Session 15 SP18 North East of Welwyn Garden City – SDS1 (WGC4)

Examination of the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan

Council’s Statement for the

Stage 4 Hearing on

Wednesday 27 th June 2018

Session 15

SP18 North East of Welwyn Garden City – SDS1 (WGC4)

Policy SP18 North East of Welwyn Garden City

The discussion at the Topic Specific Policies session suggested that the owners of much of the site would not support the reopening of Panshanger Airfield. The promoters of the facility said that the Green Belt land that is not now allocated for residential development had insufficient space to safely establish and operate a runway to be used by light aircraft. The revised Full Objectively Assessed Housing need calculated for the Borough suggests that the currently proposed housing development proposals fall far short of meeting that target. Some currently proposed housing sites may be found unsound and others upon examination may not provide the envisaged numbers of dwellings In such circumstances it is important that every opportunity to increase the plan’s ability to deliver housing is explored. Would you reassess the extent and capacity of this site with a view to maximising the potential housing numbers that could be achieved through: a) The site’s extension to the north b) A detailed review of the Green Belt boundary in this area c) Investigation of the feasibility of locating some non-housing uses, particularly open uses in the adjacent parts of East Hertfordshire. Welwyn Hatfield Response a) The Council notes the Inspector’s comments regarding the potential opportunity to deliver additional housing capacity at North East of Welwyn Garden City through an expansion of the existing allocation. b) The area allocated for development at North East Welwyn Garden City is non-Green Belt land which has been designated as an Area of Special Restraint since 1993. The Green Belt boundary proposed in the Submission Local Plan is the same as the existing Welwyn Hatfield District Plan with one exception. An area of land to the east of the site is proposed to be returned to the Green Belt. This has been agreed in consultation with Historic England and has been proposed in order to conserve the setting of the Grade II* Registered Park and Garden of Panshanger. This Green Belt boundary amendment is set out as change PMC68 on page 77 of the Council’s Summary of Changes from the 2005 District Plan Proposals Map to the 2016 Draft Local Plan Proposed Submission Policies Map (document reference PMC/1). c) A detailed explanation is provided in the Council’s hearing statement for Question 24 setting out why the Inspector of the 1993 District Plan recommended the specific Green Belt boundary he did. An extract from his report is appended to that statement. d) When considering whether it was appropriate to release the Area of Special Restraint to meet development needs in the plan period of the emerging Local Plan, officers reviewed whether the Green Belt boundary was still appropriate. This included consideration of new evidence relating to heritage, landscape and ecology including the following:

• Panshanger Park and Environs Heritage Impact Assessment, July 2016, prepared by Beacon Planning on behalf of WHBC and EHDC (Examination Library reference HIS/3) • A Visual Appraisal including key cross-valley views and other important viewpoints • A Grassland Survey by Hertfordshire Ecology e) As set out in the HELAA June 2016 (Examination Library Reference HOU/19), officers took the view, having regard to the more mature planting that exists today and the latest evidence, that the area of structural landscaping required to mitigate the impacts of development was not as extensive as that envisaged by the Inspector of the District Plan 1993. f) It was considered that through a process of careful masterplanning a reduced area of structural landscaping could achieve the same objectives as those intended by the Inspector of the District Plan 1993. However the northern most part of the site fronting Hertford Road which lies beyond the structural planting area and the area of tree planting immediately to its south would need to be retained as Green Belt in order to protect the openness of the river valley. Consequently officers recommended an enlarged area for development as set out in the Draft Local Plan Proposed Submission which was reported to the Council’s Housing and Planning Panel on 20 July 2016. The proposed allocation provided for a total of 725 homes. A copy of the proposed Strategic Diagram for the site is provided as Appendix 1. g) Having regard to representations relating to the loss of the airfield at Panshanger, the Council’s Cabinet Housing and Planning Panel determined that an amended policy was required. It was not considered appropriate by the Panel that the Draft Plan make formal provision for a new airfield by allocating land for that purpose. Instead it was felt a slight change to the policy could create scope for a relocated runway to be provided by a third party. It was therefore proposed that Policy SP18 and Policies Map 3 be amended. The Submission Draft Local Plan was subsequently amended as follows: • The land currently designated as Area of Special Restraint was allocated for 650 dwellings • The Green Belt boundary to the north would remain as currently defined on the District Plan Proposals Map with 75 dwellings proposed on Green Belt land deleted from the Plan • Wording was added to the policy as follows: “ In addition, the masterplan will allow the opportunity for a realigned grass runway on land to the north of the Green Belt boundary.” h) The land ownership of Mariposa and Homes England extends further north than the existing allocated site boundary and throughout the preparation of the Local Plan process they have indicated a desire to bring forward as much of their land as possible for residential development. It is therefore considered as a starting point that additional land to the north is available for development. It is anticipated that an expanded site could yield at least 75 additional dwellings (725 total dwellings) as

