Agenda Item No. COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL 8 FRIDAY, 30 JUNE 2017 AT 2:00PM

PLANNING AND GROWTH IN HERTFORDSHIRE

Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment

Author: Paul Donovan, Team Leader Strategic Land Use (Tel: 01992 556289)

Executive Member: Cllr Derrick Ashley

1. Purpose of report

1.1 To update the Panel on:

• The growth and spatial strategies contained within the ten Hertfordshire Local Plans and other significant growth/regeneration initiatives, their infrastructure implications and likely costs. • The implications for the County Council’s services/functions of the new coverage of Local Plans. • How the County Council engages in growth/regeneration initiatives. • The Review of the London Plan and recent wider South East political liaison arrangements. • Recommendations of a number of Commissions that have relatively recently reported, potentially having significant implications for Hertfordshire. • Recent and ongoing work of the Leaders/Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership in relation to how Hertfordshire should best respond to both internal and external growth pressures. • Recent Government publications including the Housing White Paper

2. Summary

2.1 Hertfordshire is at a key point stage in setting out its proposals for longer term growth of the County – the individual local plans of the borough and district councils are at a stage where there is now nearly complete updated Local Plan coverage. Cumulatively these plans provide for 91,000 new homes and 92,000 new jobs up to 2031, and a forecast 20% increase in traffic. The Local Enterprise Partnership has also reviewed its growth strategy, though we already know the broad direction of that strategy.

2.2 Whilst the collection of new Local Plans for Hertfordshire do not fundamentally ‘change’ the County – the things that make Hertfordshire what it is are essentially maintained – the future settlement hierarchy is broadly as it currently exists and there remains a commitment to the protection afforded to the spaces between settlements and the wider countryside generally. Nevertheless, the growth agenda is substantial and there have been some significant challenges in the journey to where we are now. One of the most obvious of these is the sheer scale of new Page 1 of 26

strategic greenfield/Green Belt growth locations/sites that are required over the coming decades and the growth/regeneration challenges facing some of our settlements. A key issue for the future is whether the current spatial distribution of growth is sustainable in the longer term or whether new garden settlements/villages might be needed.

2.3 The new collection of Local Plans have considerable implications for the County Council as a service and infrastructure provider. Some of the key generic concerns have related to the lack of coordinated timeframes of local plans, the tendency for growth levels and distribution to change during the course of Plan preparation, differences in opinion relating to the level of service/infrastructure implication intelligence required to inform decision-making, the lack of recognition amongst some authorities that as a strategic infrastructure provider the County Council has to take into account wider than individual local authority growth – i.e. the collective impacts of growth on services and infrastructure. The more common specific issues tend to relate to securing commitment to provision of additional school capacity and ensuring that the impacts upon the highway network are identified and a suitable package of mitigation measures developed.

2.4 The costs of infrastructure for growth up to 2031 are estimated to amount to some £4-5bn – the equivalent of £50k for each new home. Funding for this will need to come from a range of different sources and we will need to look at innovative approaches. It will also require us to work closely with the Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) in negotiations with developers, and develop joint arrangements on S106/ Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)/other funding mechanisms.

2.5 There are already strong signals that the Local Plans will need to be continually refreshed to address the ongoing growth agenda (economic and demographic) – both from within and external to Hertfordshire. There are a range of external contextual processes which potentially have significant implications for the County – including the commencement of a review of the London Plan, new political engagement processes for the wider South East, the findings of a variety of Commissions, the major growth and expansion of the two international airports either side of the County. The recently published Housing White Paper ‘Fixing our broken housing market’ will serve to reinforce and accelerate the growth pressures that are on the horizon.

2.6 There is an emerging debate amongst the Hertfordshire authorities about how they can work better together to bring forward growth in a way that is in a wider interest than individual local authorities, which maximises the benefits that can be secured from growth and ensures that any strategic implications can be fully accounted for, particularly in relation to infrastructure provision and securing delivery funding.

3. Recommendations

3.1 That the Panel notes the:

Page 2 of 26

• Main growth and strategy messages from the new collection of Hertfordshire Local Plans. • Implications of these Local Plans for County Council’s services/functions. • Implications of these Local Plans for Traffic and Transport in the County and the need to promote a more sustainable approach to travel in future. • The likely costs of infrastructure up to 2031 that will need funding by new innovative approaches and partnership arrangements. • Emerging review of the London Plan and the wider South East political liaison arrangements. • Findings of various Commissions whose recommendations potential have implications for Hertfordshire. • The nature of the County Council’s engagement with the range of growth/regeneration process. • Need for ongoing active involvement of the County Council in the delivery of Local Plans and key projects. • Ongoing work of the Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership/Leaders Group in relation to how Hertfordshire might move forward and operate in a better way in dealing with growth challenges it faces and how infrastructure can be funded.

3.2 Panel is asked to take stock and reflect upon the scale of the ongoing and likely future implications for Hertfordshire and the County Council and offer any views on the ongoing work of the Leaders/Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership in relation to how Hertfordshire should best respond to both internal and external growth pressures.

4. Hertfordshire Local Plans – complete coverage

4.1 With the imminent publication of the last batch of Local Plans the Hertfordshire boroughs/districts have now effectively laid out how they see Hertfordshire growing in the coming 15-20 years and how that should be distributed. Some of the main components of the growth strategy include:

• An indicative level of housing growth of 4,546 dwellings per annum. This compares to an annualised housing growth figure for Hertfordshire within the now redundant Plan of around 4,200 per annum. It equates to an indicative housing growth figure of 91,000 dwellings for any given 20 year period (a frequently used future-looking timeframe), compared to the East of England 20-year total of 83,200 dwellings. • A proposed level of affordable housing provision consistently in the range 30-40%. • Broadly the same settlement and retail hierarchy for the County as has been maintained for some decades – there are no proposals to elevate or demote settlements from their traditional status. • A new set of strategic ‘locations/sites’ across the County, almost all of which currently involve active dialogue with developers, including:

- Bishops Stortford North – 2,500 homes between 2017 and 2033.

