equates to about 4 years‟ supply, meaning that we could protect the borough‟s green belt until about 2015. Land for about 11,475 dwellings would also need to be released from the green belt for the supply of housing sites to continue beyond 2015. This target would be likely to result in the development of three new neighbourhoods in the green belt around Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield, but further green belt releases would also be required, possibly at the smaller broad locations around Welwyn Garden and Hatfield and also around villages.

- 37 -

Section 4 Appendix A

Report to Cabinet Planning and Transportation Panel about the proposed roll forward of the East of England Plan, November 2009

Part I Item No: 0 Main author: Paul Everard / C Hyland Executive Member: AL Perkins All Wards

WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL CABINET PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION PANEL – 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT)

EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN 2031 – SCENARIOS FOR HOUSING AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: CONSULTATION SEPTEMBER 2009

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 This report outlines the key issues arising from the review of the East of England Plan. A number of these issues have potentially significant implications for Welwyn Hatfield. It seeks members‟ approval for comments on the four scenarios put forward in the consultation and proposes an alternative, preferable, scenario which, for Welwyn Hatfield would set a level of housing growth which is manageable (addresses some affordable housing requirements) and would provide scope to allow the local economy to develop and expand.

1.2 Members‟ approval is also sought for comments on the consultation regarding sites put forward by developers as evidence for the review of the East of England Plan.

1.3 The closing date for consultation responses is 24 November 2009. A draft response is set out in Appendix A.

2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATION(S)

2.1 There are no direct financial implications arising directly from this report.

3 RECOMMENDATION(S)

3.1 That the Panel notes and agrees the response as set out in Appendix A.

3.2 That the Director (Strategy and Development) be given delegated powers to finalise the response following consultation with the Executive Member, the Chairman and the Opposition Spokesperson.

- 38 -

4 BACKGROUND

4.1 The current East of England Plan, which is the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the East of England, sets out regional planning policy from 2001 to 2021. Regional plans should set out a long-term strategy for at least 20 years and the current Plan now only covers the next 12 years (2009 to 2021). The government has therefore asked the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) to carry out an immediate review of the Plan in order to make provision for the region‟s development needs for the period 2011 to 2031.

4.2 From April 2010, all regional assemblies in England and Wales will be abolished and responsibility for a single regional plan will rest with a new local council leaders board and the relevant regional development agency. However, for the time being, the East of England Plan and the Regional Economic Strategy will continue as separate entities. It is envisaged that they will be brought together into a new integrated regional strategy for the East of England in a future review.

4.3 The government has indicated that this review should increase housing provision to contribute to the national target of providing 240,000 additional homes per year by 2016.

4.4 In carrying out this review, EERA has made use of local, regional and national data as well as evidence from specially commissioned studies and projections to inform the review process. It has also sought views from local councils and is undertaking an integrated sustainability appraisal, which incorporates a strategic environmental assessment, equality and health impact assessments and a Habitats Regulations Assessment.

4.5 The documents accompanying the review make reference to the recent legal challenge to the Plan by Hertfordshire County Council and St Albans District Council. In May 2009, the High Court decision had the effect of remitting certain aspects of the adopted Plan, as they relate to Welwyn Hatfield and Dacorum back to the government. The government intends to “repair” the adopted Plan and EERA considers that this does not affect the review process (more of this later in this report).

4.6 This first stage of consultation focuses on how much growth should be planned for the East of England and where it should go. EERA intend to prepare a draft plan for public consultation early in 2010 with a number of revised policies. The policies EERA intend to revise are listed in this consultation and they seek opinions as to whether or not other polices should be updated or created.

4.7 We have also been given the opportunity to comment on sites put forward by developers as evidence for the review of the East of England Plan resulting from their call for sites last year.

4.8 The closing date for consultation responses is 24 November 2009. A draft response to the consultation questions is set out in Appendix A.

- 39 -

5 POLICY IMPLICATION(S)

5.1 As the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England, the East of England Plan forms part of the Development Plan. Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan. In addition, local planning strategies and policies in the council‟s Local Development Framework must be in general conformity with the RSS.

6 RISK ASSESSMENT

6.1 A risk assessment has not been prepared in relation to the proposals in this report as there are no significant risks inherent in the proposals.

7 EXPLANATION

Possible growth scenarios for the East of England

7.1 A major part of the review relates to a number of scenarios for growth in the region. The population of the region has increased to 5.7 million, from 5.4 million in 2001 and the government predicts it will be nearly 7 million by 2031. The government also predicts that an additional 34,000 new households will be created in the region each year. The reasons for this are partly from natural growth; more people being born than dying, and partly due to migration into the region from elsewhere in the UK or from overseas. In addition, more people are tending to live alone and are living longer and the government predicts that the growth in the number of households (and the need for homes) will be at a faster rate than population growth. Since 2001, the region has been economically buoyant and contains many businesses that are expected to do well as the country moves out of recession.

7.2 The current East of England Plan concentrates most growth around the larger towns and cities in the region, seeking to deliver around 26,000 new homes every year. The government has now asked EERA to test growth within the range of 30,000 to 40,000 new homes every year . The government considers that such levels of housing are required to stabilise long-term house prices.

7.3 However, EERA has decided not to test the highest end of this range as this would nearly double the rate of house building to levels never seen over 50 years and would rely upon migration and jobs growth way beyond the most optimistic projections.

7.4 EERA has however, identified four scenarios on which comments are being sought now. In summary, the four scenarios are as follows:

Scenario 1: 26,060 new homes and 25,400 jobs per annum:- is (generally) a continuation of the existing regional target and broadly based on the views of local councils in the region. It means that growth is concentrated in the “Key Centres for Development and Change” identified in the current plan.

- 40 -

Scenario 2: 30,10050 new homes and around 28,000 new jobs per annum:- promotes growth in areas identified by the Regional Scale Settlement Study published in January 2009. Under this scenario, Chelmsford would grow to be a regional city and there would be three medium-sized new settlements of up to 20,000 homes located in Central Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire and either Uttlesford or Braintree with smaller increases in Peterborough, Suffolk and the rest of Essex.

Scenario 3: 29,97050 new homes per annum:- The influential factor here is the economic potential to create more jobs. Additional growth (over Scenario 1) is distributed to those districts where there is a forecast to be a demand for additional workers, with a particular focus on Hertfordshire, south Essex and Cambridgeshire.

Scenario 4: 33,65051 new homes per annum and an increase in jobs generation:- promotes growth where households are projected to grow. It is based on long-term trends such as people living longer and people moving into and out of the region. Whilst this scenario reflects the government‟s predictions around household growth, EERA has concerns around the underlying assumptions which reflect past policy decisions. It focuses the majority of additional growth in Hertfordshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk.

Sustainability Appraisal

7.5 EERA has tested the impact of the four scenarios against a range of social, economic and environmental factors as well as the effects of climate change. An Integrated Sustainability Appraisal issued by EERA describes the impact of the scenarios under 13 topic areas. This is a substantial piece of work, which reports at both a regional and sub-regional level. In summary, the key issues raised are as follows:

7.6 The economy and employment: Scenario 1 continues a focus on the Key Centres for Development and Change and targets where economies are both strong and where intervention and investment could be needed to ensure that new employment is available locally. The new settlements or large extensions envisaged under Scenario 2 could draw investment from existing towns and may lengthen commuting patterns. Scenario 3 would be most likely to support regional economic growth but does not support economic diversification. Scenario 4 would take growth to more economically remote rural and coastal areas and may increase the frequency and length of commuting patterns.

7.7 Affordability and Affordable Housing: The region is one of the most expensive places to live in the country with acute affordability in the southern part of the region as well as rural and coastal areas. The appraisal casts doubt on whether any of the scenarios could stabilise house prices. Scenario 3 might have an impact with additional housing around London and Scenario 4 might

50 Rates of around 30,000 new homes per annum have been achieved in the region before in the late 1980s at the height of a property boom. The cumulative effect would be around 80,000 more new homes than Scenario 1 (the Roll Forward) by 2031. 51 The cumulative effect would be around 150,000 more new homes than Scenario 1 (The Roll Forward) by 2031.

- 41 -

tackle localised housing need due to the greater geographical spread of development, including more rural districts.

7.8 Rural Areas: None of the scenarios would restrict local authorities from allocating housing to rural communities to meet local needs although Scenario 4 has the greatest level of growth in more rural counties and coastal districts.

7.9 Regeneration: Regeneration could justify growth under Scenarios 1,2 and 3. However, Scenario 3 runs the risk of attracting investment to economically buoyant areas, away from those areas with the greatest socio-economic deprivation. Scenario 4 could help tackle rural deprivation and economic isolation in coastal towns but would not tackle acute deprivation within towns and cities.

7.10 Land Availability: Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 generally concentrate growth on existing towns and cities to maximise the use of previously developed land. More greenfield land would be required under Scenario 4 because of the focus on more rural areas and because of the absolute number of new homes is higher than other scenarios.

7.11 Flood Risk: Thurrock, Southend, Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth are the regions four key coastal centres for growth in the existing Plan and under review Scenarios 1, 2 and 3. There will therefore be a need for significant investment in defences from the sea. However, flood defences would be required even without growth. Scenario 4 directs growth to additional coastal areas requiring even greater investment.

7.12 Transport: Congestion on roads and overcrowding on trains hinders free movement and limits economic growth. Scenario 1 directs growth to larger towns and cities likely to be the focus of trips for residents. Carbon emissions could be reduced if adequate alternatives to the car are available. Scenario 2 could minimise some travel although new settlements could increase movements. A significant proportion of trips could be by rail. Without substantial investment, additional commuters could worsen congestion and overcrowding into London under Scenario 3. Because of the pattern of centres in relatively close proximity, it is less likely that people will meet all of their needs in one centre and this may inhibit a shift to public transport. Scenario 4 is likely to lead to greater volume and distances travelled by car and lead to greater net CO2 emissions from transport.

7.13 Air Quality: Directing growth to large cities and towns (as in Scenario 1) can lead to a worsening of air quality in city centres and along busy routes with the potential to impact on the health of local communities. Under Scenario 2, particular care is needed around the impact of a new settlement along the A120 alongside the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport. Scenario 3 may result in additional traffic between settlements adding to air pollution. The effects of Scenario 4 on air quality is less clear.

7.14 Waste: Assumes a neutral impact across all scenarios although purports that Scenario 4 could mean greater travelling distances to centralised waste

- 42 -

management facilities (which assumes that waste should or would be managed centrally).

7.15 Water: Southern parts of the region are more water stressed than areas in the north. The majority of additional growth under Scenario 2 is not on the southern half of the region whereas it is under Scenario 3. Insufficient information is available on water quality to draw implications.

7.16 Biodiversity: Scenario 1 avoids direct impacts on the most important habitats. Locations promoted for additional growth under Scenario 2 are in close proximity to sensitive coastal and estuarine habitats. Scenario 3 takes growth away from the region‟s biodiversity hotspots but fragmented and valuable habitats in Hertfordshire and south Essex could be placed under such pressure that maintaining favourable conditions could become impossible. Under Scenario 4, growth in the coastal areas could lead to recreational activities placing pressure on some sensitive habitats.

7.17 Historic Environment: The historic centres of Cambridge, Norwich, Colchester, Chelmsford and Bury St. Edmunds will come under pressure under either (or both) Scenarios 1 and 2. Locations such as St Albans could be vulnerable to change under Scenario 3 and the historic character of smaller market towns could be swamped under Scenario 4 if development is not carefully managed.

7.18 Landscape Character: Scenario 1 will help protect nationally protected landscapes. Cambridge however stands out as a settlement where additional growth under Scenario 2 might harm its setting. Scenario 3 directs growth to areas with less protected landscapes although some landscapes have an important role in separating and defining settlements. Scenario 4 could impact on some of the region‟s most sensitive landscapes such as stretches of Heritage Coast and AONB.