assessed in HELAA Appendix G scenario 3 (Examination Library Reference HOU 19). i) The principle of expanding the site further north beyond the current Green Belt boundary is supported by Historic England in heritage terms. The Panshanger Park and Environs Heritage Impact Assessment (Examination Library reference HIS/3), which has been endorsed by Historic England, refers to the maturing planted boundaries which denote the northern extents of the aerodrome and suggests they would seem to offer scope to expand the developable area to extend very slightly northwards. It advises that the development line would then follow the existing historic field boundary, but still leave the more sensitive (due to falling land levels) northward projection of the former aerodrome site outside the development zone. Figure 20 in the Heritage Impact Assessment indicates the proposed enlarged extent of the developable area together with areas where strengthening of existing planting and/or additional tree planting for screening is required (Appendix 2). j) The Council notes the Inspector’s request to investigate the feasibility of locating some non-housing uses, particularly open uses, in the adjacent parts of East Hertfordshire. As identified on the North East of Welwyn Garden City Strategy Diagram (Figure 11) this area of land falls outside of the ownership of the site promoters. It is therefore uncertain whether this land is available. As noted in paragraph b) the Council is proposing in the Submission Local Plan to return an area of land to the east of the site (currently designated as an Area of Special Restraint) to the Green Belt. This has been agreed in consultation with Historic England and has been proposed in order to conserve the setting of the Grade II* Registered Park and Garden of Panshanger. This Green Belt boundary amendment is set out as change PMC68 on page 77 of the Council’s Summary of Changes from the 2005 District Plan Proposals Map to the 2016 Draft Local Plan Proposed Submission Policies Map (document reference PMC/1). As set out on the Strategic Diagram (Figure 11) the Council is already proposing that open uses would be located within this area of Green Belt (specifically the primary school playing fields and the allotments). It is not therefore considered that there is any further scope to develop further east without raising an objection from Historic England due to the impact on the setting of the adjacent Grade II* Registered Park and Garden of Panshanger. k) Any increase in the capacity of the site above the 725 dwellings would require the Council to re-examine the mix of uses to be provided as part of the allocation and also the infrastructure implications of the proposed developed. Key issues for consideration will include the need for additional on-site facilities, education provision, highways impacts and sewerage impacts. l) WHBC and HCC has committed to reconsidering the need for and provision of additional school capacity as part of the provision of additional housing, if that is proposed in modifications to the submitted Local Plan (Paragraph 4.2 of Examination Document EX57, the Statement of Common Ground between WHBC and HCC on Policy SP14). m) An increase in the housing numbers delivered at North East Welwyn Garden City would require a review of the education strategy associated with mitigating the impacts of the submitted plan. HCC would anticipate that the implications of additional housing numbers at North East Welwyn Garden City would therefore be

considered as part of a package of additional housing sites/modifications to the submitted Local Plan to consider the appropriate mitigations. n) Likewise, if there is any redistribution of housing growth, with sites included in the plan which provide potential school capacity falling away and others being added there will be a need to consider an amended education strategy. As set out in the Statement of Common Ground WHBC and HCC will continue to work proactively and collaboratively to identify necessary education mitigations.

Appendix 1 to Introduction

Appendix 1 Strategic Diagram showing enlarged potential area for development as set out in the Draft Local Plan Proposed Submission which was reported to the Council’s Housing and Planning Panel on 20 July 2016

Appendix 2 to Introduction

NE WGC Statement Appendix 3: Excerpt from Panshnager Park and Environs Heritage Impact Assessment

23) Has early and meaningful engagement and collaboration been undertaken with the local community, as required by paragraph 155 of the NPPF?