Page 3 of 26

- Bishops Stortford South – residential-led mixed use development to accommodate 750 new homes by 2027. - Land North and East of Ware – mixed use development site to accommodate 1,000 homes by 2033 (with potentially a further 500 beyond that). - Gilston Garden Town area – 10,000 homes, with 3,000 by 2033. - Land East of Stevenage – 600 homes by 2022. - Land East of Welwyn Garden City (Birchall Garden Suburb) – 2,500 homes. - Brookfield – comprehensively planned garden suburb encompassing retail, civic and leisure centre, a business campus and Brookfield Garden Village. Brookfield will be home to 5,000 people. Comprised of two separate but integrated neighbourhoods. - Brookfield Riverside (incorporating existing Brookfield Centre and Brookfield Retail Park) and Brookfield Garden Village. - Lakeside – new mixed use urban village to accommodate 1,000 homes. - Rosedale Park – new suburban parkland communities to accommodate 700 homes. - High Leigh Garden Village – mixed use development incorporating 500+ homes. - Park Plaza (North and West)Strategic Employment Site/Business Campus – 100,000 sq mtrs floorspace. - East Hemel Hempstead (North and South) – 2,500 homes (St Albans) - North West Harpenden – 500 dwellings - East St Albans (Oaklands) – 1,000 dwellings. - North of Baldock – 2,800 homes. - North of Letchworth – 900 homes. - North of Stevenage (Graveley) – 900 homes. - East of Hitchin – 700 homes. - North East of Great Ashby – 600 homes. - East of Luton – 2,100 homes. - North East of Welwyn Garden City – residential mixed use for 725 homes. - South East of Welwyn Garden City – residential mixed use, 1,200 homes - Broadwater Road West – residential mixed use, 1,000 homes. - North West Hatfield – residential-led mixed use, 1,650 homes. - New Village at Symondshyde, North West of Hatfield for 1,130 homes over the Plan period - Watford Junction Special Policy Area – high density mixed use scheme including a major transport interchange, with 1,500 homes and 1,350-2,350 jobs. - Watford Health Campus – mixed use scheme with new hospital, up to 1000 homes, employment, new primary school, 1,000-1,900 new jobs. - Western Gateway SPA – area focussed on Watford Business Park – additional employment and wider mix of uses including supermarket, primary school, 300 homes, 700-2,000 additional jobs. - Elstree Way Corridor – 813 homes. - West Hemel Hempstead – 900 homes.

Page 4 of 26

- East Hemel Hempstead – 1,000 homes. - Hemel Hempstead Town Centre – 1,800 homes. - Safeguarding land to the West of the A1(M) at Stevenage for up to 3,100 dwellings in the period beyond 2026 subject to a future review of this Plan; - Reference to new settlement options within North Hertfordshire that can provide additional housing supply in the period after 2026.

4.2 As well as having a spread of strategic locations across the County, a significant message from the new Local Plans is the concentration of growth along the A414 corridor, from Hemel Hempstead, through St Albans, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City and onward through East Herts to . Two of the proposed standalone new settlements within the County (Gilston to the North of Harlow and the new village at Symondshyde) lie within this corridor.

4.3 The scale and distribution of growth emerging from Hertfordshire’s ten Local Plans is supplemented by the ‘Hertfordshire Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) – Perfectly Placed for Business’, prepared by the Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership. The Plan identifies three growth areas within which there is a focus to grow Hertfordshire’s science and technology based assets (bioscience and pharma and film/tv/digital) and the new Towns within them – referencing Hemel Hempstead, South Oxhey, Stevenage, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City. The SEP sees two ‘game changers’ as being the need to increase the scale of housing delivery and investment in infrastructure.

Page 5 of 26

4.4 The Strategic Economic Plan has recently been refreshed to cover the period 2016-2030. Amongst the main (spatial) messages are the need to:

- Continue to support the three growth areas as engines of growth, all of which must be fully harnessed; - Develop an East-West corridor along the A414; - Continuing support for Watford, Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead, but with new priorities in Hatfield, and Bishops Stortford. - Develop a longer term aspiration for a new “spatial blueprint” for Hertfordshire.

4.5 On the whole the County Council has engaged constructively with boroughs/districts as they prepare their Local Plans. Some of the more generic concerns experienced by the County Council in attempting to identify the implications of the growth being brought forward on its services/functions have been:

• The lack of coordinated timeframes of local plans, even where there are clearly strong strategic relationships between adjoining authorities. • The tendency for growth levels and distribution to change during the course of Plan preparation, with these only being fixed late in the Plan production process. • Differences in views relating to the level of service/infrastructure implication intelligence required to inform decision-making. • The lack of recognition amongst some authorities that as a strategic infrastructure provider, the County Council has to take into account wider than individual local authority growth – i.e. the collective impacts of growth on services and infrastructure.

4.6 Some of the more specific issues and areas of concern are outlined in the following paragraphs. These generally relate to securing commitment to provision of additional school capacity and ensuring that the impacts upon the highway network are identified and a suitable package of mitigation measures developed. Occasionally there has also been a requirement to seek to ensure borough and district local plans adequately support the County Council’s aspirations and policies within its Minerals and Waste Local Plans. The County Council has had to maintain objections to some emerging Plans and articulate soundness issues to inform independent Examinations. As Districts begin their reviews of their Local Plans, it will be important for the County Council, particularly as both Highways and Education authority to be engaged early in these processes.

4.7 As a landowner the County Council has promoted a number of sites for residential development, including Baldock North (2800 dwellings), Greater Brookfield (1500 dwellings), land south of London Colney (500 dwellings), plus a number of smaller sites in several Districts. County Council officers continue to consider and make use of opportunities for promotion of County Council land at appropriate points in the plan making process. Some of these sites could be promoted as ‘exemplar’ developments, incorporating the very best practice in terms of sustainable development.

Page 6 of 26

Education

4.8 Officers are involved in an ongoing dialogue with all the districts in the plan making process, since education infrastructure in particular is a significant aspect of sustainable developments and this is generally recognised. Local Plans therefore usually do make some provision for schools, although it is not always sufficient. Officers engage with the districts early, endeavouring to look at the impact of development and policies therein and find solutions in the timeframes which are set by the LPAs. This can however be difficult, when the LPAs do not ‘fix’ their housing numbers until late on in the process or do not agree on the mechanisms by which infrastructure provision is to be made.

4.9 The review of education demand is an ongoing process which generally culminates in reports to Cabinet, usually early on in the new year. For the last 7 years Cabinet has received reports setting out a programme of proposals for expansion of existing and new schools across the county. The process also involves consideration of the Education Funding Agency programme for free schools.

4.10 Broxbourne : There are no significant issues at large other than the need to identify a suitable and deliverable secondary school for the longer term. Identifying a suitable site alongside Broxbourne Borough Council is in hand.

4.11 Dacorum : There are no significant issues at large in Dacorum, since school sites have been identified as requested in all parts of the borough (including the town centre and Berkhamsted). The County Council is keen to work with Dacorum Borough Council and St Alans City and District Council on the strategic allocation for East Hemel Hempstead. Work is beginning on a review of the local plan and the County Council is involved in discussions around growth.