London Arc West Sub-area Profile

7.19 The London Arc West Sub Area Profile includes Dacorum, Hertsmere, North Hertfordshire, St Albans, Stevenage, Three Rivers, Watford and this borough. The profile provides more local information about the growth scenarios.

7.20 Welwyn Hatfield is stated as having the highest build rate against its East of England Plan target (119%). The profile refers to Watling Chase Community Forest as an entity not as a designation, which is misleading.

7.21 Severe congestion is predicted in the morning peak hour on the A1(M) particularly in the southbound direction between junctions 8 and 3 and it states that, by 2021, the northern and western approaches to Welwyn Garden City will be congested.

7.22 The sub region is considered an area of serious water stress, and has the highest per capita consumption in the region. Most of the water resources are over licensed or over abstracted. The habitats assessment for the sub region makes no mention of the Wormley Woods Special Area of Conservation which spreads into Welwyn Hatfield.

- 43 -

Issues for Welwyn Hatfield

7.23 Effect of High Court Challenge and the “Repair”: A High Court hearing in May 2009 found in favour of a legal challenge against the government on the grounds that the government had failed to undertake an appropriate sustainability appraisal to consider the alternatives before directing growth to these locations. The effect of the High Court decision was to remit the housing numbers and the requirement for a green belt review for Welwyn Hatfield and Dacorum back to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for reconsideration. The Secretary of State has undertaken to “repair” that part of the Plan and we understand that the Government Office for the East of England has appointed consultants to work on the repair. The project plan setting out a detailed timetable has yet to be published.

7.24 EERA have given no formal indication as to how they intend to incorporate any such “repair” into the review but they have informally indicated that they would have to “retrofit” the repair at a future date. Further, EERA describe the High Court decision as only affecting “a small part of the plan” which “does not affect the review process”. It is your officers‟ opinion that the lack of transparency about how a repair would be retrofitted and a failure to recognise the possibilities and consequences of a repair; for example not automatically defaulting to the housing numbers set out in the adopted Plan or the impact on other inter-related policies, has presented an unsatisfactory and flawed process.

7.25 Housing Numbers: The review of the Plan means that new housing numbers are now put forward under 4 scenarios (described earlier in this report) over the period 2011-2031. To reach these new figures certain baselines and assumptions have been used or made.

7.26 Scenarios 1 and 2: (Housing numbers are the same for Welwyn Hatfield under both scenarios). EERA has used 5,800 as our baseline target for housing over the period 2001 to 2021; i.e. the original EERA 2004 target. This translates to 8,700 dwellings when looking at the period 2001 – 2031 (see Table 1, row 2, column 2). Under these scenarios, housing delivery in the first 5 years of the current Plan (2001 to 2006) has been taken into account. An adjustment is then made at 2006, taking into account either under- or over-achievement, as appropriate, in the first 5 years. So for Welwyn Hatfield, over-achievement in the early years has resulted in a downward annual adjustment which is then averaged out to provide an overall figure for the period 2011 to 2031. For Welwyn Hatfield the 20 year target from 2011 to 2031 is 4,780 (239 p.a.) (see Table 1, row 4, column 2).

7.27 Because, for Welwyn Hatfield, these figures relate to the roll forward of the RSS, they could change depending on the outcome of the repair of the current East of England Plan. As stated above the figures that have been used to illustrate Scenarios 1 and 2 are those used in 2004 submitted by EERA in the draft RSS that went to the examination in public. However, it is

- 44 -

not inconceivable that the figures could revert to those in the 2008 adopted Plan prior to the High Court judgment.

7.28 Although this is a continuation of previous housing growth figures, it does, in fact represent a change in strategy, since EERA‟s baseline housing figures for the 2004 housing targets were based on making use of urban capacity. A clear implication of continuing these build rates beyond 2021 is that this will require, to some extent, urban extensions necessitating the release of land from the green belt.

7.29 Scenario 3: This scenario, which responds to the potential to create jobs, results in a target of 12,620 between 2011 and 2031 for Welwyn Hatfield. The housing figure for Scenario 3 is based on the East of England Forecasting Model (EEFM), which projects job growth informed by a time series going back to the early 1990s and predictions of sectoral change going forward. The model was re-run earlier this year to take account of the current recession. Therefore for Welwyn Hatfield the job numbers are lower than in the recently completed London Arc Hertfordshire Employment Land Review which was reported to this Panel in June this year. In projecting jobs, the model then generates population change and demand for housing. The EEFM figures take no account of any local policies or infrastructure constraints. It is these figures that have been used to produce the housing numbers for Scenario 3.

7.30 Scenario 4: This scenario, which is based on the government‟s household, population and migration projections, results in a target of 13,000 between 2011 and 2031 for Welwyn Hatfield.

7.31 To put these figures in context, it is important to consider the wider picture; from 2001 to 2031. To do this, officers have had to make some assumptions over the way in which the period 2006 to 2011 will be accounted for by EERA, as this has not been made entirely clear. Members should be aware that if EERA were to disagree with the assumptions your officers have had to make, then the following figures may change. However, officers have applied a logical approach to their modelling and in the absence of clarity about some aspects of EERA‟s modelling, we consider that the following gives a reasonable indication of the likely overall implications for housing numbers.

7.32 Table 1 shows how these scenarios would apply to Welwyn Hatfield, the rates at which new dwellings would need to be built and their possible impact in terms of releasing land from the green belt. The bottom row of the table indicates the number of dwellings which we estimate would have to be accommodated on land which is currently in the green belt.

- 45 -

Table 1 – How the East of England Plan Review housing scenarios would apply to Welwyn Hatfield to 2031

Scenario 1 & 2 pre High Court Scenario Scenarios 1 & 2 decision 3 Scenario 4

Total to build 2001 -2031 8700 15000 16370 16750

Completions 2001 - 2006 2725 2725 2725 2725 Total set out in RSS review 2011 - 2031 4780 9820 12620 13000

RSS Annual build rate 2011 - 2031 239 491 630 650 Total to build 2006 - 2031 5975 12275 13645 14025

Completions 2006 - 2009 1759 1759 1759 1759 Left to build to 2031 4216 10516 11886 12266

Urban capacity 3376 3376 3376 3376 Annual build rate to 2031 192 478 540 558

Green belt "requirement" 840 7140 8510 8890

7.33 Given that the council‟s Core Strategy should plan for a 15 year period, the affect of the scenarios to 2026 is also of interest (Table 2).

Table 2 – How the East of England Plan Review housing scenarios would apply to Welwyn Hatfield to 2026

Scenario 1 & Scenarios 1 2 pre High Scenario 3 Scenario 4 & 2 Court decision

Total to build 2001 - 2026 7250 12500 13215 13500 Completions 2001 - 2006 2725 2725 2725 2725

Total to build 2006 -2026 4525 9775 10490 10775 Completions 2006 - 2009 1759 1759 1759 1759

Left to build to 2026 2766 8016 8731 9016 Urban capacity 3376 3376 3376 3376

Annual build rate to 2026 163 472 514 530 Green belt "requirement" 0 4640 5355 5640

7.34 Green belt release: Publication of the SHLAA and figures from the council‟s monitoring show that there is capacity within the settlements excluded form

- 46 -

the green belt for 3,376 new dwellings. Depending on how the period 2006 to 2011 is accounted for and on how urban land coming forward for housing development can be managed through the LDF process, the potential dates at which green belt land would need to be release are estimated to be as follows:

Scenarios 1 and 2: 2026 / 2027;

Scenarios 1 and 2 with the pre High Court decision figures: 2016 / 17; and

Scenarios 3 and 4: 2015 / 16.

7.35 This means that we could meet the figures for Scenarios 1 and 2 by 2026 without releasing land from the green belt. However, by 2031 land would be needed in the green belt for 840 dwellings which would mean an area roughly the size of Panshanger airfield. Scenario 3 would require land for about 8,500 dwellings to be found in the green belt by 2031. This would equate to three new neighbourhoods. At a typical neighbourhood density of 25 dwellings to the hectare, this would mean the release of about 340 hectares of land. Scenario 4 would have a similar effect.

7.36 Impact on Affordable Housing Delivery: It is worth noting that in 2008/09 186 new affordable dwellings were completed in Welwyn Hatfield from a total 347 new dwellings of various tenures. As little land is left in council ownership it is likely that the council will be increasingly dependent on the planning system to deliver affordable housing as part of private housing developments. The current percentage we seek to secure for affordable housing on eligible sites is 30%. Work is currently taking place to consider what future target it may be appropriate to set in our Core Strategy. However until this work has concluded we have had to estimate what might be delivered so that we can assess the different scenarios.

7.37 On the basis that housing growth will be achieved on sites of various sizes, some of which may not have any affordable housing, it is not unreasonable to estimate that, overall, 25% of new housing provided could be affordable. On this basis it is estimated that the scenarios could yield the following rates of affordable dwelling construction:

Scenarios 1 and 2: 50 dwellings per year; Scenarios 1 and 2 with the pre High Court decision figures: 135 dwellings per year; and Scenarios 3 and 4: 140 dwellings per year.

7.38 In reality however it is likely that because Scenarios 1 and 2 would have a higher percentage of brownfield development than Scenarios 3 and 4, they would deliver a lower percentage of their overall total as affordable and that the 25% estimate is probably optimistic.

- 47 -

7.39 It is clear, therefore, that the scope for providing new affordable housing if Scenarios 1 or 2 are adopted is quite limited unless there the council embarks upon building council housing.

7.40 Economy and Regeneration: There is a fundamental difficulty that, despite being entitled “Scenarios for housing and economic growth” this consultation is really just about housing numbers, with the only economic “hook” being the job numbers generated through Scenario 3.

7.41 In Scenarios 1 and 2, Welwyn Hatfield would have the second lowest housing target in the county and this is inconsistent with the Key Centre for Development and Change (KCDC) status for Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City.

7.42 The housing figure for Scenario 3 is based on the East of England Forecasting Model (EEFM), which projects job growth informed by a time series going back to the early 1990s and predictions of sectoral change going forward. The model was re-run earlier this year to take account of the current recession. In projecting jobs, the model then generates population change and demand for housing. It is these figures that have been used to produce the housing numbers for Scenario 3.

7.43 In common with many other types of regional model, the difficulty with this type of approach is that the smaller the spatial area the data are used for, the less reliable the forecast is likely to be. A move by just one major employer between districts could mean that the job growth figures in those two districts deviate significantly from the forecast.

7.44 Also, the reality is that, while Hertfordshire has lost jobs over the period 2001 to 2008, the EEFM shows growth over that period and projects it forward. Although the number of jobs in Welwyn Hatfield has grown significantly over that period (by 11,000 from 2001 to 2007), this could be seen as a one-off effect from the growth of employment at the Hatfield Aerodrome site, much of which has been achieved as a result of relocations from other districts in Hertfordshire. Clearly, there must be a concern that the job growth figures in the model are therefore too aspirational and that this scenario could, in reality result in housing growth without job growth. For Hertfordshire, the issue is that such a forecast is, in practice, unlikely to happen.

7.45 The matter of alignment between housing growth and employment growth is an important one, as is the need to attract investment in the wider local economy to address the council‟s aspirations to regenerate Hatfield town centre, ensure that the investment that has already taken place at Hatfield Aerodrome benefits the whole of Hatfield and to maintain the prosperity of Welwyn Garden City and the rest of the borough. Welwyn Hatfield‟s Sustainable Corporate and Community Strategy contains a long term objective to encourage job growth in line with increases in housing provision; providing education and training to support a sustainable workforce; helping young people to maximise their employment opportunities and supporting local businesses.