Welwyn Hatfield Response a) Paragraph 155 of the NPPF highlights the need for early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with the local community, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area. b) As set out in the council’s response to Question 2 at the Stage 1 hearing session held in September 2017, the Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement (ORD/1) and its public consultation requirements. The Council’s legal compliance self-assessment (ORD/4) shows that consultation has followed the principles and requirements set out in the SCI. c) The Council’s Regulation 22 Consultation Statement (SUB/1) and its appendices (SUB/1a to SUB/1g) provide details on the consultation carried out during plan preparation. The Council has taken these representations into account and wherever appropriate, has drafted and modified proposed policies and proposals which address a number of the issues raised in representations. d) However, the Council will not always agree with representations, which can in themselves be opposing in nature or not evidence based. In preparing the Plan, the Council has been mindful of its duties and responsibilities including the need to prepare a plan, which is sound, i.e. positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. e) With specific reference to the proposed allocation of land to the north-east of Welwyn Garden City (Policy SP18) public awareness and community engagement has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. f) Land to the north-east of WGC was first identified in the 1993 Welwyn Hatfield District Plan as an Area of Special Restraint (ASR), i.e. land that was safeguarded between the urban area and the Green Belt, to meet possible longer-term development needs. In the 2005 (adopted) District Plan, the Council was satisfied that the borough’s development requirements to 2011 could be met within the towns and specified settlements without the need to release land to the north-east of WGC. However, the ASR was retained to allow for development needs beyond 2011 (Policy GBSP3). Paragraph 4.17 of the District Plan made it clear that “ its release for development after 2011 will be a matter for consideration in future reviews of the Plan”. Should the land be released for development, it was envisaged that structural landscaping would be provided on an area of land on its northern edge to minimise the impact of development on the surrounding landscape and long distance views. g) Work to prepare a new Local Plan commenced in 2007. Consultation statement SUB/1g is a record of the pre-issues and options consultation stage. At this informal stage of consultation, the Council engaged with a wide range of special and general bodies, other key stakeholders including community groups and the wider community. A variety of consultation methods were used to engage across a wide range of groups within the community and amongst other matters, the community

identified what it considered to be unique and valued about the borough. Consultees were invited to identify at this early stage where housing growth should be located. h) At the Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation in 2009 (LPD/1), the Council again engaged widely with the ‘wider community’. Officers toured the borough with an exhibition, the consultation was advertised widely with the use of letters, emails, press articles, adverts, posters, and in Life Magazine. The Consultation Statement SUB/1f sets out the matters raised and how views were taken into account. The potential for development to the north-east of Welwyn Garden City attracted comments on a variety of matters including the impact on the landscape, water quality, neighbourhood centres, and providing for growth. i) Option PG33 (page 123 of SUB/1f ) related to growth to the north-east of Welwyn Garden City. Objections to this location for growth cited matters such as distance from local services, employment and poor transport links, loss of heritage, enjoyment of living close to an airfield, the loss of an important private airfield, road traffic generation, limited sewerage capacity, possible damage to the landscape of the Mimram valley, the possibility of gravel extraction and possible land instability. j) A 185 signature petition was submitted objecting to option PG33 on the basis of there being insufficient infrastructure (such as schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, dentists and community facilities) to support new residents, traffic generation, reduced quality of life for new and existing residents, insufficient water supply and sewerage, increased run-off and the current lack of facilities and amenities particularly for young people. Appendix A of SUB/1f sets out the Council’s conclusion on this area, in summary it was considered suitable to take forward as a location for housing growth. k) In 2010 , the Council held a series of workshops with community representatives. The location to the north-east of WGC was identified as being suitable for large [scale], low density housing, although the lack of services in this area was considered to be an issue by some groups (page 7, 20, SUB/1e ) but not others (page 25, SUB/1f). However, the groups considered matters other than specific sites, and the shortage of housing was acknowledged. l) The pre-NPPF How Many Homes consultation in 2011 (LPD/2 ) was not site specific, although some respondents did comment on sites (SUB/1d). It set out a number of options, explaining (amongst other matters) where development would be mainly focussed under each option, what the social, economic and environmental effects would be of each option and how much land would need to be removed from the Green Belt, given the limited supply of land in urban areas. m) The Land for Housing Outside Urban Areas (LFHOUA) Consultation in 2012 (LPD/3 ), ran alongside the Emerging Core Strategy Consultation ( LPD/4 ). Land to the north- east of Welwyn Garden City ( WGC4 ) was identified in the LFHOUA, which provided a summary of the designations and constraints affecting the site, an assessment of suitability and availability, the measures that would be required to address and mitigate impacts, how the site would be implemented and an overall conclusion. 321 responses were received 1:

1 http://consult.welhat.gov.uk/portal/planning_policy/local_plan_consultation_november_2012/lfhoua?pointId=s134 8584854139#section-s1348584854139