4.12 East Herts: There are a number of concerns of both a minor and larger scale in relation to the current draft plan. The minor issues can probably be dealt with via modifications to the plan. The main issues are ensuring there are enough school places within Gilston and the identification of a suitable site for a first school to serve as the one allocated in the plan is not seen as deliverable. Discussions and technical work is currently underway to try and resolve this with landowners and the LPA; another significant concern is the allocation of land in the local plan at Hadham Road, Bishops Stortford for open space, which conflicts with an extant planning application for residential development, made by the County Council as part of the overall Bishops Stortford North (BSN) strategy. Capital receipts from residential allocations are required to support funding of schools at BSN. The County Council has lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate and objected to the local plan for soundness reasons.

Page 7 of 26

4.13 Hertsmere : Generally, provisions are made for education within the local plan. Hertsmere Borough Council wish to identify an alternative to the school site allocated in their Elstree Way Corridor Action Plan and discussions are ongoing. If further growth is planned it is likely that more school places will be required. The County Council is now trying to engage with officers on the initial stages of their local plan review (Call for Sites).

4.14 North Herts: The County Council has a significant concern with the failure of the district to identify a secondary school to the north of Stevenage to serve development in three districts (North Herts/Stevenage/East Herts). The plan also needs to be amended to better reflect infrastructure needs for schools at North Letchworth and North Baldock. The County Council has objected to the most recent local plan on duty to co-operate and soundness reasons.

4.15 St Albans: Issues generally relate to education; for a number of years through consultations on the Strategic Local Plan (SLP) and Detailed Local Plan (DLP), the County Council has identified a need for several primary schools, depending on identification of locations of growth. Moreover there is requirement for two additional secondary schools to serve Harpenden and St Albans. Representations objecting to the draft DLP were made in December 2016, since this plan has failed to address these needs. Concerns around soundness exist in relation to the SLP too. The plan will need to identify locations for Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC’s) to serve the district and to try and secure a new library location in the town centre.

4.16 Stevenage: The current plan generally raises no particular issues. The County Council must watch the emergent town centre regeneration proposals carefully to ensure sufficient provision for primary education in Central Stevenage is made.

4.17 Three Rivers: The County Council secured two secondary and two primary school sites via the recent local plan process and both of the secondary schools are now being delivered. If further growth is planned it is likely that more school places will be required. Engagement is now taking place on the initial stages of the local plan review.

4.18 Watford: Demand for school places has been very high over the last few years and sites have been identified as part of the larger developments in the borough via the recent local plan process as well as other routes such as free schools and via planning applications (eg Watford Health Campus). Further growth will inevitably require consideration of how more school places can be provided.

4.19 Welwyn Hatfield: Discussions continue in relation to the wording of policy to ensure that secondary school capacity is secured and that sufficient sites for primary provision are made.

Transport

Page 8 of 26

4.20 There are a number of Major Committed Projects affecting Hertfordshire which are predominantly associated with historic and ongoing pressures on the network, as follows:

• A120 Little Hadham Bypass • A1(M) Junctions 6 -8 Smart Motorway scheme • M25 Junction 25 • M11 Junction 7a (New Junction) • Croxley Rail Link • A602 improvements between Stevenage and Ware • M1 – A5 link

4.21 The process of preparation of Local Plans in the County and the technical work undertaken by the County Council and boroughs/districts has reconfirmed or identified new hotspots/Junctions with capacity constraints/Issues which need to be overcome.

A10

• Role of A10 from M25 to (Is it to remain part of the HCC primary network when considered in the context of wider transport pressures) • A10/B198 Lieutenant Ellis Way/A121 Winston Churchill Way (Park Plaza) • A10/Church Lane Junction • A10/ College Road Junction • A10/London Road roundabout Buntingford

A414

• A414/A405/Watling Street Roundabout (Park Street Roundabout) • A414/A1081/ High Street (London Colney Roundabout) • A414 Colney Heath Long-about • A414 strategic intervention at Hertford • A414/A1170/B1502/ High Street Roundabout (Amwell Roundabout) • A414 Eastwick Road/ Fifth Avenue Junction at Harlow • A414 Second Stort Crossing linking Gilston to Harlow • Consideration of if/when A414 northern link to M11 is required • A414 Breakspear Way j/w Green Lane (off J8 M1) Hemel Hempstead potential major junction realignment, full signalisation and new slip road to M1 Northbound. Would be considered alongside M1 J8 upgrades to support growth. • Role of A414 Breakspear Way to A41 junction in Two Waters Hemel Hempstead. Potential to achieve step change with provision of improved passenger transport, cycle and ped facilities between Town Centre, Rail Station and Maylands.

A1(M)

Page 9 of 26

• A1(M) Junction 3 – consideration of dualling Comet Way and optimising signalling (Needs to be considered as art of wider A414 strategy) • A1(M) Junction 4 – In relation to the operation of the Jack Oldings Roundabout, the Oldings East roundabout and A1001, collectively known as the ‘Oldings Triangle’ (Needs to be considered as art of wider A414 strategy) • Operation of the local network in the vicinity of A1(M) Junction 6 • A1(M) Junction 7 – works associated with Glaxo • A1(M) Junction 8 – This junction acts as a gateway into/out of Stevenage to/from North Herts and the A1(M). Increasing the location is put under pressure leading to rerouting of traffic to less appropriate routes. • A1(M) Junction 9 – in particular the A505 between the Baldock Bypass and Junction 9

M1

• M1 Junction 8 – upgrades to support proposed growth vs future growth pressures (also needs to be considered in the context of the A414 strategy and potential wide strategic context)

Other

• Baldock - New Link Road connecting North Baldock development to A507 North Road to B656 Royston Road (effectively the A505) • Baldock – Southern link road linking A507 Clothal Road/Wallington Road / South Road to B656 Royston Road • Hitchin – various junctions in Hitchin coming under pressure • Role of A405 in the context of the A414 Strategy • Ware – New distributer road linking A1170 to B1004 • Stevenage – Lytton Way redesign (Town Centre) – close Lytton Way between Swingate and Six Hills Way to traffic except buses

4.22 In addition to supporting borough/district Local Plans the County Council is also refreshing its strategic response to the implications of the emerging growth strategy on the Hertfordshire transport network. This has three core strands to it:

• COMET – a new countywide transportation model into which background travel growth and the growth proposed within Local Plans is inputted to identify stress points on the network and explore and test different types on mitigation measures. The outputs from modelling input directly into Local Plans and their accompanying Infrastructure Delivery Plans (IDPs) and into the revision of the Local Transport plan.

• The preparation of a rolling programme of Growth and Transport Plans for sub-regions of the County where the transportation implications of growth are particularly acute, with a view to developing solutions and apportioning delivery responsibility.