- 48 -

7.46 New housing and jobs arising from allocations in the review of the East of England Plan could help to meet these objectives and address issues of concern in the local economy that were set out in the consultation for the council‟s Core Strategy earlier this year such as:

Pockets of unemployment in the most deprived wards of the borough. The need to capitalise on the presence of existing knowledge-based industries and the presence of the University of Hertfordshire to increase the representation of this sector in the local economy; The need to maintain and improve the supply of sites for small businesses, as well as considering the role of employment sites in rural areas which have not so far been protected, but which evidence shows form an important source of employment for people living in rural parts of the borough.

7.47 It could be argued that a housing allocation that supports economic growth, helping to avoid skills shortages and recruitment difficulties for key workers, would help to address the council‟s aspirations and the issues set out above as well as being consistent with the status of Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield as a key centre for development and change and helping to deliver the regeneration that the borough needs.

7.48 In this connection, it is also important to note that it is a condition of obtaining Growth Area Funding from the government that housebuilding rates should be 500 dwellings or more. Scenarios 3 and 4 would meet this requirement, but Scenarios 1 and 2 would not unless the repair of the adopted plan introduces higher housing figures.

7.49 Scenario 3 predicts 115,200 new jobs for Hertfordshire from 2011 to 2031 of which 9,700 jobs would be in Welwyn Hatfield. For Welwyn Hatfield, this equates to roughly 26 hectares for the Class B (industry, office and warehousing) element. However, the council‟s monitoring shows that we have 23.8 ha of vacant employment land that has never been built on, which would be sufficient for the Class B element of a job increase of 8,900. Taking into account the fact that there are existing vacant premises in the borough as well, there is probably sufficient capacity to absorb this level of job growth. In this context, it is worth noting that, from 2001 to 2007, ONS figures show that the number of jobs in Welwyn Hatfield grew by 11,000 to 77,000, whereas the total number of jobs in Hertfordshire fell by 5,000 to 577,000 over the same period.

7.50 For the reasons set out in paragraphs 7.42 to 7.44, we consider the methodology for deriving housing figures for Scenario 3 to be flawed. It is not clear how a need to provide 9,700 jobs would result in a requirement for 12,620 dwellings. Looking at the current ratio between jobs and people of working age for Welwyn Hatfield (1.13:1), an increase of 9,700 jobs would result in an increase of nearly 8,600 people of working age living in the borough. Approximately 1.5 people of working age live in each dwelling in Welwyn Hatfield. On this basis 8,600 extra people of working age would generate the need for nearly 5,700 additional homes by 2031 (though this

- 49 -

number may be a slight underestimate as it is likely that the number of people of working age living in each dwelling will fall slightly over this period).

7.51 This number of additional homes is somewhat more than Scenarios 1 and 2 but significantly less than Scenarios 3 and 4. If more houses were to be built in relation to the number of jobs generated, this would offer the opportunity to improve the “alignment” between jobs and housing, providing the potential for more people who work in Welwyn Hatfield to live in Welwyn Hatfield.

7.52 Population change: The main reasons for population change are migration and natural change, which means the net result of people being born and people dying. All population forecasting factors in both elements. However, projecting forward just natural change in the population to 2031 (based on ONS natural change figures for 2007) shows that the borough‟s population would increase by about 10,000 and, because of predicted reductions in the number of people living in each dwelling, result in the need for about 6,400 extra dwellings from 2008.

7.53 There are some potential benefits to population growth. An increased number of people living in the area would improve the prospects of securing investment in Hatfield town centre, since, if the growth occurred in the right place, it would increase the potential number of shoppers it could attract. It would also help to provide sufficient spending power to secure Welwyn Garden City town centre‟s position as a major town centre in the East of England. Inward migration helps to provide the highly skilled people needed to retain prosperity and help to address local skills gaps.

What is the best growth scenario for Welwyn Hatfield?

7.54 The level of housing growth will impact on:

how much land will need to be released from the green belt; the ability to deliver on the vision and objectives set out in the Sustainable Community Strategy. In particular o the council‟s ability to retain employment and remain a prosperous area; o the council‟s ability to secure additional retail growth and investment in our town centres; o the council‟s ability to make provision for affordable housing; o existing infrastructure and the need to invest in new infrastructure; and o the borough‟s growth area status and ability to bid for government funding. o Protection of the borough‟s environmental assets and the character of its built environment.

7.55 Scenario 3 (16,370 dwellings from 2001 to 2031), Scenario 4 (16,750 dwellings from 2001 to 2031) and pre- High Court challenge Scenarios 1 and 2 (15.000 dwellings from 2001-2031) all involve very high rates of house building and therefore would all have major implications for the green belt, the

- 50 -

need for new infrastructure, the protection of the borough‟s environmental assets and the character of the built environment. However, they would perform well with regard to the other criteria listed in paragraph 7.54 above.

7.56 Members will recall that the council formally objected to the housing figure for Welwyn Hatfield in the adopted East of England Plan of 10,000 net additional dwellings from 2001 to 2021, which carried forward to 2031 would equate to 15,000 dwellings, on the basis that it was undeliverable and unsustainable, members may consider that scenarios 3 and 4 would also be unacceptable for the same reasons.

7.57 On the basis that the roll forward of the 2004 housing requirement (effectively 8,700 dwellings from 2001 to 2031) is used, Scenarios 1 and 2 would place the least burden on existing infrastructure and would require the least investment in new infrastructure. They would also result in the least incursion into the green belt. However, it is also likely to result in less investment in the local economy making it less likely that the economy can adapt to the new challenges that lie ahead, and also mean that, with a lower population base, less investment is likely to be attracted to improvements to the borough‟s town centres. As affordable housing provision is also linked to the amount of private housing provided, lower rates of house building would impact on the amount of affordable housing provided.

7.58 In reality, the build rates for Scenarios 1 and 2 are so low (163 dwellings per year to 2026 or 192 to 2031) that there is a danger that the land we have allocated for housing would be built out before the end of the Plan period. Given that the whole emphasis of government planning policy is that housing targets are minima, there would be no mechanism for the council to prevent this from happening, which would mean that the council would either have to allocate additional green belt land for housing at some future date, or have a situation where proposed new housing developments in the green belt go to appeal. In a situation where there is no land for new house building it is highly possible that such planning appeals would be allowed and the council would be in a position of “planning by appeal” rather than managing where and how much housing is provided.

7.59 Therefore, members may also consider that, on balance, there are disadvantages to the low growth implicit in Scenarios 1 and 2 if the EERA 2004 figures are rolled forward.

7.60 Clearly, every scenario would inevitably necessitate the development of land in the green belt for housing. The only difference is how much and when the land would need to be released – see paragraph 7.34 above.

7.61 From the early 1980s, the Hertfordshire Structure Plan set annual housing targets for Welwyn Hatfield that were greater than those set out in Scenarios 1 and 2, ranging from 353 dwellings from 1981 to 1996 to 280 from 1991 to 2011 (which is the figure in the current District Plan). Indeed the Welwyn Hatfield figure in the submission version of the East of England Plan considered at the Examination in Public had an overall annual build rate of 290 dwellings per year.

- 51 -

7.62 It could be argued that the much higher rate of housing delivery achieved since 2001, about 560 dwellings per year, was the result of the coincidence of an exceptional set of circumstances. The availability of the very large Hatfield Aerodrome site following its closure in the 1990s, expansion of the University of Hertfordshire, the growth of the buy-to-let property market, the establishment of a number of logistics operations requiring a ready supply of labour and the accession of a number of Eastern European countries to the European Union all combined to produce circumstances that made it advantageous for housebuilders to complete new housing very quickly.

7.63 On that basis, members may wish to consider that adopting, as a variation to Scenarios 1 and 2, a housing figure of 290 dwellings per year from 2009 to 2031 would be a build rate which Welwyn Hatfield has a track record of being able to sustain and deliver and which would allow some of the benefits of regeneration and investment to be accrued and would enable natural growth in the population to be accommodated whilst allowing for some further limited in-migration. Table 3 shows the effect such a scenario would have for Welwyn Hatfield.

Table 3 – the effect of setting applying a housing figure of 290 dwellings per year to Welwyn Hatfield from 2009 to 2031

Total to build 2001 -2031 10,864

Completions 2001 - 2006 2,725

Proposed Annual build rate 2009 - 2031 290

Total to build 2006 - 2031 8,139

Completions 2006 - 2009 1,759

Left to build to 2031 6,380

Urban capacity 3,376

Annual build rate to 2031 290

Green belt "requirement" 3,004

7.64 Table 3 shows that this scenario would require a release of green belt land sufficient to accommodate about 3,000 dwellings. If all of this housing was planned as one urban extension, this could, because of its size, be designed as a sustainable neighbourhood with its own facilities such as local shops, a primary school and even employment if this was thought appropriate.

7.65 For this to happen, the council‟s Core Strategy, could set policies which would require the use of urban capacity for new housing first and then plan ahead for the phased release of sufficient green belt land to accommodate about 3,000 dwellings. This would require about 120 hectares of land including

- 52 -

housing and all of the other facilities that would need to be provided to create a new neighbourhood. If phased such that this land would only be required once known urban capacity sites were exhausted, construction on site would probably need to start in 2020. Officers believe that this approach would be deliverable, manageable and a sensible strategy for the borough.

Vision and Objectives

7.66 In the consultation document, EERA state their belief that the vision and objectives of the current East of England Plan should be carried forward into the reviewed plan unaltered, but they do give the opportunity for comment on this approach. Members‟ attention is drawn in particular to one of the plan‟s objectives which is to address housing shortages in the region by securing a step change in the delivery of additional housing throughout the region, particularly in the key centres for development and change.

7.67 On the basis of the alternative scenario for housing growth suggested above, members may wish to express the view that a step change in the delivery of additional housing particularly at key centres for development and change is not necessarily an appropriate approach for all KCDCs. Accordingly, members may wish to endorse the following alternative wording for the first bullet point of objective (ii):

“To address housing shortages in the region by securing the delivery of additional housing in the region, particularly in key centres for development and change where this is appropriate.”

Proposed review of policies

7.68 The consultation document proposes the review of a number of the policies in the current plan as well as setting out a list of policies which may be reviewed and suggesting new policies that EERA suggest will need to be developed. It is important to note that the wording of these revised policies has not yet been developed. The opportunity to make comments on these polices will be when the submission version of the reviewed plan is put out for public consultation. At this stage, EERA are merely asking if we have any evidence to suggest that policies other than those identified need to be updated.

7.69 A significant number of existing policies are proposed for review:

SS2: Overall spatial strategy; T12: Access to airports; SS3: Key centres for development and T15: Transport investment priorities; change; WM2: Waste management targets; SS7: Green Belt; WM4: Regional waste apportionment; SS5: Priority areas for regeneration; WM5: Planning for waste management; SS9: The coast; WM7: Provision for hazardous waste and

- 53 -

E1: Job growth; other regionally significant facilities; E3: Strategic employment locations; WM3: Imported waste; E4: Clusters performance; ENG1: Carbon dioxide emissions and energy; H1: Regional housing provision 2001to 2021; ENG 2: Renewable energy targets; H2: Affordable housing; IMP1: Implementing the Regional Spatial Strategy; T1: Regional Transport Strategy objectives and outcomes; IMP3: Review of the Regional Spatial Strategy; T6: Strategic and regional road networks; All policies relating to sub-areas and key T10: Freight movement; centres for development and change (inc T11: Access to ports; Milton Keynes South Midlands sub-region as it relates to the East of England).