8 n) The Emerging Core Strategy 2012 also identified the location to the north-east of Welwyn Garden City as a neighbourhood extension to the urban area. Responding to earlier consultation responses, the draft policy CS15 addressed concerns around design, climate change, structural landscaping, green infrastructure to include open space, allotments, play areas etc., traffic impacts, school provision, convenience shopping needs, pedestrian and cycling links, and housing type and mix including Gypsy and Traveller provision. 305 responses were received. Consultation Statement ( SUB/1b ), sets out how the Council took these views into account. o) The Local Plan Consultation 2015 (LPD/5 ) identified land at WGC4 as a more favourable site for development. A number of representations were in support of allocating WGC4 for development, the majority were however opposed to growth at this location. The Consultation Statement ( SUB/1a ) sets out the key issues raised and how these views were taken into account. p) Policy SP18 of the Draft Local Plan Proposed Submission 2016 proposes the allocation of Strategic Development Site SDS1 (WGC4) for approximately 650 homes. The policy requires a master-planned approach which will take a comprehensive approach to the creation of a new extension to the neighbourhood of Panshanger incorporating Garden City principle. q) Policy SP18 requires the delivery of a wide mix of housing type and tenure, including housing suitable for older people and for self-build plots. It also requires the provision of a convenience shop to meet the day to day needs of residents, community facilities, a 2FE primary school that allows for dual community use, sustainable transport measures, open spaces for leisure and recreation including play areas, allotments and a community orchard. The site will make a contribution to wider ecological networks and provide routes for walkers and cyclists. Appropriate mitigation measures will address natural and heritage assets and structural landscaping will be provided to the north. The necessary utilities infrastructure will be delivered alongside sustainable drainage and flood mitigation measures. r) The Policy therefore ensures that a number of representors concerns have been addressed in policy, e.g. lack of infrastructure such as schools, community facilities, sewerage and water supply, traffic generation etc. s) It is acknowledged that the allocation of the site for housing development and the associated land uses, is counter to a number of representations, e.g. including those who would prefer to see an airfield remain on this site. However, given the acute need for housing, the lack of suitable, available and achievable sites within the urban areas, the shortfall against the OAN, the social and economic consequences of not delivering sufficient housing and jobs in the borough, the Council considers that there are compelling grounds to allocate his site in the Plan.

Policy SP18 North East of Welwyn Garden City

24) Is the proposed Green Belt boundary to the north of this site one that is readily identifiable and capable of enduring permanently and consequently is in accordance with paragraph 83 of the NPPF? Welwyn Hatfield Response a) Paragraphs 83, 84 and 85 of the National Planning Policy Framework set out national planning policy in respect to Green Belt boundaries. Paragraph 83 sets out that, when reviewing Green Belt boundaries, authorities should have regard to their intended permanence in the long term so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period. Paragraph 85 sets out six requirements of local planning authorities when defining boundaries. The relevant requirements in this context are that the Council should: • Ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development; • not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open; • satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period; and • define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. b) The area allocated for development at North East Welwyn Garden City is non-Green Belt land which has been designated as an Area of Special Restraint since 1993. The Green Belt boundary is proposed to remain the same as the existing Welwyn Hatfield District Plan with one exception. An area of land to the east of the site is proposed to be returned to the Green Belt. This has been agreed in consultation with Historic England and has been proposed in order to conserve the setting of the Grade II* Registered Park and Garden of Panshanger. This Green Belt boundary amendment is set out as change PMC68 on page 77 of the Council’s Summary of Changes from the 2005 District Plan Proposals Map to the 2016 Draft Local Plan Proposed Submission Policies Map (document reference PMC/1). c) The Green Belt boundary designated in the 1993 District Plan did not for the most part follow physical features which are readily recognisable. It has however remained unaltered since 1993 having been carried forward into the 2005 District Plan. There is therefore no reason why this boundary, reinforced by property boundaries, would not be capable of enduring permanently. d) The Inspector of the 1993 District Plan did not consider it appropriate at that time that the Green Belt boundary should follow physical features. The recommendations of the Inspector and his justifications are set out in his report on objections to the deposit draft version of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 1990 (see Appendix 1). e) In the Inspector’s report one can clearly see his reasoning for recommending the specific boundary he did, principally reflecting what he considered to be the appropriate balance between the need to provide for possible longer-term housing