Page 10 of 26

• Development of the County’s Transport Vision and Local Transport Plan (LTP4). As well as dealing with all matters relating to transport (making the network more suitable for modes other than the car, a step change in cycling in larger urban areas, facilitating and supporting shared mobility, enhanced public transport connectivity between towns through bus priority, etc), the LTP review process has already identified a number of policy options that can be directly attributable to the new growth and spatial strategy, including the need for Growth and Transport Plans and major transport schemes, amongst which are: - Access Improvements to East Hemel Hempstead - Hertford Bypass and Sustainable Travel Town - A414 Corridor Junction Capacity Upgrades - major improvements to junctions along the A414 over the next 15 years

4.23 Following the public consultation on the emerging policy directions and the proposed major transport schemes, which took place from October to December 2016, it is the intention to publish for public consultation a full draft of LTP in the autumn, with a view to finally adopting the Plan in Spring 2018.

4.24 The projected 20% increase in traffic levels that could result from future growth is unsustainable, and there is an emerging realisation we cannot ‘build our way’ out of traffic congestion. The emerging LTP is therefore proposing a shift in policy direction to secure modal shift away from the private car, to more cycling and public transport journeys and ‘Sustainable Travel Towns’. As part of this shift we will need stronger ‘sticks’ in terms of demand management e.g. parking control and charging and engage with District LPAs to implement such policies as part of their local plans.

5. Growth and Regeneration Governance Arrangements

5.1 There are parts of the County that are subject to specific initiatives designed to address regeneration issues or to promote growth. These include:

Cooperation for Sustainable Development Board – Garden Town Status for Great Harlow

5.2 The Co-operation for Sustainable Development Board is a political grouping which exists to support Local Plan making and delivery for sustainable communities across geographical and administrative boundaries in West Essex, and . It does this by identifying and managing spatial planning issues that impact on more than one local planning area. The County Council is represented on the Board and supporting officer mechanisms.

5.3 The scale of growth currently being brought forward by the four core authorities (East Herts, Harlow, Epping Forest and Uttlesford) is 46,000 homes in the period 2011-2033. The four authorities application to Government for ‘Garden Town’’ status (Harlow and Gilston Garden Town) was recently approved and should provide the platform for Government

Page 11 of 26

support for the growth aspirations of Harlow and bringing forward the Gilston proposal in East Herts (10,000 homes).

5.4 That success brings delivery enabling funding and support from the Homes and Communities Agency, including through their Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS), Government help to broker solutions to unblock issues, access to Government housing funding streams, financial flexibilities to improve viability and cashflow, planning freedoms and support for establishing delivery vehicles.

5.5 Discussions are already underway between the local authorities on appropriate governance and delivery arrangements for Greater Harlow, to which the County Council is party. Getting the right education and transport infrastructure in place will be key issues for the County Council.

London Stansted Consortium

5.6 The London Stansted Cambridge Consortium (LSCC) was formed in June 2013 as a strategic partnership of public and private organisations covering the area North from the Royal Docks, Tech City, the City Fringe, Kings Cross, and the Olympic Park, up through the Lee Valley, the M11, A1 and , the East Coast and West Anglia Mainline rail corridors to Stevenage, Harlow and Stansted, and through to Cambridge and Peterborough. The County Council is a member of the Consortium, as are Broxbourne and Stevenage Borough and East Hertfordshire District. The Consortium is a partnership of organisations which has a shared understanding of the economic potential of the corridor and the need to promote it and maximise the benefits of it.

5.7 The Consortium’s main aim is ‘to seek economic growth, higher employment rates, providing places for people and business while preserving the quality and character of the corridor’ . In 2015 the LSCC set up the London Stansted Cambridge Growth Commission chaired by Sir Harvey McGrath, to ‘provide independent analysis and advice to raise the global economic potential of the London-Stansted-Cambridge Corridor and make recommendations on how to achieve transformational change’.

Hertfordshire Enterprise Zone

5.8 The Hertfordshire Enviro-Tech Enterprise Zone (promoted by the LEP, Dacorum Borough Council and the City and District of St Albans) was approved by Government in September 2015. It aims to support and develop the existing enviro-tech sector in West Hertfordshire and attract more businesses to the area. The multi-site zone covers Maylands Business Park, Hemel Hempstead, and land in Dacorum Borough, west of Green Lane and underused land and buildings at the Building Research Establishment (BRE) and Rothamsted Research. It is expected to deliver thousands of jobs, attract hundreds of new businesses and help unlock key development sites. The County Council is represented on the board and sub-Boards. The Zone went live in April 2017.

The ‘A414 Group’

Page 12 of 26

5.9 Roughly 60% of all the new growth planned in Hertfordshire sits along or close to the A414 from Hemel Hempstead in the West to Harlow in the East. The ‘A414 Group’ is a political grouping instigated by the County Council of local authorities along the A414 including Harlow and Essex. The purpose of the Group is to collectively coordinate the scale of growth currently being brought forward along the A414 both within and adjoining Hertfordshire.

5.10 The Group has agreed its Terms of Reference and a draft Memorandum of Understanding and is now looking into more specific work required – including the production of a transport strategy, an Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Funding Strategy for the whole corridor. As set out earlier in this paper, there are significant highway improvements being considered along the corridor including the need for possible bypasses for Hertford and Gilston.

Settlement-based Growth/Regeneration Initiatives

5.11 There are a number of towns in the County where there are political and officer collaborations to bring about substantive and/or regeneration agendas. The County Council is represented on these groups.

• Stevenage First - Stevenage First is a partnership of the Hertfordshire LEP, Stevenage Borough Council, Hertfordshire County Council and Hertfordshire Chamber of Commerce. It has created an ambitious framework for a major regeneration of the centre of Stevenage over the next 20 years.

• Hatfield 2030+ is a partnership (Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield Town Council, Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership, Goodman Business Parks, Oaklands College, Welwyn Hatfield Housing Trust, Gascoyne Cecil Estates, Hertfordshire County Council, Finesse Leisure, Welwyn Hatfield Chamber of Commerce, The Galleria) whose aim is to bring together the community and key stakeholders to develop shared priorities to attract and target public and private sector investment for the next 20 years and beyond. A Hatfield 2030+ New Town Renewal Framework has been produced which sets out the aspirations of the town and development initiatives to 2030 and beyond.

• Ambition Broxbourne - is the economic growth initiative for Broxbourne supported by a partnership of organisations whose aim is to support innovation, enterprise and entrepreneurship in the Borough.

• Bishops Stortford Town Centre – a partnership led by East Herts District Council, with the County Council, the Town Council and the LEP which has been established to lead on regeneration issues in the town.