7.70 A new Policy is proposed to deal with climate change (adaptation and mitigation).

7.71 In addition, a number of other existing policies may be reviewed or new policies developed in the following areas:

T2: Changing travel behaviour; M1: Land won aggregates and rock; T3: Managing traffic demand; ENV4: Agriculture, land and soils. T13: Public transport accessibility;

New policies to be considered agricultural waste; nuclear waste; disposal of waste from waste water; safeguarding of existing waste management sites; sustainable transport of waste.

7.72 At this stage, we have no evidence that those policies which are not proposed for review should be reviewed. What the consultation does not do is to provide any indication of how or why policies will need to be changed. This is unhelpful and it makes it difficult for consultees to make judgments about the need for policy changes and their content. However, it is important to note that Policy SS7 Green Belt is to be reviewed. Currently that policy stipulates that councils should ensure sufficient land is identified to avoid the need for further reviews of green belt boundaries before 2031. It would have been helpful in gauging the likely impact of the consultation scenarios if the consultation material had set the likely end date for green belt reviews in the revised Plan.

- 54 -

7.73 In addition EERA have written to the County Council with regards to whether there is a need to update Policies LA1 (London Arc), LA2 (Hemel Hempstead KCDC) and LA3 (Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield KCDC). Until the results of the repair are published it is not possible to consider whether or not these policies need to be reviewed as part of the roll forward of the Plan to 2031.

Comments on the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal

7.74 The Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) Interim Report only considers the four scenarios for the RSS that have been developed by EERA. It is more of a commentary at this consultation stage and therefore it could be argued that the four scenarios put forward do not offer enough reasonable alternatives for the East of England, especially in terms of climate change and sustainable communities.

7.75 The ISA sustainability issues which refer specifically to Welwyn Hatfield (Table 7.23) are the following:

the borough has a considerable resource of previously developed land (PDL) that has provisionally been deemed suitable for housing and the a likely significant effect is that Welwyn Hatfield is allocated additional growth under scenarios 2 and 3. Traffic modelling has highlighted that congestion will worsen on many routes and that the air quality is a significant issue and car dependency is high Although there is a current water surplus in the sub region there is potential for this to be reduced to a deficit by 2031 if growth continues and per capita water consumption does not change.

7.76 Members may wish to express concern at the statement that the borough‟s resource of PDL deemed suitable for housing is “considerable” and question how this conclusion has been drawn. The ISA is also incorrect in stating that significant additional growth has been allocated to Welwyn Hatfield under Scenarios 2 and 3. In fact the significant extra growth is allocated under Scenarios 3 and 4.

Call for Proposals

7.77 Last year, as part of the evidence base for the review of the East of England Plan, EERA invited submissions for housing development proposals to help meet the growth needs of the region to 2031. As part of the current consultation exercise, EERA have invited comments on the sites submitted. Five sites have been listed that are wholly or partly in Welwyn Hatfield:

Hatfield West (CP12)

Welwyn Garden City East (CP13)

Birchall, Welwyn Garden City (CP18)

- 55 -

Knebworth (CP75)

West of Hatfield (CP108)

7.78 Consideration of the suitability of sites should be a matter for the council‟s local development framework and it is recommended that EERA be advised of that. However should EERA choose to ignore this comment it is thought prudent to make some comment on the suitability of the above sites.

7.79 Hatfield West (CP12) CP12 has been submitted as a site with a potential capacity of 3,000 to 4,000 homes. It approximately coincides with broad location PG35 (North West of Hatfield) in the council‟s issues and options consultation on the Welwyn Hatfield Core Strategy, which indicated a capacity of 2,000 to 2,900 homes. This proposal appears to have been submitted without a sustainability appraisal.

7.80 Severe congestion is already envisaged on motorway junctions and the section of the A1(M) closest to this site just on the basis of projected traffic growth. Additional housing growth in this location is likely to exacerbate this problem. Furthermore, extensive development of this site could lead to the erosion of the disappearance of the green belt between Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City and the coalescence of the two towns.

7.81 Welwyn Garden City East (CP13) CP13 has been submitted as a site with a potential capacity of 2,000 to 4,000 homes. Part of the site approximately coincides with broad location PG34 (South East of Welwyn Garden City) in the council‟s issues and options consultation on the Welwyn Hatfield Core Strategy, which indicated a capacity of 3,400 to 5,000 homes. The rest of the site spreads across the borough boundary into East Hertfordshire. This proposal appears to have been submitted without a sustainability appraisal.

7.82 A preliminary analysis of option PG34 against the criteria for selecting broad locations set out in the issues and options consultation for the Core Strategy, indicated that the site does not perform well but this would need to be tested.

7.83 Birchall, Welwyn Garden City (CP18) CP18 has been submitted as a site with a potential capacity of 4,000 units. It occupies much the same area as CP13, so the same comments apply. Additionally, a sustainability appraisal has been submitted. This states that there would be no contamination issues, which, does not accord well with the fact that much of the site has been the subject of landfilling.

7.84 West of Hatfield (CP108) CP108 has been submitted with a map showing many hectares of land, some of it in the vicinity of Core Strategy broad location PG35, but most much further to the west, straddling Coopers Green Lane and much of it in St Albans district. However the covering letter only mentions a site of 20 hectares, so it is difficult to draw any conclusions about this proposal other than to say that clarification as to its location, extent and capacity is required.

- 56 -

7.85 Knebworth (CP75) CP75 consists of seven sites with a total capacity of 2,000 dwellings around the edge of Knebworth of which two are either wholly or partly in Welwyn Hatfield and very close to Woolmer Green. The council‟s consultation on issues and options for the Core Strategy includes a broad location for growth between Woolmer Green and Knebworth (PG44 North of Woolmer Green) but it is on a much smaller scale than this proposal, totalling only 100 to 200 dwellings. The proposer‟s sustainability appraisal takes no account of the effects of this proposal on Welwyn Hatfield concentrating only on Knebworth and Stevenage. Members will recall that the council has already raised concerns about the potential development sites around Knebworth that were put forward by North Hertfordshire District Council in their recent consultation on additional sites for their Land Allocations Development Plan Document. Proposal CP75 also includes the site which wraps around the western and southern edge of Knebworth, close to Woolmer Green which is the subject of the We Need A School Campaign. Accordingly, it is suggested that the council should register its concern at the amount of capacity being suggested and that its potential impacts on Welwyn Hatfield and, in particular, Woolmer Green, should be assessed.

8 Equalities and diversity

8.1 An Equality Impact Assessment has not been undertaken because the report details the council‟s response to consultation by another organisation.

Chris Conway Director (Strategy and Development) 19th November 2009

Appendices:

Appendix A – Schedule of responses to EERA

Background Papers

East of England Plan > 2031 – Scenarios for housing and economic growth: Consultation, East of England Regional Assembly, September 2009

East of England RSS Review Integrated Sustainability Appraisal, Interim ISA Report, September 2009

London Arc West Sub-area Profile, East of England Plan > 2031 Scenarios for housing and economic growth, September 2009

- 57 -

Appendix A to committee report

Suggested responses to consultation questions

Question 1 Do you think we’ve chosen the right growth scenarios to consider? If not, what other scenario(s) should we consider and why?

No. Rather than looking at different growth levels arising from, for example, household projections, advice from the NHPAU and the economy and then applying spatial strategies for dealing with those growth levels, which was the approach applied in the formulation of the adopted East of England Plan, this consultation mixes the two, applying particular spatial strategies to particular growth scenarios. Accordingly, not all of the possible permutations of growth and spatial strategy are covered.

This council recommends that EERA consider a growth scenario that, rather than taking account of housing completions from 2001 to 2006, simply applies the EERA draft submission RSS 2004 annual housing target figures to each district (290 dwellings per year for Welwyn Hatfield) with effect from 2009. This does not prevent further consideration of an alternative scenario which would also apply the EERA 2004 build rates from 2009, but would incorporate the higher growth envisaged as a result of national housing advice and regional new settlements along the lines of Scenario 2.

Question 2 Do you have any comments on the four growth scenarios?

Even the RSS roll forward is a flawed spatial strategy since the draft East of England Plan housing figures from 2004 upon which this scenario is based, were predicated on urban capacity. To continue the same rate of growth beyond 2021 would, necessarily, exceed urban capacity and necessitate release of green belt in many local authority areas.

This council is concerned that the basis of the job growth figures in the East of England Forecasting model has the potential to be highly inaccurate, particularly at district level. Accordingly, this council is concerned that Scenario 3 does not represent a credible scenario for proposing housing growth.

Scenario 4 is merely a household projection figure and as such projects forward recent trends. For Welwyn Hatfield this is unrepresentative given that that there has been exceptional growth in the borough‟s population because a number of factors have combined to result in a situation where there has been an unusually high number of dwellings completed in the borough since 2001, a situation which, in reality, is unlikely to be repeated.

Question 3 What is your preferred growth scenario and why?

In addition to the concerns raised in our response to Question 2, the council is of the opinion that, for Welwyn Hatfield, both Scenario 3 and Scenario 4 would be undeliverable and unsustainable because there are a number of constraints to development in the green belt at

- 58 -

this scale, not the least of which would be the likely coalescence of settlements, impact on biodiversity and also because of the amount of infrastructure that would need to be provided. Furthermore the high rates of development are likely to be undeliverable in the current economic climate. In 2008/09 completions fell by over 50% and are expected to fall even more this year (in the region of 75%). Site viability is currently a real issue and it is doubtful that the planning system will be able to deliver the amount of infrastructure required by the new development under these scenarios. The same comments would apply if Scenarios 1 and 2 were re-based to the levels of housing growth set out in the East of England Plan prior to the High Court challenge.

The council is also concerned that, in reality, the build rates for Scenarios 1 and 2, when based on the EERA draft submission RSS 2004 housing figures, are so low for Welwyn Hatfield (163 dwellings per year to 2026 or 192 to 2031) that there is a danger that the land we have allocated for housing would be built out before the end of the Plan period. Given that the whole emphasis of government planning policy is that housing targets are minima, there would be no mechanism for the council to prevent this from happening, which would mean that the council would either have to allocate additional green belt land for housing at some future date, or have a situation where proposed new housing developments in the green belt go to appeal.

This council‟s preferred scenario is that referred in answer to Question 1. Specifically, this council recommends that EERA consider a growth scenario that, rather than taking account of housing completions from 2001 to 2006, simply applies the EERA draft submission RSS 2004 annual housing targets with effect from 2009 (i.e.290 dwellings per year for Welwyn Hatfield). This does not prevent the incorporation of the higher growth envisaged as a result of national housing advice and regional new settlements along the lines of Scenario 2.

Question 4 Do you agree we have covered all the regional impacts of the four scenarios that have been identified? If not, what else should we have addressed?

Question 5 Do you agree that the vision and objectives of the current Plan remain suitable for the revised Plan. If not, what changes would you make and why?

Yes. However, not all of the Key Centres for Development and Change are identified for higher levels of housing delivery but nevertheless are key centres in their area as a source of employment and housing. Accordingly, this council would like the wording of the first bullet point under “(ii): To address housing shortages in the region by:” to be amended to read:

“securing the delivery of additional housing in the region, particularly in key centres for development and change where this is appropriate.”

Question 6 Do you have any evidence to suggest that policies other than those identified need to be updated or created?

- 59 -

No. But this council is concerned that consultation does not provide any indication of how or why policies will need to be changed. This is unhelpful and it makes it difficult for consultees to make judgments about the need for policy changes and their content. It would also have been helpful in gauging the likely impact of the consultation scenarios if the consultation material had set the likely end date for green belt reviews in the revised Plan.

Supplementary Question 7 Do you have any comments on the sub-area profiles?

Yes. The London Arc West sub-area profile refers to Watling Chase Community Forest as an entity not as a designation, which is misleading. The habitats assessment for the sub region makes no mention of the Wormley Woods Special Area of Conservation which spreads into Welwyn Hatfield.