needs and the need to prevent adverse effects on the Mimram valley. The Inspector considered that the creation of a boundary as recommended would allow for a worthwhile quantity of possible longer-term housing needs but, equally importantly, it would reserve a sufficiently generously margin of higher land to allow for the provision of effective structural landscaping to mitigate visual and landscape impacts on the valley to the north from existing and potential future development. f) In the report the Inspector considers the potential to draw the Green Belt boundary further to the north, along the line of vegetation roughly coinciding with the 75m contour (see Appendix 2). He found that the line of vegetation offered a certain amount of screening in some views from the northern side of the Mimram Valley but he was clear that it was by no means completely effective in mitigating the effect of existing development. He did not consider that the impacts of development up to the boundary of vegetation could be satisfactorily relieved by new planting as this would be on land too low to avoid the effect of the present urban edge being brought nearer to the top of the valley slope. To ensure that future development up to the recommended new boundary did not have unacceptable impacts the Inspector recommended that an area within the Green Belt be reserved for the provision of structural landscaping. A Structural Landscape Area was subsequently designated on the 1993 District Plan Proposals Map. The Structural Landscape Area was carried forward into the 2005 District Plan (Policy GPSP3) and the Policies Map. g) Consideration of the implications of releasing the land to the north of the allocated site from the Green Belt are set out in the Council’s statement responding to the Inspector’s opening statement to the matters on Policy SP18 North East of Welwyn Garden City.

Appendix 1 to Q24

Appendix 2 to Question 24

Appendix 2 – Ordnance survey map of NE WGC showing 75m contour line

Policy SP18 – North East of Welwyn Garden City – SDS1 (WGC4)

25) Will there be adequate capacity in the offsite drainage network and treatment capacity to support this development in addition to other development proposals that would use the same systems? Welwyn Hatfield Response a) WHBC has worked with Thames Water, as the sewerage undertaker, and Thames Water’s consultant Savills, to understand the requirements of this site in terms of sewerage capacity. This work has included consideration of the cumulative impacts of development on this site and other sites in and around Welwyn Garden City, such as SDS2 (WGC5) Birchall Garden Suburb.

Foul drainage from SDS1 would drain to Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works at Hoddesdon. In August 2017, Savills submitted the following position statement to WHBC regarding Rye Meads:

““Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works is currently being upgraded; the project is due to complete in 2018. The main scope of the project is to extend the treatment capacity and improve discharge quality standards of the existing sewage treatment works to enable it to treat an increased volume of incoming flow.

The upgrade will provide Rye Meads STW with a treatment capacity of 447,134 PE (Population Equivalent). A number of local authorities within the Rye Meads catchment are proposing significant housing growth. Based on our current growth forecasts, our recent high level assessment indicates that from a final effluent stream point of view we currently expect the site to have capacity up to 2036. However, we might need to deliver upgrades in sludge and storm streams during AMP7, but the site is expected to have sufficient capacity in all streams by 2026 and maybe beyond. We are currently producing our business plan for the period 2020-2025 and any planning for additional capacity will follow our normal growth process, which means [a] growth review and [a] modelled view of risk to prioritise which sites will need a project and when.

Given the scale of development coming forward in the region we are keeping a regular review of our sewage treatment works capacity. We are also working closely with local councils on understanding their future growth projections and likely changes in Environment Agency discharge consents. As part of this engagement we are part of the Hertfordshire Water Cycle Study group which is assessing long term water and wastewater infrastructure and environmental capacity.

Our position statement is subject to change if growth forecasts change.”

It is intended to update paragraphs 13.27 to 13.33 of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan

(IDP, INF/20) at the next opportunity, later this year, to reflect the above statement.

b) In terms of the sewerage network leading from the site to Rye Meads, the present proposal is to link to the Mimram Trunk Sewer, which already carries flows from north and east Welwyn Garden City. Earlier this year, and in the light of multiple developments potentially coming forward in this area, Thames Water undertook some additional modelling work on the capacity of the sewerage network. c) The results of this work show that there appear to be two options for dealing with the increased loadings arising from the cumulative developments north-east and east of Welwyn Garden City; the first is a tank storage solution and the second a surface water removal (i.e. Thames disconnect surface water that is currently incorrectly connected into the foul sewer) to create the capacity for additional foul water flows from new development. The latter option in particular will require close working with Hertfordshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority. The construction of a new trunk sewer direct to Rye Meads has been discounted as an option and therefore the text at paragraph 13.34 of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan will need to be revised at the next opportunity, to reflect the latest work. d) The detailed latest position statement of Thames Water dated 24 th May 2018 is contained in Appendix A to this statement.

e) The Hertfordshire Water Study referenced at paragraphs 13.40 to 13.43 of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan is very near to completion and will look at longer term strategic needs for water supply and drainage management across the county. This study will be made available to the examination as soon as it is published. In the meantime, library document INF/21 is an interim report on the study, from March 2017.

Appendix A to Question 25

Position statement of Thames Water (24 th May 2018)

[email protected] Simon Chivers Planning Policy Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council 0118 9520 500

By Email: 24th May 2018

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council – Local Plan Examination

Dear Mr Chivers,

Further to recent correspondence regarding the Planning Inspectors questions for the hearings due to take place on the 27th and 28th June please find below our comments on the questions with regard to sewerage infrastructure. I trust that these comments will assist with responding to the questions raised.