Page 13 of 26

5.12 In addition to these, as Local Plans move forward to implementation, there will be a new range of partnership arrangements, with their own governance arrangements and joint working mechanisms. As significant strategic locations/sites come forward, there are likely to be accompanied by designated project management/masterplanning teams – one already exists, for example, for land east of Welwyn Garden City (Birchall Garden Suburb). As a key infrastructure and service provider the County Council will be a key partner in these new arrangements.

5.13 The County Council is represented on the more significant of the growth/regeneration initiatives that exist within and adjoining the County with a view to ensuring the County Council’s interests are secured – these being primarily related to education and transport provision, but not exclusively so. However looking forward, should other growth locations start to move to implementation stages, this will require the County Council to consider how its input to these initiatives is resourced.

6. Infrastructure and Infrastructure Funding

6.1 The current consultation by Government on its Industrial Strategy recognised the failure of the country to properly plan and provide for the infrastructure the country needs to support growth and the economy; an historic lack of clear long-term thinking in the Government’s approach to national infrastructure strategy; the disjointed provision of infrastructure and a legacy of underinvestment. An absence of a clear national strategy has been compounded by the lack of joined-up policies to meet local needs, poor coordination between central and local government, the lack of strong infrastructure institutions such as Transport for London outside the capital, lower levels of infrastructure investment outside London (particularly transport funding) holding back other towns, cities and areas.

6.2 The collective infrastructure requirements of the ten emerging Local Plans in the County are in large part set out in their Infrastructure Delivery Plans which accompany them. The total cost of infrastructure needed in Hertfordshire to support growth up to 2031 is likely to be in the region of £4-5bn. This is roughly equivalent to £50,000 per new dwelling. It will be critical therefore to ensure the public sector is robust and ‘joined up’ in its negotiations with developers to secure appropriate S106 contributions and in the management of CIL across the county.

6.3 A typical Infrastructure Delivery Plan accompanying a Local Plan, for example, will refer to a wide range of potential funding sources/streams (including contributions from developers through the Community Infrastructure Levy and legal agreements – though these only amount to a relatively small proportion of the total ‘need’) in the hope that these can be tapped into to cover the portfolio of infrastructure that is assessed as being required. There are very often repeated references to ‘funding unknown’ or ‘funding not secured’ and this reflects the reality that when planning over such a long time horizon (15-20 years+) it is impossible to have 100% upfront certainty.

Page 14 of 26

6.4 There will be an increasing necessity to explore more innovative mechanisms to forward fund infrastructure and to lobby/bid for national sources of funding. There has already been an initial discussion by the Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership at which it was agreed to seek specialist support to kick-start a debate about the potential infrastructure-funding options available and whether and the extent to which any of these would be suitable in the Hertfordshire context. This process will shadow the work being undertaken by the authorities on how they may need to work together in the future to deliver the future growth agenda for the County – how to fund infrastructure being a very significant element of that. The need for an overarching Strategic Infrastructure Plan for Hertfordshire is currently being considered in order to provide a clear narrative to Government, partners and the development industry of the infrastructure needs and costs of future growth, and to form the basis for bidding to Government for national funding.

7. Planning in Hertfordshire

7.1 There remains concerns that current arrangements for spatial and infrastructure planning may not serve Hertfordshire well given the future scale and complexities of the growth agenda and Government expectations of local authorities in terms of how they should work together.

7.2 The Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership (HIPP) is a political grouping of all District/Borough Local Planning Authorities, the County Council and the LEP. Chaired by Councillor Mandy Perkins Executive Member for Planning and Housing at Welwyn Hatfield (with Derrick Ashley Hertfordshire County Council, Executive Member for Environment Planning and Transport as Vice Chair) it meets frequently to consider the progress on plan making across the county, and other strategic planning matters including infrastructure, changes to planning policy and legislation, and the emerging growth pressures/implications from across our borders. It undertakes joint work and has recently commissioned specialist studies in Development Viability and Infrastructure Funding, Water and Utilities.

7.3 The style of HIPP is collaborative in recognition of the role of the District and Boroughs as the LPA’s in terms of plan making, and the roles of the County Council as Highways Authority, critical service provider e.g. Education, and in having a strategic overview of wider planning issues affecting Hertfordshire and the region. The Group recognises the need to work together in order to develop ‘proper’ sustainable communities of the right quality and with the right infrastructure in place, and to safeguard Hertfordshire’s strategic interests in the wider south east.

7.4 Planning - both spatial and infrastructure planning - in Hertfordshire is complex. With major environmental constraints e.g. Green Belt, high levels of traffic, proximity to London, housing pressures - the development of the current wave of Local Plans has been lengthy, and controversial. It is not helped by the current plan making system which is complex and ever changing. Districts and Boroughs have a ‘Duty to co-operate’ (DTC) on plan making and this has often been difficult. Whether LPA’s have met

Page 15 of 26

their DTC requirement and whether their plans are sound are being tested at Examination in Public (EIPs) currently. This complexity and the scale of the growth challenge for the LPA’s looks set to continue.

7.5 As part of the countywide discussions on Devolution/Collaboration, the Hertfordshire Leaders Group have asked HIPP to consider options for better joint working on Planning and Infrastructure in recognition that the growth agenda is ever increasing at the same time as we want to safeguard and protect Hertfordshire’s unique quality of life and environment.

7.6 HIPP have set up a small sub group to lead this work and are looking at

- Improved joint working to deliver the current round of Local Plans up to 2031 (led by Councillor Perkins) e.g. joint working on CIL/S106, Masterplanning, Design Standards. - Options for joint working mechanisms beyond 2031 to secure a more strategic approach to plan making and infrastructure planning in the longer term (led by Councillor Ashley).

Both strands of work are due to report back to the Leaders Group in September.

7.7 All the signs appear to be showing that unless Hertfordshire embraces a more collaborative and strategic approach to growth it will either be forced upon it or it will become more and more challenging for local authorities to deal with their growth requirements separately in an individual way and it will lose out to other areas where greater coordination facilitates the identification of and commitment to strategic issues such as key pieces of infrastructure. From a County Council perspective, a more strategic approach to planning for growth and the infrastructure required to support it is essential.

8. The London Plan

8.1 With a new Mayor now in place, a full review of the London Plan has more formally commenced and will gather pace. The anticipated programme for the London Plan Review is as follows:

• Summer 2017 - London Plan consultation draft • Mid 2018 - Earliest Examination in Public • 2019/20 - Latest new London Plan publication

8.2 There are a range of commentators for a wider South East approach to delivery of the projected growth needs of the Capital, including potential exportation of London housing growth to the wider South East, identification of growth corridors (two of the five coordination/growth areas/corridors in the existing London Plan impact upon Hertfordshire), co- ordinated Green Belt reviews within and beyond the Capital, relocation of industry out of London to wider south East to free-up land in London for housing, identification of new settlements and major urban extensions in locations with good access to the capital, etc.