Paragraph 4.20 of the London Arc West sub-area profile states that “the world‟s first two Garden Cities, Letchworth and Welwyn, as well as the three post war new towns, have designations that recognise their built important heritage”. In fact there are four post war new towns in the area as Welwyn Garden City is both a garden city and a post war new town.

The sub-area profile lists the submissions that were received in response to the Assembly‟s “call for proposals”. This council has a number of concerns about the sites listed which impinge on its area. Consideration of the suitability of sites should be a matter for the council‟s local development framework and is not a matter for the RSS review. Work is ongoing with regards to a number of these locations as part of the LDF process.

Hatfield West (CP12)

Severe congestion is already envisaged on motorway junctions and the section of the A1(M) closest to this site just on the basis of projected traffic growth. Additional housing growth in this location is likely to exacerbate this problem. Furthermore, extensive development of this site could lead to the disappearance of the green belt between Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield and the coalescence of the two towns.

Welwyn Garden City East (CP13)

CP13 has been submitted as a site with a potential capacity of 2,000 to 4,000 homes. Part of the site approximately coincides with broad location PG34 (South East of Welwyn Garden City) in the council‟s issues and options consultation on the Welwyn Hatfield Core Strategy, which indicated a capacity of 3,400 to 5,000 homes. The rest of the site spreads across the borough boundary into East Hertfordshire. This proposal appears to have been submitted without a sustainability appraisal.

A preliminary analysis of option PG34 against the criteria for selecting broad locations set out in the issues and options consultation for the Core Strategy, indicated that the site does not perform well but this would need to be tested through the LDF process.

West of Hatfield (CP108) CP108 has been submitted with a map showing many hectares of land, some of it in the vicinity of Core Strategy broad location PG35, but most much further to the west, straddling

- 60 -

Coopers Green Lane and much of it in St Albans district. However the covering letter only mentions a site of 20 hectares, so it is difficult to draw any conclusions about this proposal other than to say that clarification as to its location, extent and capacity is required.

Severe congestion is already envisaged on motorway junctions and the section of the A1(M) closest to this location just on the basis of projected traffic growth. Additional housing growth in this location is likely to exacerbate this problem. Furthermore, extensive development in this location could lead to the coalescence of Hatfield with St Albans.

Knebworth (CP75) consists of seven sites with a total capacity of 2,000 dwellings around the edge of Knebworth of which two are either wholly or partly in Welwyn Hatfield and very close to Woolmer Green. This council‟s consultation on issues and options for the Core Strategy includes a broad location for growth between Woolmer Green and Knebworth (PG44 North of Woolmer Green) but it is on a much smaller scale than this proposal, totalling only 100 to 200 dwellings. The proposer‟s sustainability appraisal takes no account of the effects of this proposal on Welwyn Hatfield concentrating only on Knebworth and Stevenage.

Supplementary Question 8 Do you have any comments on the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal. Is there any further information that should be taken into account?

The Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) Interim Report only considers the four scenarios for the RSS that have been developed by EERA. It is more of a commentary at this consultation stage and the four scenarios put forward do not offer enough reasonable alternatives for the East of England, especially in terms of climate change and sustainable communities.

This council is concerned at the statement in Table 7.23 that the borough‟s resource of PDL deemed suitable for housing is “considerable” and questions how this conclusion has been drawn.

This council is also concerned that analysis of impact on the historic environment has not taken account of potential impacts of growth on the historic environment of Welwyn Garden City which is significant as the world‟s second garden city.

The council is also very concerned that the shaded illustrations of the amount of housing growth under each scenario for each district (Figures 3.1, 4.1, 5.1 and 6.1) are highly misleading because the intervals for the numbers of houses completed for each shade are not regular. Annual housing completion rates of between 401 and 800 dwellings all have the same shade, whereas, the other intervals between zero and 1000 units are all broken up into bands of 200.

Response to letter from EERA to Hertfordshire County Council regarding the need to update policies LA1-4. Until the results of the repair to the 2008 East of England Plan are finalised it is not possible to consider whether or not these policies will need to be updated as part of the roll forward of the Plan to 2031.

- 61 -

Section 4 Appendix B

Report to Cabinet Housing and Planning Panel about the Welwyn Hatfield Local Development Framework Position Statement, October 2010

Part I Item No: 0 Main author: Paul Everard / Carol Hyland Executive Member: AL Perkins All Wards

WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL CABINET HOUSING AND PLANNING PANEL – 14 OCTOBER 2010 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT)

WELWYN HATFIELD LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK POSITION STATEMENT

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Central government has made a number of announcements since May 2010 that have consequences for the way in which this council will go forward with its Core Strategy and other local development documents. This report recommends that the council signal its intention to review its local development framework in the light of these announcements with particular reference to the Core Strategy and sets out a suggested interim position.

2 Financial Implication(s)

2.1 There are no specific financial implications arising from this report.

3 Recommendation(s)

3.1 That the panel agrees that the council should review its local development framework, and in particular the Welwyn Hatfield Core Strategy, in the light of the government‟s recent changes to the planning system.

4 Background

4.1 Members will be aware that, since its election in May 2010, the government has made a number of announcements that affect planning policy and the production of local development documents including Core Strategies.

4.2 Regional Spatial Strategies (including the East of England Plan) were revoked in July, meaning that local planning authorities no longer have to conform to housing policies (including targets for overall housing provision and provision for Gypsies and Travellers) and other policies set at the regional level. Decisions on housing supply are now a matter for local determination.

4.3 The government has also signalled its intention to carry through a number of other measures set out in its Green Paper on Open Source Planning

- 62 -

published prior to its election in the wider context of its “Big Society” agenda. So far, there have been a number of announcements concerning matters including the community right to build, the New Homes Bonus and the building of new homes on garden land.

4.4 The Department for Communities and Local Government have advised us that the government will be seeking to formalise all of these measures (including the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies) through the Localism Bill which is expected to be put before Parliament later in the current session. (However, it should be noted that a legal challenge has been made to the Secretary of State‟s decision to revoke regional spatial strategies without first having undertaken a sustainability appraisal on the effect of deleting a complete tier of the development plans system). Nevertheless, CLG has also advised that councils that are in the process of producing Core Strategies may wish to review their position in light of the revocation of regional spatial strategies, and that these reviews should be undertaken as quickly as possible and that we should signal our intentions clearly and quickly.

5 Policy Implication(s)

5.1 Prior to the change in government, the council carried out public consultation on issues and options relating to the Core Strategy. This consultation was predicated on the housing numbers set out in the East of England Plan, that were later challenged successfully, and draft policy on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation that was later adopted as part of the regional spatial strategy.

5.2 Members will be aware that it had been intended to consult the public on a set of preferred strategies for the Core Strategy this autumn. Because of all the changes that have taken place, this is no longer possible and further public consultation is needed to establish, among other things, locally-derived and agreed figures for housing provision including provision for Gypsies and Travellers.

5.3 In the meantime, to avoid having a situation of being in a policy “vacuum” before the Core Strategy is adopted, this council needs to have an interim position on the overall number of dwellings to be provided and the appropriate provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites.

6 Risk Assessment

6.1 Risks PP1 (democratic process) and PP2 (failure to meet milestones) of the Strategy and Development risk register are affected by recent and intended changes to the national planning framework announced by the government. The timing and nature of these changes (and pending legal challenge(s) against the Secretary of State‟s decision to revoke the Regional Spatial Strategy tier of the development plans system) have introduced a period of uncertainty and lack of clarity about how plans should proceed.

7 Explanation

- 63 -

7.1 On the basis of the changes detailed above, the council needs to signal, by way of a committee resolution, its intention formally to review its local development framework and, in particular, the Welwyn Hatfield Core Strategy.

7.2 For the Core Strategy, we will use collaborative engagement with community representatives of towns and villages to help refine a more localist consultation to achieve a locally-owned set of preferred options – collaborative democracy, locally-derived visions and objectives. Five workshop events will take place across the borough in November.

7.3 The Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) has advised that, provided they are appropriate for our area, local planning authorities may use “Option 1” numbers from the draft East of England Plan >2031 to replace housing numbers in place of regional strategy targets. Members may recall, that a figure of 290 dwellings per year for Welwyn Hatfield was agreed at the meeting of Cabinet Planning and Transportation Panel on 19th November 2009 to be submitted in response to consultation on housing numbers for the review of the East of England Plan. This figure was subsequently included in the draft East of England Plan>2031. It is suggested that the figure of 290 dwellings per year for the period to 2031 be adopted as the council‟s provisional housing target until figures emerge through the process of producing the Core Strategy. This figure should also form the baseline for the projections used to inform the next stages of consultation on the Welwyn Hatfield Core Strategy. The reason for this is that, taking into account information contained in the Welwyn Hatfield Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, October 2009, and subsequent monitoring information, we have assessed that there is urban capacity for about 2,900 dwellings without making incursions into the green belt. This equates to about 10 years‟ supply, meaning that we could protect the green belt until about 2020.

7.4 As regards to planning for the provision of additional pitches for Gypsies and Travellers, the council also needs to signal its intention to review the appropriate provision in Welwyn Hatfield and adopt a provisional target as part of the suggested overall housing target. CLG has advised that local authorities will now be responsible for determining the right level of site provision, reflecting local need and historic demand, and for bringing forward land in Development Plan Documents. Local authorities should continue to do this in line with current policy.

7.5 The Secretary of State has signalled his intention to review regulations and guidance. Regard will need to be paid to any new guidance and regulations but there is no known timescale for this at the current time. CLG has advised that Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs) will form a good starting point if authorities wish to review levels of provision. However, local authorities are not bound by them. The GTAA for northern and eastern Hertfordshire (to which Welwyn Hatfield was a partner) is now 5 years old and in need of review but there are no plans for this to be carried out on a partnership basis again, with each of the local authorities previously involved progressing with their own local approach.

- 64 -

7.6 CLG has advised that plans must still be supported by sound evidence. The evidence that informed the preparation of the revoked Regional Strategies was considered to be sound and may be a material consideration (in the determination of planning applications). In the absence of newer evidence, it is suggested that the previously adopted RSS pitch numbers of 17 for Welwyn Hatfield should be agreed as an interim measure and as a starting point for a review. This would also provide an interim basis for the determination of planning applications.

7.7 As to the potential allocation of sites for additional pitch provision, members will recall that a study undertaken by consultants, Scott Wilson, into potential areas for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in northern and eastern Hertfordshire was reported to Cabinet Planning and Transportation Panel on 29th October 2007. This study identified a potential site at Bulls Lane based on a multi- tiered assessment and selection process.

7.8 At that time, members expressed concerns that whilst it was necessary to complete the process, including examining and assessing the suitability of the site and other possible sites in relation to the agreed criteria, they were far from convinced that the consultants had come to the right conclusion and that the study should be used as background information only to inform the Council‟s Local Development Framework. The findings of the study were also required to inform responses to the Single Issue Review (SIR) of the Regional Spatial Strategy, which was subsequently completed in July 2009.

7.9 Notwithstanding the fact that the Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper 2009 was not consulting on potential sites, the presence of the outputs from the Scott Wilson report caused some confusion amongst respondents. 1026 comments were received, in response to options SC28, 29 and 30, mostly on standard forms under the heading “Gypsies and Travellers (Bulls Lane?)”. A significant proportion of these respondents ranked the broad options with 965 respondents indicating the provision of new sites within areas identified for urban expansion as the most preferred option. 936 ranked a „rural exception site policy‟ as their second option and 925 ranked limited alterations to the Green Belt as their least favoured option. (Some respondents raised specific concerns about the suitability of the „Scott Wilson site’ at Bulls Lane).