SP18 North East of Welwyn Garden City

Q25. Will there be adequate capacity in the offsite drainage network and treatment capacity to support this development in addition to other development proposals that would use the same systems?

Thames Water has assessed the impact of a series of proposed development sites in the settlement of Welwyn Garden City and adjacent areas. The sites were selected based on the connectivity of the foul water sewer system with the desire to consider growth that feeds into the Mimram Trunk Sewer. They span multiple Local Planning Authority areas. The Mimram Trunk Sewer flows from Welwyn Garden City though Hertford and Ware (roughly along the route of the Mimram River) to the Rye Meads STW.

The appendix shows a list of sites assessed. The aim of the assessment was to determine the type of solution that would be required to accommodate the growth. Our findings are based on a crude hydraulic model which we believe is appropriate to identify the type of solution required. Three options are considered of which two are recommended for further investigation:

Option 1: Construct a new trunk sewer from Welwyn Garden City to Rye Meads STW. This option has been discounted as the amount of capacity this would yield would be far in excess of the amount of capacity required to accommodate the proposed growth.

Option 2: Construct storage (attenuation) on the existing sewer. Our findings indicate that circa 1000 m3 (generously rounded up) of storage capacity would be required. This value could be refined by altering the location of the storage (the current proposal is two storage tanks at two different locations in Hertford) or by improvements in the accuracy of the hydraulic model. We have not assessed the viability of these locations for tanks of the proposed size but believe that if these locations are not suitable many other options are available to us. We would like to consider this option further as our alternative solution.

Registered address: Thames Water Utilities Limited, Clearwater Court, Vastern Road, Reading RG1 8DB Company number 02366661 Thames Water Utilities Limited is part of the Thames Water Plc group. VAT registration no GB 537-4569-15

Option 3: Provide surface water removal from existing properties that discharge surface water into the foul sewer. Redirect these flows into the surface water sewer system with associated sustainable drainage solutions to attenuate the peak discharge rate down. The required volume of removal is still being modelled and we don’t have a confirmed value yet. As the Hertfordshire County Council have records of property flooding in Welwyn Garden City with a critical drainage area, we are considering an integrated solution to generate capacity for the proposed growth and resolve the flooding. Our hydraulic model is not appropriate to develop this further and we will therefore start by upgrading our model. This is our preferred solution.

Next Steps: We will scope up and procure an updated sewer model that is appropriate to complete the analysis we require for Options 2 and 3. We seek to work collaboratively with Hertfordshire County Council and have initiated initial discussion with them as the Lead Local Flood Authority. We believe there are delivery synergies between our requirements to accommodate new development and flood alleviation that they are proposing to investigate and address.

SP22 North West Hatfield

Q46. Will there be adequate capacity in the offsite drainage network and treatment capacity to support this development, in addition to that required to support other development proposals that would use the same systems?

The site drains to Mill Green Sewage Treatment Works (STW). The scale of development at this site and elsewhere in the catchment of Mill Green STW is likely to require upgrades to both the wastewater network and sewage treatment infrastructure. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to agree a housing and infrastructure phasing plan. The plan should determine the magnitude of spare capacity currently available within the network and what phasing may be required to ensure development does not outpace delivery of essential network upgrades to accommodate future development/s. Failure to liaise with Thames Water will increase the risk of planning conditions being sought at the application stage to control the phasing of development in order to ensure that any necessary infrastructure upgrades are delivered ahead of the occupation of development. The developer can request information on the network and treatment infrastructure by visiting the Thames Water website: https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/Developing-a-large-site/Planning-your-development.

We have forecasted an upgrade of Mill Green STW for the next AMP (from April 2020 to March 2025) to cope with the current level of growth allocated in the catchment.

Based on the current housing delivery trajectory most of the developments draining to Mill Green STW are indicated to be delivered from year 6 onwards. On this basis it is likely to be possible to accommodate growth proposed subject to programming any necessary upgrades. Developers for sites intending to deliver homes in year 6 are encouraged to discuss their proposals with us as soon as possible to help avoid any risk of delay to infrastructure delivery.