Page 16 of 26

8.3 The County Council is represented on the wider South East political liaison arrangements established over recent years. This is the main mechanisms through which the County Council progress on the London Plan. As yet the Mayor has not been particularly forthcoming on the wider South East implications of his growth strategy for the Capital, though he is being pressed by authorities beyond London to be clearer about his intentions. The position at this stage is therefore to keep a watching brief through the wider South East member and officer arrangements set out in Section 7.

9. Political co-operation across the wider South East on cross-border strategic issues and East of England Infrastructure and Growth Group

9.1 With the abolition of regional assemblies in 2012, liaison at a regionally strategic level effectively ceased. In recent years, in the build up to the full review of the London Plan there has been an ongoing and escalating process of engagement between the Greater London Authority (GLA)/Mayor of London and local authorities in the wider South East. There have been three wider South East political summits drawing on politicians from London and the East and South East of England - the first to agree the principle that the Mayor/GLA and local authorities in the East and South East do indeed need to work together on strategic matters, the second to agree what form future political arrangements should take (the creation of a Wider South East Political Steering Group) and the third held in December 2016 having a focus on the impending review of the London Plan. Hertfordshire councils, including the County Council, were represented at the Summit.

9.2 The Wider South East Political Steering Group (PSG) is now in existence, meeting 2-3 times per year, with a rotating chair, and comprised of:

• Five members representing the East of England, nominated by the East of England Local Government Association (EELGA) • Five members representing the South East of England nominated by South East England Councils (SEEC) • Five members representing London nominated jointly by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and London Councils.

9.3 The purpose of the PSG is to initiate, steer and agree strategic collaboration activities across the Wider South East (defined as East of England, South East of England and London).

9.4 Cllr Linda Haysey, Leader of East Hertfordshire District Council and Cllr John Garner, Deputy Leader of Stevenage Borough Council are members of the PSG. PSG is supported by a Wider South East Officer Working Group. The nominated Hertfordshire representative is an officer from East Hertfordshire District Council (with the Hertfordshire Planning Coordinator and Hertfordshire County Council as substitutes).

Page 17 of 26

9.5 The PSG is current focussing on barriers to housing delivery and priorities for wider South East infrastructure.

9.6 To help ensure that the East of England inputs effectively into new wider South East political arrangements the East of England Assembly of Council Leaders has established an Infrastructure and Growth Group (chaired by the chair of the East of England LGA, or his/her named representative. The Group is advised on policy and technical issues and the development of the WSE Work Programme by:

• Lead Chief Executives (John Wood, Hertfordshire County Council and Russell Williams, Ipswich Borough Council) nominated for this purpose by the East of England Chief Executives Forum. • The Chair of the East of England Strategic Spatial Planning Officers Group (drawing on officers from across the region and overseen by the Lead Chief Executives). Hertfordshire has three potential attendees to this group – one from East Hertfordshire District Council and the County Council and the Hertfordshire Planning Coordinator.

9.7 All matters relating to the proceedings of wider South East political and officer meetings are reported to the Hertfordshire Infrastructure and Planning Partnership (HIPP) and the Hertfordshire Planning Group (officers).

10. National and Regional Commissions affecting Hertfordshire

10.1 Over the last twelve months a number of Commissions of various guises have been instigated and have either reported or are in the process of doing so that have potential implications for Hertfordshire. The reports of the Commissions are available in the Members’ Room, with some of the more relevant findings and recommendations summarised below.

The Outer London Commission (OLC)

10.2 Concurrent with the development of wider South East political liaison arrangements the previous Mayor of London commissioned the Outer London Commission to investigate and advise on the following three issues to inform, amongst other matters, the preparation of the new London Plan:

• Coordinating Strategic Policy and Infrastructure Investment Across the wider South East • Removing the Barriers to Housing Delivery • Accommodating London’s Growth

10.3 The OLC published (known as its 5th, 6th and 7th reports) reports into these three issues in March 2016. The 7th Report is of most relevance to Hertfordshire within the context of a projected rapidly growing City and the potential role of the wider South East in playing a role in delivery of that growth. Paragraph 5.6 of the report sets out the Commission’s recommendations in terms of inter-regional co-ordination of growth and include: Page 18 of 26

• Exportation of growth from London. • Identification of growth corridors (two of the five coordination/growth areas/corridors in the existing London Plan impact upon Hertfordshire). • Co-ordinated Green Belt reviews within and beyond the Capital. • Relocation of industry out of London to wider South East to free-up land in London for housing. • New settlements and major urban extensions in locations with good access to the capital.

The National Infrastructure Commission and Crossrail 2 Commission

10.4 The National Infrastructure Commission was set up by Government in 2015 to look at the UK’s future needs for nationally significant infrastructure, help to maintain UK’s competitiveness amongst the G20 nations and provide greater certainty for investors by taking a long term approach to the major investment decisions facing the country. It is expected to soon become a permanent executive agency. Amongst its work already has been a review of the strategic case for additional large scale transport infrastructure for London, with a particular focus for a North East-South West Crossrail 2 rail connection.

10.5 The Crossrail 2 Growth Commission was established by the former Mayor in July 2015 and set the task of helping ensure that opportunities for regeneration, house building and job creation made possible by the new railway can be developed to their full potential

10.6 The findings and recommendations of both commissions are wide-ranging, but some of the main messages include:

• There is a strong case for Crossrail 2. • Crossrail 2 could unlock 200,000 new homes and support 200,000 new jobs, but that growth could potentially be even greater still - but policy changes will need to be made to realise benefits of this scale • There is a need to develop a strategy to unlock significant housing growth. • Recognising that significant opportunities exist outside the Greater London boundary given that ‘75,000 of the 200,000 homes potentially unlocked by Crossrail 2 are outside Greater London into Surrey and Hertfordshire’ . • In order to bring the optimum benefits of Crossrail 2 there will need to be a comprehensive policy response across the tiers of government and public services - involving bringing forward higher housing densities and releases of Green Belt land, local authorities developing joint or complementary local plans. • The establishment of one or more development corporations to lead the masterplanning and delivery of new housing and urban realm provision, powers to combine plan making, land assembly and consenting.