7.10 Five responses were received to the criteria (Question 2) to be used to guide site allocations. Whilst one response agreed with the criteria, other responses either suggested new or amended criteria. A detailed response was received from Hertfordshire Constabulary on both the need for an adequate provision of sites and on a range of issues relating to allocating sites.

7.11 Circular 1/2006 advises that criteria based policies must be fair, reasonable, realistic and effective in delivering sites and will be subject to scrutiny. However, the Circular acknowledges that identifying and allocating specific plots of land is a more difficult process than using a solely criteria based approach. The Secretary of State has indicated that the Circular will be replaced (although no timescale is known for this).

- 65 -

7.12 It is considered that as well as reviewing the appropriate level of housing and pitch provision, it would also be appropriate to review the broad options for the location of future sites and the criteria for allocating sites, taking into account the impact of the revocation of the RSS, responses received to the Issues and Options Paper and any emerging government advice. To avoid confusion, it could be made clear that as a piece of background information only, the Council places no reliance on the potential „Scott Wilson’ site at Bulls Lane for the future delivery of Gypsy and Traveller sites in the borough.

7.13 All the changes described above mean that the timetable for production of the Core Strategy needs to be reviewed. The revised timetable will be reported to a meeting of this Panel before the end of this year.

8 Equality and Diversity

8.1 All public authorities have a statutory duty under Equality Act 2010 to:

eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; promote equal opportunities; and promote good relations between people from different racial groups.

8.2 The Council states in its Equalities Scheme 2008-2011, that it has taken a mainstream approach to implementing this duty, placing it at the centre of policy-making, service delivery, regulation and enforcement and employment practice.

8.3 An Equalities Impact Assessment has been carried out in relation to the actions proposed in this report and it is unlikely that adopting provisional targets for both housing numbers and Gypsy and Traveller pitch numbers would impact differentially on the settled and Gypsy and Traveller communities.

Chris Conway Director (Strategy and Development) 14th October 2010

Background papers

- 66 -

Section 4 Appendix C

Report to Cabinet Housing and Planning Panel about the Welwyn Hatfield Local Development Framework Position Statement, November 2010

Part I Item No: 0 Main author: Paul Everard / Carol Hyland Executive Member: AL Perkins All Wards

WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL CABINET HOUSING AND PLANNING PANEL – 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT)

WELWYN HATFIELD LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK POSITION STATEMENT UPDATE

1 Executive Summary

1.1 This report updates the Panel on recent advice and events that are pertinent to the council taking forward its Local Development Framework and a position statement which was initially put before this Panel on 14th October 2010. This report recommends that the Panel recommends to Cabinet that interim figures for the provision of new dwellings and new Gypsy and Traveller pitches be adopted by the council.

2 Financial Implications

2.1 There are no specific financial implications arising from this report.

3 Recommendations

3.1 That the Panel recommends to Cabinet that the council signals its intention to review its emerging local development framework in the light of the government‟s recent changes to the planning system, by way of a statement of intentions in line with guidance produced by the Planning Officers Society.

3.2 That the Panel recommends to Cabinet that a figure of 290 dwellings per year for the period to 2031 be adopted as the council‟s provisional housing target until figures emerge through the process of producing the Welwyn Hatfield Core Strategy.

3.3 That the Panel recommends to Cabinet that, as part of the overall housing target for the borough, the previously-agreed figure of seventeen pitches be adopted as the council‟s interim target for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and as a starting point for review.

4 Background

- 67 -

4.1 Members will recall a report recommending that this council signals its intention to review its emerging local development framework in the light of recent government announcements and setting out a recommended interim position regarding housing numbers and Gypsy and Traveller pitch provision, was put before the 14th October meeting of this panel. At the meeting it was agreed that the council should review its local development framework (see Appendix A)

4.2 In agreeing the position statement with regard to Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, the Panel wished to emphasise to Cabinet that no reliance should be placed on the potential site at Bulls Lane identified in a study undertaken by consultants, Scott Wilson, into potential areas for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in northern and eastern Hertfordshire (Minute 29 applies).

4.3 Guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) is constantly emerging and since the last meeting of this Panel, two new elements have arisen. The first element is that CLG has sent clear signals that local planning authorities should not expect government guidance on how to proceed now that regional spatial strategies (RSSs) have been revoked. Instead, discussions between national planning bodies and the Government have led to the conclusion that some advice is likely to be helpful in the short term and that this should be “sector led”, which means that it should be produced by an organisation from the field. The Planning Officers Society (POS) has stepped in to produce this “sector led” advice in the form of a guidance note to advise local planning authorities in the short term.

4.4 The second element is that, after its opening session, the Examination in Public into the Stevenage Core Strategy has been postponed in part because, we understand, of a lack of evidence to justify the level of housing growth being promoted in their Core Strategy now that the East of England Plan has been revoked. It is understood that the Inspector will report on this by 12th November and the Panel will be updated at the meeting if this has occurred. This illustrates why local authorities need to have a clear position on housing numbers in the short term (and a robust evidenced long-term position that will withstand scrutiny at examination).

4.5 For the above reasons, this matter has been reported back to this Panel for a second time.

5 Policy Implication(s)

5.1 Taking the course of action recommended in this report (effectively a Statement of Intentions along the lines set out in the POS guidance) will ensure that the council has a clear position on its strategic housing numbers (including provision for Gypsy and Traveller pitches) in the wake of the revocation of the East of England Plan, as well as providing a basis for development management decisions. This will assist the council as it presses on with the process of producing its local development framework pending the enactment of the Localism Bill, which is expected in Autumn 2011.

6 Risk Assessment

- 68 -

7 Explanation

7.1 In order that local planning authorities have a clear basis from which they can determine planning applications, the POS guidance referred to in paragraph 4.3 above recommends that:

Each local planning authority publish, as soon as possible, a Statement of Intentions on its position on the RSS strategy as it affected its area, such as housing targets to provide planning committees and development management staff with a basis for considering planning applications. (It will not carry much weight as will not be underpinned by evidence, but it will, at least, signal this council‟s interim position).

The statement should indicate whether it is intended to continue with the same strategic principles as those of the RSS, including housing targets, or to bring forward a change of direction from that of the RSS, and how this will affect the way the authority would expect to deal with planning applications in particular areas or for particular types of development.

Authorities should be cautious about being too specific about the changes it plans to make. (It advises that it might be an own goal to reduce housing targets to a certain level only to find technical work or consultation cannot sustain targets at examination).

Authorities should quickly replace the Statement of Intentions with a fuller Local Strategy Statement, setting out the strategic context within which the local authority intends to take forward its plan-making and decision making. This needs to be evidence based, and so would be a material consideration in planning decisions and appeals.

7.2 Taking this course of action would add clarity to the course of action advocated in the report this Panel considered at its meeting in October. As discussed in that report, CLG has advised that, provided they are appropriate for our area, local planning authorities may use “Option 1” numbers from the draft East of England Plan >2031 to replace housing numbers in place of regional strategy targets. Members may recall that a figure of 290 dwellings per year for Welwyn Hatfield was agreed at the meeting of Cabinet Planning and Transportation Panel on 19th November 2009 to be submitted in response to consultation on housing numbers for the review of the East of England Plan. This figure was subsequently included in the draft East of England Plan>2031.

- 69 -

7.3 Whilst it should be noted that the POS guidance counsels caution in being specific about the changes local authorities wish to make, it is important to note that this council had no firm housing figure even before the revocation of the East of England Plan because of the successful High Court challenge to the 500 dwellings per year allocation in the East of England Plan, and the fact that the “repair” to the Plan was not completed. This has left this council in something of a “policy vacuum” which applicants have sought to exploit.

7.4 For this reason, it is suggested that this Panel recommends to Cabinet that the figure of 290 dwellings per year for the period to 2031 be adopted as the council‟s provisional housing target until figures emerge through the process of producing the Core Strategy. This figure should also form a baseline for the projections used to inform the next stages of consultation on the Welwyn Hatfield Core Strategy.

7.5 The reason for this is that, taking into account information contained in the Welwyn Hatfield Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, October 2009, and subsequent monitoring information, we have assessed that there is urban capacity for about 2,900 dwellings without making incursions into the green belt. This equates to about 10 years‟ supply, meaning that we could protect the borough‟s green belt until about 2020.

7.6 Should it be decided that beyond 2020, green belt release would be necessary to provide for the borough‟s long term development needs, past experience on sites such as the former British Aerospace site in Hatfield indicates that it can take around eight years from starting to master-plan the development of a new neighbourhood to delivering the first dwellings on the ground. Making best use of urban capacity is consistent with current national and local planning policies and provides a sufficient timeframe in which to plan for the borough‟s long term development needs.

7.7 For the reasons set out in the Panel report of 14th October and in line with the POS guidance, it is also suggested that this Panel recommend to Cabinet that the previously-adopted RSS pitch numbers of seventeen for Welwyn Hatfield should be adopted as the council‟s interim target for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and as a starting point for review.

7.8 Clearly, further technical work will be needed as evidence to carry this council beyond this interim position. Any further developments, such as a local strategy statement, will be put before this Panel at a later date.

8 Equality and Diversity

8.1 All public authorities have a statutory duty under Equality Act 2010 to:

eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; promote equal opportunities; and promote good relations between people from different racial groups.

8.2 The Council states in its Equalities Scheme 2008-2011, that it has taken a mainstream approach to implementing this duty, placing it at the centre of

- 70 -

policy-making, service delivery, regulation and enforcement and employment practice.

8.3 An Equalities Impact Assessment was carried out in relation to the actions proposed in the previous report on this matter and it is unlikely that adopting provisional targets for both housing numbers and Gypsy and Traveller pitch numbers would impact differentially on the settled and Gypsy and Traveller communities.

Chris Conway Director (Strategy and Development) 16th November 2010

Appendices

Appendix A – report of the Director (Strategy and Development) to Cabinet Housing and Planning Panel, 14th October 2010 – Welwyn Hatfield Local Development Framework Position Statement

Background papers

Planning post RSS revocation: an advice note, Planning Officers Society, October 2010

- 71 -

Section 4 Appendix D

Part I Item No: 0 Main author: Paul Everard Executive Member: AL Perkins All Wards

WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL CABINET HOUSING AND PLANNING PANEL– 22 MARCH 2011 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT)

WELWYN HATFIELD CORE STRATEGY- CONSULTATION ON HOUSING GROWTH NUMBERS

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Following changes to the planning system introduced by the coalition government and the adoption, in December 2010, of a provisional housing target for Welwyn Hatfield, it is now necessary to consult the public on a range of possible housing targets to inform the production of the council‟s Core Strategy. It is recommended that the Panel agree to recommend to Cabinet that consultation takes place on five possible targets in June and July 2011

2 Financial Implication(s)

2.1 The cost of this consultation will be met from existing budgets.

3 Recommendation(s)

3.1 That the Panel agree to recommend to Cabinet that the public be consulted on housing growth numbers for Welwyn Hatfield for the period 2011-2031 as set out in this report.

4 Background

4.1 Members will recall that, at its meeting of 16th November 2010, this Panel recommended to Cabinet that a figure of 290 dwellings per year for the period to 2031 be adopted as the council‟s provisional housing target until figures emerge through the process of producing the Welwyn Hatfield Core Strategy. This recommendation was agreed at the 7th December 2010 meeting of Cabinet.

4.2 Previously, the public have not been consulted on the number of new homes that should be provided in Welwyn Hatfield. Members will recall that issues and options consultation on the Core Strategy took place in 2009 after the adoption of the East of England Plan (which is the Regional Spatial Strategy covering Welwyn Hatfield), when an annual housing target for Welwyn Hatfield of 500 dwellings per year was still in force.