I trust the above and enclosed comments are satisfactory, but please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Hill Head of Property

Appendix 1: Sites Assessed

62 The Crossway, Welwyn Garden City

Land At Gosling Sports Centre, Welwyn Garden City

Woodside Centre, Welwyn Garden City

Argos Site, Bressemer Road, Welwyn Garden City

Norton Site, Bridge Road East, Welwyn Garden City

Entech House, London Road, Woolmer Green

Land East of Welwyn Garden City

Land North Of The Close, Codicote

Codicote Garden Centre High Street

Land South of Cowards Ln, Codicote and Adj To 76 Hertford Road, Digswell

Broadwater Road West (SW), WGC

Broadwater Road West SPD Site (Pall Mall)

Land North East of Welwyn Garden City

Land South of Heath Lane

80 Bridge Road East, WGC

Land behind 2 New Road

The Holdings, Cole Green Lane, Welwyn Garden City, AL7

East of Digswell Hill, West of Welwyn Garden City

Land Adj To Danesbury Lodge, Oaklands and Mardley Heath

The Vineyards, Welwyn

Linces Farm, Welwyn

Fulling Mill Lane (North), Welwyn

Fulling Mill Lane (South), Welwyn

Land East of Welwyn Cemetery South Of School Lane, Welwyn

Warrengate Farm, Berricot Green, Welwyn Garden City

Policy SP18 – North East of Welwyn Garden City – SDS1 (WGC4)

26) Should the Masterplan make provision for a segregated primary footpath and cycle network that links into such routes that provide access to other parts of the City? Welwyn Hatfield Response a) Policy SP18 states (at the fifth bullet point) that the site will provide: “Sustainable transport measures including the improvement of pedestrian links, cycle paths, passenger transport and community transport initiatives;”

b) The Strategy Diagram at Figure 11 of the submitted Plan shows a number of potential pedestrian and cycle access points to site SDS1 from the south and west. There are existing segregated public rights of way running broadly north-south at each end of the site, and the diagram shows that these could be linked by a new public right of way to the north of the housing development area (though this would involve land in third party ownership). c) There is further scope for segregated pedestrian and cycle routes within SDS1, to be specified at the master-planning stage, and for these to link in to existing routes leading from the site. To improve clarity it is proposed to make minor modifications to the Strategy Diagram to show and annotate the direction of key pedestrian and cycle routes to and from the site (e.g. in the direction of the local shopping centre, the local schools and Moneyhole Lane Park). d) An outline planning application (WHBC ref: 6/2018/0873/OUTLINE) has been submitted to WHBC and the principles of Policy SP18 and any related masterplan will also be applied to consideration of this application.

Policy SP18 North East of Welwyn Garden City

27) Has a comprehensive survey of the site’s wildlife been carried out, identifying the presence of any protected species? Welwyn Hatfield Response a) The allocation of the site for development has had appropriate regard to wildlife in line with the requirements of the NPPF. The Council hold records of sites of wildlife importance, which was the first reference when considering potential impacts of development. Sites with significant constraints were ruled out at an early stage of the plan-making process. This included where all, or the majority, of a site was designated as a Special Area for Conservation (SAC), a Special protection Area (SPA), a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a Local Nature Reserve and/or a Local Wildlife Site. This is set out in the methodology for The Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (HOU/19). b) The second stage was the engagement of the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust (HMWT) and the Hertfordshire Ecology Team who work with the Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre (HBRC) which maintains information about sites of wildlife importance. The Ecological Network Mapping database is a county-wide project which updated the previous Hertfordshire Biodiversity Action Plan ‘High Biodiversity Areas’ and provides a landscape scale understanding of habitat networks. It is based on existing site data, plant records and aerial photo interpretation to provide an understanding of the ecological characteristics of the county and to identify potential areas for conservation priority. To do this it highlights a series of areas as: i) Existing S41 NERC Act Priority Habitats. These are the most valuable sites – most if not all of which are SSSIs or recognised as non-statutory Wildlife Sites; ii) Existing habitat not qualifying as Priority Habitats; iii) No habitats mapped (high priority for habitat creation); iv) No habitats mapped (medium priority for habitat creation); v) No habitats mapped (lower priority for habitat creation). c) There are no wildlife sites of international (SAC, SPA etc.) or national (SSSI) – value within the boundary of the proposed development area. Tewinbury SSSI and Local Nature Reserve is located approximately 400m north west of the proposed developed area, Henry Wood and Birchall Woods Local Wildlife Site abuts part of the southern boundary of the site (these woods are also on the Ancient Woodland Inventory) and Panshanger Park Local Wildlife Site is a short distance east of the site boundary. d) The site is identified on the Ecological Network Mapping database as existing habitat not currently qualifying under S41 NERC Act. Hertfordshire Ecology were consulted on the HELAA (HOU/19) and provided information around key ecological constraints considerations including the results of the Network Mapping.