Page 19 of 26

• The changes to approach required should be proactively considered in the forthcoming review of the London Plan and reviews of other planning frameworks for the South East. • A more co-ordinated approach across the wider route and connecting areas would ensure that local authorities who benefit from Crossrail 2 make a fair contribution and cannot ‘opt out’ of growth. • If there were a coordinated approach to the Green Belt around Harlow and infrastructure constraints could be overcome, Harlow’s attraction as an employment hub and location for housing growth would be improved.

The London Stansted Cambridge Commission

10.7 In December 2015 the LSCC set up the London Stansted Cambridge Growth Commission Growth to ‘provide independent analysis and advice to raise the global economic potential of the London-Stansted-Cambridge Corridor and make recommendations on how to achieve transformational change’ . The Commission issued its final report in which it sets out a ‘20-year vision for the Corridor that would see it become one of the top “knowledge regions” in the world, competing alongside Silicon Valley, Boston’s high-tech / life science cluster, Greater Munich, Øresund in Scandinavia, and emerging regions in Asia.’ . The Commission finds that establishing Europe’s answer to Silicon Valley in Eastern England would create at least 10 new ‘unicorns’ (new firms reaching valuations above US $1 billion) and generate 400,000 additional jobs between 2016-2036.

10.8 Some of the key recommendations of the Commission include:

• New powers and financial vehicles are required to deliver infrastructure, transport and housing, including devolving of powers to enable the use of private finance and local tax and consideration of the case for a Corridor Transport Authority. • The production of a joint public-private economic development strategy for London Stansted Airport and its surrounding area, with the aim of developing the Airport zone as a growth node in the Corridor. • Deepening the partnership with London with a view to developing a deeper shared understanding of the challenges and potential responses.

10.9 The LSCC Board have considered their response to the Commission’s report and are committed to promoting the corridor’s economic potential and securing the necessary improvements to road and rail infrastructure to unlock growth particularly around Harlow and Stansted.

National Infrastructure Commission – Cambridge - Milton Keynes - Oxford corridor

10.10 In March 2016, the National Infrastructure Commission was asked to consider how to maximise the potential of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes- Oxford corridor as a single, knowledge-intensive cluster that competes on

Page 20 of 26

a global stage, protecting the area’s high quality environment, and securing the homes and jobs that the area needs.

10.11 The Commission’s central finding set out in its Interim Report is that a lack of sufficient and suitable housing presents a fundamental risk to the success of this area. Without a joined-up plan for housing, jobs and infrastructure across the corridor, it will be left behind its international competitors .’This means local authorities working in partnership, and with national government, to plan places, homes and transport together. Current governance mechanisms are not sufficient to deliver the step-change in strategic leadership and collaboration needed’. By providing the foundations for such a strategy, new East-West transport links present a once in a generation opportunity to secure the area’s future success.

10.12 This interim report makes practical recommendations to that end:

• Government should go ahead with East West Rail’s initial phase, a new link cutting journey times by more than half on the route from Oxford to Bedford and Milton Keynes, ensuring it is delivered before 2024; and it should invest in developing as soon as possible detailed plans for both the next phase of East West Rail (which would complete the link to Cambridge) and for a new Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. • Plans for these major new transport links should be drawn up with the specific intention of securing the tens of thousands of new homes this area needs. • Local authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships, key government departments and national delivery agencies, should work together to develop a strategic vision (an integrated strategic plan) for housing, jobs and infrastructure across the corridor, new and expanded settlements, as well as proposals for the joint governance arrangements (e.g. joint committees, combined authorities, sub- national transport bodies, or the creation of unitary authorities).

10.13 In the second phase of this study, the National Infrastructure Commission will work with local and national government, and other stakeholders, to put this strategy in place. Some technical work within the corridor has started with East Hertfordshire and North Hertfordshire districts and Stevenage Borough, but to date there has been no engagement with Hertfordshire in terms of how the Commission sees parts of the county contributing to the corridor, if at all.

10.14 A number of the recommendations of the various Commissions point to very significant and sensitive implications for Hertfordshire in the event they were to be implemented. At this stage, however, there is very little by way of indication as to whether and how these recommendations are to be taken forward. At this stage the County Council’s approach is to maintain a watching brief and engage with any proposals to move forward on recommendations as they emerge. The recommendations of the various Commissions will also be integrated into the ongoing consideration by Leaders (with the assistance of the Hertfordshire Infrastructure and

Page 21 of 26

Planning Partnership) of how Hertfordshire should respond to the ongoing and likely scale of future growth pressures facing the County.

11. Aviation

11.1 Both the airports to the West and East of the County are experiencing rapid growth in throughput and have ambitious development and growth plans.

London Luton

11.2 In 2012, London Luton Airport received planning permission to move from its level of operations at that time of about 12mppa to 18mppa, which it was expected to reach in the mid/late 2020s. A major investment programme is already in place to build out the planning consent and growth since 2012 has been substantive and moved to 14.5mppa. The Airport recorded a 18.7% increase in passenger numbers in October compared to the same period the previous year. Over 1.3 million passengers travelled through the airport in October alone. The airport expects to reach its new planning throughput cap of 18mppa within the next 3-4 years, rather than mid to late 2020s.

11.3 London Luton Airport Limited is planning to put in place a £200 million 24- hour light rail link between Luton Airport Parkway station and the airport terminal with a view to achieving a transformation in the number of passengers using public transport to access the airport.

11.4 The Luton Enterprise Zone is also focussed on the airport and three other linked sites (Stirling Park, Century Park and Airport Business Park) with a view to creating over 7,200 jobs.

11.5 The County Council has two Member representatives on the Consultative Committee and its sub-committees.

London Stansted

11.6 London Stansted Airport has a current limit on its planning permission of 35mppa and 264,000 Air Transport Movements (ATMs). The approved masterplan (Sustainable Development Plan) for the Airport provides the platform to maximise the use of the existing single runway which is believed to have capacity of between 40-45mppa (requiring incremental development of aircraft apron capacity, expansion of the existing terminal building, and the development of an additional satellite building). Utilising that capacity would require a planning application to vary the throughput condition(s) on the existing consent.

11.7 August 2016 saw the busiest month at the airport for nine years, with 2.5 million passengers passing through. The annual throughput at the airport now stands at 24mppa.

11.8 A planning application has recently been submitted for a new £130 million arrivals building to facilitate growth in throughput to the existing 35mppa

Page 22 of 26

planning consent. However, it is also designed to ensure the airport could make full use of its single runway and serve around 43mppa and the owners have indicated that a further planning application will be submitted later this year to lift the current cap on passenger numbers.