- 72 -

4.3 In his letter of 6th July 2010, the government‟s Chief Planning Officer stated that local planning authorities will be responsible for establishing the right level of local housing provision in their area and identifying a long term supply of housing land. He also stated that it is important for the planning process to be transparent and for people to be able to understand why decisions have been taken. Any target selected by the local planning authority may be tested during the examination process for the Core Strategy, especially if it has been challenged, and local planning authorities need to be in a position to defend them. The Localism Bill, published in December 2010, confirms the government‟s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and that local planning authorities will be responsible for setting their own housing targets for their local plans.

5 Policy Implication(s)

5.1 Changes to the planning system proposed in the Localism Bill mean that, to be in a position to proceed with the Core Strategy, the council needs to carry out public consultation on the number of houses to be provided in Welwyn Hatfield from 2011 to 2031. This consultation will help to achieve a sound evidence base on this aspect of the emerging Core Strategy.

6 Risk Assessment

6.1 Risks PP1 (democratic process) and PP2 (failure to meet milestones) of the Strategy and Development risk register are affected by recent and intended changes to the national planning framework announced by the government. The timing and nature of these changes (and pending legal challenge(s) against the Secretary of State‟s approach to the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategy tier of the development plans system) have introduced a period of uncertainty and lack of clarity about how plans should proceed, but the course of action set out in this report should help to address these risks.

7 Explanation

7.1 In the light of the matters discussed in section 4 above, it is proposed that a public consultation leaflet be put together setting out five possible scenarios for housing growth in Welwyn Hatfield to 2031. This material would also be published on the council‟s website. The consultation material will set out the advantages and disadvantages of having a strategy for growth at each of these rates. It is proposed to notify everyone who has been involved in previous consultations relating to the local plan (including the Core Strategy issues and options consultation) and to brief the groups invited to the collaborative workshop events in November 2010, including county, borough, town and parish councillors and members of constituted bodies such as residents‟ associations and members of the tenants‟ panel.

7.2 It is not the purpose of this consultation to ascertain where, if it were necessary, land would need to be released from the green belt – that will be a matter for consultation when the draft Emerging Core Strategy is published.

- 73 -

7.3 In detail the five potential levels of housing growth to be put to consultation will be as follows:

Scenario 1 – urban capacity only

Taking into account sites identified in the Welwyn Hatfeild Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, October 2009 and subsequent monitoring data, there is capacity for about 2,900 additional dwellings on sites mainly within the borough‟s towns and larger villages. If new housing were only to be built at these locations over the period to 2031, this would result in an average annual rate of new housing provision of 145 dwellings. In practice, however, build rates have been much higher than this. If high demand means that homes are built on all the urban capacity sites early on, green belt sites may then be needed, but will not have been planned for.

Scenario 2 – the council’s interim target

This scenario would result in an average annual rate of 290 new dwellings per year, or 5,800 from 2011 to 2031 (see paragraph 4.1 above). Taking into account sites identified in the Welwyn Hatfield Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, October 2009 and subsequent monitoring data, there is capacity for about 2,900 additional dwellings on sites within the borough‟s towns and larger villages. This equates to about 10 years‟ supply, meaning that we could protect the borough‟s green belt until about 2021. Land for about 2,900 dwellings would also need to be released from the green belt for the supply of housing sites to continue beyond 2020. Best practice indicates that, to create a neighbourhood large enough to have its own facilities, at least 1,500 dwellings need to be built. This scenario would be likely to result in the development of two new neighbourhoods in the green belt around Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield.

Scenario 3 – continuation of the 30 year trend

This scenario reflects the average rate of housing construction in Welwyn Hatfield over the last thirty years and would result in an average annual rate of 380 new dwellings per year, or 7,600 from 2011 to 2031. Taking into account sites identified in the Welwyn Hatfield Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, October 2009 and subsequent monitoring data, there is capacity for about 2,900 additional dwellings on sites within the borough‟s towns and larger villages. This equates to about 7½ years‟ supply, meaning that we could protect the borough‟s green belt until about 2018. Land for about 4,700 dwellings would also need to be released from the green belt for the supply of housing sites to continue beyond 2018. This scenario would be likely to result in the development of two or three new neighbourhoods in the green belt around Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield.

Scenario 4 – East of England Plan – pre-High Court challenge and baseline for Core Strategy issues and options consultation in 2009

This scenario takes the figure set out in the East of England Plan for 2001 to 2021 and projects it forward for the period 2011 to 2031. It would result in an

- 74 -

average annual rate of 500 new dwellings per year, or 10,000 from 2011 to 2031. Taking into account sites identified in the Welwyn Hatfield Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, October 2009 and subsequent monitoring data, there is capacity for about 2,900 additional dwellings on sites within the borough‟s towns and larger villages. This equates to about 6 years‟ supply, meaning that we could protect the borough‟s green belt until about 2017. Land for about 7,100 dwellings would also need to be released from the green belt for the supply of housing sites to continue beyond 2017. This scenario would be likely to result in the development of three new neighbourhoods in the green belt around Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield.

Scenario 5 – Household projections – DCLG, 2008-based

This scenario uses a projection of household growth produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in 2010 and based on figures for 2008. For Welwyn Hatfield, it would suggest an average annual rate 720 new dwellings per year, or 14,400 from 2011 to 2031. Taking into account sites identified in the Welwyn Hatfield Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, October 2009 and subsequent monitoring data, there is capacity for about 2,900 additional dwellings on sites within the borough‟s towns and larger villages. This equates to about 4 years‟ supply, meaning that we could protect the borough‟s green belt until about 2015. Land for about 11,500 dwellings would also need to be released from the green belt for the supply of housing sites to continue beyond 2015. This scenario would be likely to result in the development of three new neighbourhoods in the green belt around Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield, but further green belt releases would also be required, possibly at the smaller broad locations around Welwyn Garden and Hatfield and also around villages.

7.4 It is envisaged that public consultation will take place for a six week period in June and July 2011.

8 Equality and Diversity

8.1 I confirm that an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) has been carried out in connection with the proposals that are set out in this report.

8.2 A copy of the EIA is attached for information.

Name of author Chris Conway Title Director (Strategy and Development) Date 22 March 2011

Background papers to be listed (if applicable)

- 75 -

Section 4 Appendix E

The Chief Planning Officer

Local Planning Authorities in England

6 July 2010

Chief Planning Officer Letter:

REVOCATION OF REGIONAL STRATEGIES

Today the Secretary of State announced the revocation of Regional Strategies with immediate effect.

I have attached some „questions and answer‟ advice on immediate issues that may arise from this announcement. It will be important for local planning authorities to carry on delivering local development frameworks and making decisions on applications and the attached document focuses on how to continue taking these forward.

Please address any queries to Eamon Mythen at CLG in the first instance ([email protected]).

STEVE QUARTERMAIN

Chief Planner

Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

- 76 -

Guidance for Local Planning Authorities following the revocation of Regional Strategies

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government confirmed today that Regional Strategies will be revoked (see the attached copy of the Parliamentary Written Statement). In the longer term the legal basis for Regional Strategies will be abolished through the “Localism Bill” that we are introducing in the current Parliamentary session. New ways for local authorities to address strategic planning and infrastructure issues based on cooperation will be introduced. This guidance provides some clarification on the impact of the revocation; how local planning authorities can continue to bring forward their Local Development Frameworks (LDFs); and make planning decisions in the transitional period.

1. Under what powers are Regional Strategies being revoked?

Regional Strategies have been revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This guidance covers the period between revocation of Regional Strategies and legislation to abolish them altogether.

2. Do Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) remain in force?

Yes. The Policy Statement on Regional Strategies (February 2010) is cancelled, and references to Regional Strategies in other Policy Statements are no longer valid. But all other PPSs will continue to apply until they are replaced by the National Planning Framework.

3. Will this affect the London Plan?

The London Plan will continue to provide the planning framework for London boroughs. As part of a wider process of decentralisation in London, we are reviewing how powers and discretion can be shifted downwards from central government to the Mayor and Assembly, to London Boroughs and to local neighbourhoods. This will include reviewing the scope for devolving power from the Greater London Authority down to the Boroughs and below.

The following sections provide advice on some of the issues likely to arise following revocation of Regional Strategies, until the “Localism Bill” and the new National Planning Framework are in place. This guidance should be regarded as a material consideration by local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate in their decisions.

4. How will this affect planning applications?

In determining planning applications local planning authorities must continue to have regard to the development plan. This will now consist only of:

• Adopted DPDs; • Saved policies; and • Any old style plans that have not lapsed.

- 77 -

Local planning authorities should also have regard to other material considerations, including national policy. Evidence that informed the preparation of the revoked Regional Strategies may also be a material consideration, depending on the facts of the case.

Where local planning authorities have not yet issued decisions on planning applications in the pipeline, they may wish to review those decisions in light of the new freedoms following the revocation of Regional Strategies. The revocation of the Regional Strategy may also be a material consideration.

5. Should we continue preparing LDF documents?

Yes – the revocation of Regional Strategies is not a signal for local authorities to stop making plans for their area.

Local planning authorities should continue to develop LDF core strategies and other DPDs, reflecting local people‟s aspirations and decisions on important issues such as climate change, housing and economic development.

These local plans will guide development in their areas and provide certainty for investors and communities. Local authorities may wish to review their plans following the revocation of Regional Strategies. We recommend reviews should be undertaken as quickly as possible.

6. How does this affect adopted local plans / LDFs?

Adopted DPDs and saved policies will continue to provide the statutory planning framework. Local authorities may decide to review these now that Regional Strategies have been revoked. There is no need to review the whole LDF, only those issues or policies which local authorities wish to revisit. When undertaking consultation and sustainability appraisal on their draft policies, authorities should take an approach that considers the stage reached, the extent of work already undertaken and the scope of the policy changes they are making.

7. What if my LDF document is still being prepared?

Where local planning authorities are currently bringing forward development plan documents they should continue to do so. Authorities may decide to review and/or revise their emerging policies in the light of the revocation of Regional Strategies. Where authorities decide to do this they will need to ensure they meet the requirements for soundness under the current legislation. When undertaking consultation and sustainability appraisal on their draft policies, authorities should take an approach that considers the stage reached, the extent of work already undertaken and the scope of the policy changes they are making.

8. Will Examinations in Public continue for DPDs?

Yes – where local planning authorities are bringing forward new development plan documents or reviewing adopted plans they should present evidence to support their plans. The examination process will continue to assess the soundness of plans, and Inspectors will test evidence put forward by local authorities and others who make representations.

- 78 -

9. Will data and research currently held by Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards still be available?

Yes. The regional planning function of Regional LA Leaders‟ Boards – the previous Regional Assemblies – is being wound up and their central government funding will end after September this year. The planning data and research they currently hold will still be available to local authorities for the preparation of their local plans whilst they put their own alternative arrangements in place for the collection and analysis of evidence. Notwithstanding, the new Government regards the Regional Leaders‟ Boards as an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy.

Clarification on policy issues

There are a number of areas where Regional Strategies supplemented the national policy framework. Further clarification on these areas is set out below.

10. Who will determine housing numbers in the absence of Regional Strategy targets?

Local planning authorities will be responsible for establishing the right level of local housing provision in their area, and identifying a long term supply of housing land without the burden of regional housing targets. Some authorities may decide to retain their existing housing targets that were set out in the revoked Regional Strategies. Others may decide to review their housing targets. We would expect that those authorities should quickly signal their intention to undertake an early review so that communities and land owners know where they stand.

11. Will we still need to justify the housing numbers in our plans?

Yes – it is important for the planning process to be transparent, and for people to be able to understand why decisions have been taken. Local authorities should continue to collect and use reliable information to justify their housing supply policies and defend them during the LDF examination process. They should do this in line with current policy in PPS3.