11.9 The County Council is represented on the Consultative Committee and its sub-committees.

Heathrow

11.10 In October 2016, the Government announced its support for a new runway at Heathrow – the first full length runway in the South-East since the Second World War. The scheme will be taken forward in the form of a draft ‘National policy statement’ (NPS) for consultation during 2017. Up to 77,000 additional local jobs are expected to be created over the next 14 years and the decision will inevitably bring with it wider growth pressures, including housing and infrastructure provision. The Heathrow decision will almost certainly bring western Hertfordshire into the sphere of influence of this major infrastructure scheme - the technical evidence behind and the assessment of the Heathrow options included the wider influence of the proposals (employment growth, housing need, etc) and encompassed local authorities immediately abutting the western border.

London Airspace Management Programme

11.11 Much of the debate about a shortage in capacity for aviation in the UK centres on runway infrastructure. However, airspace is also a major factor because of its effect on the overall efficiency of the aviation sector and the environment.

11.12 The London Airspace Management Programme (LAMP) is one of two major UK terminal airspace re-design programmes and is seen as a once in a lifetime opportunity to modernise the London Terminal Control Region airspace.

11.13 The decision on the location of the new runway in the South East is critical to the LAMP airspace redesign and so the LAMP process has stalled whilst that decision was awaited. Now it has been made Government has confirmed that the wider programme of airspace modernisation will now move forward and will have will have significant and generally positive implications for the aircraft-related noise in Hertfordshire, but there are always winners and losers involved in flightpath change and processes tend to be controversial and sensitive with communities.

Implications for the County Council

11.14 The main implications for Hertfordshire of growth at Luton and Stansted airports relate to increasing demand for housing and employment provision, increasing pressures on the transportation network and noise impacts. There are no plans to increase growth beyond the currently authorised throughput cap at Luton. Stansted’s intention to come forward with a planning application to raise throughput from the currently permitted

Page 23 of 26

35mppa to maximum use of existing single runway (circa 43mppa) (Panel has already received a briefing from the Airport relating to its growth proposals) will raise implications for the transport network – M11 Junction 8, A120 particularly, West Anglian Main Line. Officers are engaged technically with the Airport and with Essex County Council in advance of the application. At this stage the additional pressures the additional growth of the airport will place on the network and ways to mitigate these are not yet known.

11.15 In terms of airspace redesign over the coming years, there will be substantial implications for Hertfordshire in terms of aircraft-related noise impacts, but these will not be known until specific redesign proposals emerge. The County Council is well placed to keep a watching brief on the redesign process, particularly given its membership of the Airport Consultation Committees, but there may be a need to look at establishing a Joint Aviation Committee for Hertfordshire to ensure effective input to the planning processes and to safeguard Hertfordshire interests.

12. Other significant Planning issues

The Neighbourhood Planning Bill

12.1 The emerging Neighbourhood Planning Bill (NPB) contains a number of proposals potentially having implications for how local plans are prepared. The current version of the bill contains powers for the Secretary of State to direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare joint Local Plans. It also contains default powers for County Councils who could be invited by the Secretary of State to prepare or revise a Local Plan if s/he thinks that a borough/district council are failing in their local plan responsibilities.

The Housing White Paper

12.2 At the time of writing the Government has just published its Housing White Paper ‘Fixing our broken housing market’, with some of the most significant proposals including:

- Intention to consult on a new standard methodology for calculating ‘objectively assessed need’, and encourage councils to plan on this basis. - A major shake-up of the government’s Starter Homes initiative – scrapping its mandatory requirement of 20 per cent Starter Homes on all developments over a certain size and enabling local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of Starter Homes. - Intention to consult on introducing a fee for making a planning appeal. - A new housing delivery test - if delivery of housing falls below 85 per cent of the housing requirement, authorities would in addition be expected to plan for a 20 per cent buffer on their five-year land supply. - Local authorities will be able to increase fees by 20 per cent from July 2017 if they commit to invest the additional fee income in their planning department.

Page 24 of 26

- Intention to respond to a review of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and make an announcement at Autumn Budget 2017. - Encourage "more active use of compulsory purchase powers to promote development on stalled sites for housing" as part of a raft of measures to ensure that planning permissions are built out. - Amend and add to national policy to make clear that "authorities should amend green belt boundaries only when they can demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options". Where land is removed from the green belt, local policies should require the impact to be offset by compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining green belt land. - Legislation to follow to allow "locally accountable" New Town Development Corporations to be set up, enabling local areas to use them as the delivery vehicle for garden communities if they wish to - The Homes and Communities Agency will be relaunched as "Homes England", with a renewed purpose - the ambition to get more homes for communities across all housing tenures, put in infrastructure to unlock housing capacity and attract small builders and new players to diversify the market on a sustainable basis. - Encourage higher densities. It proposes to amend the NPPF to make it clear that plans and individual development proposals should make efficient use of land and avoid building homes at low densities and address the particular scope for higher-density housing in urban locations that are well served by public transport that provide scope to build over low-density uses or where buildings can be extended upwards by using the ‘airspace’ above them. - To enable spatial development strategies, which would be produced by combined authorities or elected mayors, to allocate strategic sites. - The contribution from brownfield and surplus public sector land should be maximised, to support the regeneration of our cities, towns and villages, to support economic growth and to limit the pressure on the countryside.

12.3 Should the proposals within the NPB come into force there would be significant implications (political and technical) for the County Council were it to be invited and if it were to accept an invitation from the Secretary of State to prepare a Local Plan for a borough/district in the County. Whilst the Bill is expected to become legislation in 2017, it is hoped that progress on Local Plans within Hertfordshire by boroughs/districts will be such that the Secretary of State would not wish to intervene. It will be necessary to keep this under review, however, should any issues emerge with local plans as they are reviewed by boroughs and districts. Were the Secretary of State to direct any Hertfordshire local authorities to prepare Joint Local Plans this would be consistent with the benefits that would accrue to planning for the County Council’s services and infrastructure from a more strategic approach.

12.4 The implications of the Housing White Paper will be assessed over the coming months. The main thrust of the White Paper is clearly to provide an improved range of tools and mechanisms to increase the amount and speed of housing delivered. The main strategic message from the White

Page 25 of 26

Paper in terms of this report to Panel is that it serves to simply reinforce and accelerate the growth pressures that are on the horizon.

13. Financial Implications

13.1 As is set out in the main body of this report, the financial implications of the levels of growth outlined will be very significant for the County Council and all other infrastructure providers in the County. There are, however, no financial implications relating directly to this report.

14 . Equality

14.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equalities implications of the decision that they are taking.

14.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced by officers.

14.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

14.4 This report requires no decision and is for information only. There are no equality implications arising from this report.

Background Information

Housing White Paper ‘Fixing our broken housing market’

Page 26 of 26