12. Can I replace Regional Strategy targets with “option 1 numbers”?

Yes, if that is the right thing to do for your area. Authorities may base revised housing targets on the level of provision submitted to the original Regional Spatial Strategy examination (Option 1 targets), supplemented by more recent information as appropriate. These figures are based on assessments undertaken by local authorities. However, any target selected may be tested during the examination process especially if challenged and authorities will need to be ready to defend them.

13. Do we still have to provide a 5 year land supply?

Yes. Although the overall ambition for housing growth may change, authorities should continue to identify enough viable land in their DPDs to meet that growth. Strategic Housing Market Assessments and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments can help with this. Local planning authorities should continue to use their plans to identify sufficient sites and broad areas for development to deliver their housing ambitions for at least 15 years from

- 79 -

the date the plan is adopted. Authorities should also have a five year land supply of deliverable sites. This too will need to reflect any changes to the overall local housing ambition.

14. How do we determine the level of provision for travellers’ sites?

Local councils are best placed to assess the needs of travellers. The abolition of Regional Strategies means that local authorities will be responsible for determining the right level of site provision, reflecting local need and historic demand, and for bringing forward land in DPDs. They should continue to do this in line with current policy. Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs) have been undertaken by all local authorities and if local authorities decide to review the levels of provision these assessments will form a good starting point. However, local authorities are not bound by them. We will review relevant regulations and guidance on this matter in due course.

15. How do we establish the need for minerals and aggregates supply without Regional Strategy targets?

Minerals planning authorities will have responsibility for continuing to plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals to support economic growth. They should do this within the longstanding arrangements for minerals planning. Technical advice provided by the Aggregate Working Parties, including their current work in sub-apportioning the CLG guidelines for 2005-2020 to planning authority level will assist with this.

Planning authorities in the South East should work from the apportionment set out in the "Proposed Changes" to the revision of Policy M3, published on 19 March 2010.

Planning authorities can choose to use alternative figures for their planning purposes if they have new or different information and a robust evidence base. We will work with the minerals industry and local government to agree how minerals planning arrangements should operate in the longer term.

16. How do we establish the need for waste management without Regional Strategy targets?

Planning Authorities should continue to press ahead with their waste plans, and provide enough land for waste management facilities to support the sustainable management of waste (including the move away from disposal of waste by landfill). Data and information prepared by partners will continue to assist in this process. For the transitional period this will continue to be the data and information which has been collated by the local authority and industry and other public bodies who currently form the Regional Waste Technical Advisory Bodies. We intend for this function to be transferred to local authorities in due course.

17. Does the abolition of the hierarchy of strategic centres mean the end of policies on town centres?

No. Local authorities must continue to have regard to PPS 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth in preparing LDFs and, where relevant, take it into account in determining planning applications for retail, leisure and other main town centre uses.

- 80 -

In assessing any planning applications proposing unplanned growth in out of town shopping centres, particularly those over 50,000 sqm gross retail floor area, local authorities should take account of the potential impacts of the development on centres in the catchment area of the proposal.

18. What about regional policies on the natural environment?

Local authorities should continue to work together, and with communities, on conservation, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment – including biodiversity, geo- diversity and landscape interests. Authorities should continue to draw on available information, including data from partners, to address cross boundary issues such as the provision of green infrastructure and wildlife corridors.

19. What about regional policies on Flooding and Coastal Change?

Local authorities should continue to work together across administrative boundaries to plan development that addresses flooding and coastal change. For flooding matters local authorities already have a duty to co-operate under the Floods and Water Management Act. The Environment Agency will continue to work with local authorities individually and/or jointly to provide technical support on these matters. The Coalition agreement is clear that we should prevent unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk.

20. What about regional policies on Renewable and Low Carbon Energy?

Through their local plans, authorities should contribute to the move to a low carbon economy, cut greenhouse gas emissions, help secure more renewable and low carbon energy to meet national targets, and to adapt to the impacts arising from climate change. In doing so, planning authorities may find it useful to draw on data that was collected by the Regional Local Authority Leaders‟ Boards (which will be made available) and more recent work, including assessments of the potential for renewable and low carbon energy.

21. What about regional policies on Transport?

Local authorities should continue to ensure their land use and local transport plans are mutually consistent, and deliver the most effective and sustainable development for their area. Local authorities should work with each other and with businesses and communities to consider strategic transport priorities and cross boundary issues.

22. Does the end of Regional Strategies mean changes to Green Belt?

No. The Government is committed to the protection of the Green Belt and the revocation of Regional Strategies will prevent top-down pressure to reduce the Green Belt protection. Local planning authorities should continue to apply policies in PPG2. As part of their preparation or revision of DPDs, planning authorities should consider the desirability of new Green Belt or adjustment of an existing Green Belt boundary, working with other local planning authorities as appropriate.

- 81 -

Parliamentary Statement

Revoking Regional Strategies

Today I am making the first step to deliver our commitment in the coalition agreement to “rapidly abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and return decision-making powers on housing and planning to local councils”, by revoking Regional Strategies.

Regional Strategies added unnecessary bureaucracy to the planning system. They were a failure. They were expensive and time-consuming. They alienated people, pitting them against development instead of encouraging people to build in their local area.

The revocation of Regional Strategies will make local spatial plans, drawn up in conformity with national policy, the basis for local planning decisions. The new planning system will be clear, efficient and will put greater power in the hands of local people, rather than regional bodies.

Imposed central targets will be replaced with powerful incentives so that people see the benefits of building. The coalition agreement makes a clear commitment to providing local authorities with real incentives to build new homes. I can confirm that this will ensure that those local authorities which take action now to consent and support the construction of new homes will receive direct and substantial benefit from their actions. Because we are committed to housing growth, introducing these incentives will be a priority and we aim to do so early in the spending review period. We will consult on the detail of this later this year. These incentives will encourage local authorities and communities to increase their aspirations for housing and economic growth, and to deliver sustainable development in a way that allows them to control the way in which their villages, towns and cities change. Our revisions to the planning system will also support renewable energy and a low carbon economy.

The abolition of Regional Strategies will provide a clear signal of the importance attached to the development and application of local spatial plans, in the form of Local Development Framework Core Strategies and other Development Plan Documents. Future reform in this area will make it easier for local councils, working with their communities, to agree and amend local plans in a way that maximises the involvement of neighbourhoods.

The abolition of Regional Strategies will require legislation in the “Localism Bill” which we are introducing this session. However, given the clear coalition commitment, it is important to avoid a period of uncertainty over planning policy, until the legislation is enacted. So I am revoking Regional Strategies today in order to give clarity to builders, developers and planners.

Regional Strategies are being revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and will thus no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

- 82 -

Revoking, and then abolishing, Regional Strategies will mean that the planning system is simpler, more efficient and easier for people to understand. It will be firmly rooted in the local community. And it will encourage the investment, economic growth and housing that Britain needs.

We will be providing advice for local planning authorities today and a copy has been placed in the house library.

- 83 -

Section 4 Appendix F

Graph showing net annual dwelling completions over 30 years (1980/81- 2009/2010)

Welwyn Hatfield Annual Net Dwelling Completions (30 Years) 900

800

700

600 Annual Net Dwelling Annual Net 500 Completions Dwelling Completions 400

300

200

100

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

------

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year (to 31st March)

- 84 -

Net annual dwelling completions 1980/81 – 20009/2010

Year (to 31st Annual Net Dwelling March) Completions 1980-81 372 1981-82 185 1982-83 660 1983-84 499 1984-85 413 1985-86 385 1986-87 686 1987-88 636 1988-89 523 1989-90 400 1990-91 154 1991-92 371 1992-93 261 1993-94 131 1994-95 394 1995-96 158 1996-97 225 1997-98 128 1998-99 95 1999-00 39 2000-01 149 2001-02 82 2002-03 478 2003-04 812 2004-05 642 2005-06 709 2006-07 684 2007-08 747 2008-09 327 2009-10 61

Average net dwelling completions: 380 p.a.

- 85 -

SECTION 5

LIST OF TECHNICAL STUDIES AVILABLE ON THE COUNCIL WEBSITE

(APRIL 2011)

The council has completed an assessment of the provision of Assessment of Open June open space, outdoor sport and recreation in Welwyn Space, Outdoor Sport and 2009 Hatfield. The study assesses the quality, quantity and

Recreation accessibility of open space facilities in the borough

The Welwyn Hatfield Strategic Housing Land Availability Strategic Housing Land October Assessment (SHLAA): Phase 1 - Urban Capacity is a

Availability Assessment 2009 technical assessment of urban sites with potential for housing.

The Hertfordshire London Arc Jobs Growth and Employment final report sets out future needs (to 2026) for employment London Arc and March floorspace for factories, warehouses and offices in Welwyn Hertfordshire Employment 2009 Hatfield, Broxbourne, Dacorum, Hertsmere, St Albans, Three

Land Review Rivers and Watford.

This study examined the housing requirements, aspirations Housing Needs Survey 2004 [285KB] and needs of households in the borough.

This document is a summary of the findings of Hertfordshire Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Investment Strategy (HIIS) Study, which Infrastructure and October provides an assessment of Hertfordshire's future Investment Strategy 2009 infrastructure requirements and identifies funding [3MB] mechanisms necessary to secure its provision.

There is a concern that existing water infrastructure in the area may not have the capacity to handle (or that current investment plans do not make provision for) the increased demands from new development proposed in the East of October Rye Meads Water Cycle England Plan. This study sets out a water cycle strategy for 2009 Study [6MB] the Rye Meads area. This includes the Rye Meads Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) catchment and any surrounding areas that could potentially be pumped to it.

This study assesses the flood risk from all types of flooding Strategic Flood Risk May in the borough, taking into account the existing climate and

Assessment 2009 predicted changes in the climate.

This study identifies local leisure and community needs, WGC Leisure and October audits existing facilities and contains findings about facilities Community Review [3MB] 2006 for indoor sports, community activities, commercial leisure, museums, culture and the arts.

The Northern and This study sought to establish the extent of need for Eastern Hertfordshire June additional Gypsy and Traveller sites in Northern and Eastern Gypsy and Traveller 2006 Accommodation Hertfordshire. Assessment [2MB]

- 86 -

This report sets out areas of search which are potentially suitable to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites in the study Gypsy and Traveller areas October area. Twenty one areas of search were identified within of search report 2007 Northern and Eastern Hertfordshire, one of which is located within Welwyn Hatfield.

The Landscape Character Assessment identifies 30 individual Landscape Character April and distinct character areas across Welwyn Hatfield, and

Assessment 2005 assists in informing planning policy development and planning application decisions.

This study provides an assessment of the main town centres Welwyn Hatfield Retail October - Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield as well as the smaller and Town Centre Needs 2010 centres in the borough, and assesses the future need for

Assessment retail, commercial, leisure and other town centre uses.

The LCB (West) Strategic Housing Market Assessment helps us to develop an understanding of how local housing April Strategic Housing markets operate and to assess housing requirements in the 2010 Market Assessment [6MB] area.

Unlike the earlier Rye Meads Water Cycle Study, this scoping Water Cycle Study - April report considers water related issues affecting the entire

Scoping Study 2010 borough (including part of the Rye Meads study area) and also four boroughs in south west Hertfordshire

The Executive Summary of the LCB (West) Strategic June SHMA Executive Housing Market Assessment. Summary [1MB] 2010

Development July The Development Economics Study examines the viability of Economics Study [1MB] 2010 delivering affordable housing in the borough

The Welwyn Hatfield Sports Facilities Study has reviewed the majority of indoor and outdoor sports facilities within the borough. The study lists a range of conclusions which are a March

Sports Facility Study result of the needs analysis carried out over the past year 2011 and will help form the preparation of an action plan and strategy.

- 87 -