e) Given the proximity of the SSSI, Local Nature Reserve, Local Wildlife Sites and Ancient Woodland and having regard to the high level status of the Network Mapping, it was considered appropriate to ensure up to date surveys were undertaken to inform the plan making process and the potential masterplanning of the site. As such, the Council invited the site promoters to undertake ecological surveys. The site promoters commissioned consultants FPCR to undertake a comprehensive suite of surveys in order to understand the importance of the site as a whole in terms of wildlife. In September 2016 the following baseline ecology data was submitted to the Council (see Examination Document EX78):

• Stage 1 Habitat Survey April 2014 • Bat Survey Report January 2016 • Breeding Bird Survey Report February 2015 • Winter Bird Survey Report February 2015 • Greater Crested Newt Survey Report February 2016 • Reptile Survey Report January 2016 • Invertebrate Survey Report November 2014 f) Each of the surveys identifies the species present and their value. The surveys, together with the Network Mapping, provide a comprehensive understanding of the ecological value of the site, and the role the site plays within the wider ecological network. g) A planning application was submitted for the site in March 2018 (Ref: 6/2018/0873/OUTLINE 1). The Environment Statement submitted by the applicant is supported by a number of updated ecological surveys. These have not informed the allocation of the site, however the evidence will be used to support a future masterplan as required in advance of a planning application by Policy SP18.

28) If so have any protected species been identified and in that case what mitigation is put forward to ensure their continual survival and protection? Welwyn Hatfield Response a) The Phase 1 Habitat Survey undertaken by FPCR in April 2014 screened out the majority of the habitats and species listed Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Local Communities Act 2006 (see Examination Document EX78). Where evidence or potential evidence of their presence were identified, more detailed surveys were undertaken. b) The assessment submitted to the Council in September 2016 (listed in Question 27) (see Examination Document EX78) concluded that the biodiversity and nature conservation value of the site is at most moderate, with the majority of species recorded being common both locally and nationally and in unremarkable numbers.

1 Documents viewable at http://planning.welhat.gov.uk/plandisp.aspx?recno=87426

c) The reports did not set out in detail what the potential avoidance and mitigation measures could be to protect biodiversity and the species of higher conservation value in particular (notwithstanding their apparent rarity within the site). It was stated that appropriate mitigation, and significant enhancements, can be achieved through design. d) The reports submitted by the site promoter in September 2016 have been reviewed by the Council and its advisors Hertfordshire Ecology (HE). HE considered that the surveys were thorough and sufficient to enable a reasonable and adequate assessment of the site and development implications. The advice received from HE is that the baseline information does not indicate any ecological constraints which should preclude development of the site. Consistent with this, neither Natural England or Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust have objected to the principle of the site being developed. e) HE’s principle considerations were: • The quality of the grassland and the extent this can be retained on site and managed • The need for offsetting the loss of this resource • What is the extent to which GI can secure biodiversity and incorporate at least some of the existing features? • The associated impacts of development (disturbance, recreational pressure) on the Mimram Valley need to be fully investigated f) HE consider that for such a large site North East Welwyn Garden City has limited ecological interest, although past and current management is a factor in this. The most intrinsically valuable habitat feature is the grassland. The grassland has been assessed and does not merit Local Wildlife Site status but there are some areas of higher value grassland which should be retained where possible. Due to the location of much of the higher value grassland it is likely this could be achieved through careful planning. g) There will be a need for biodiversity offsetting to compensate for the loss of the majority of the grassland. The Council is agreed with the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust that once detailed plans have been developed for the site that there will need to be an objective assessment of the net ecological impact of the development and sufficient mitigation and compensation must be provided to ensure compliance with the NPPF.

h) The design of this site will be subject to a masterplanning process and it is the intention of the Council to prepare and adopt a Supplementary Planning Document, which will guide development on the site. The general and spatial approach to avoidance, mitigation, enhancement and any necessary compensatory measures will be addressed within the masterplan.

i) It is a requirement of Policy SP18 that an area of ecological enhancement be provided to the north west of the site (outside the allocation boundary but within the landowners’ ownership). This will be managed to create grassland of higher value than that existing at present and will assist in delivering net biodiversity gain. The masterplan will provide further guidance about this and other mitigation as part of a comprehensive green infrastructure strategy for the site. This will be required to demonstrate that how existing features of ecological value will be incorporated into the scheme design and also how the wider green infrastructure plan for the site will help secure biodiversity. j) The masterplan will provide guidance to ensure that the development does not have a negative impact on Tewinbury SSSI. While it is unlikely that the allocation would have a direct impact upon Tewinbury SSSI being designated as an area of wet woodland, fenland and marsh along the north bank of the River Mimram in East Herts, it may have indirect impacts through increased public access and related disturbance.

k) With specific regard to protected species that that been identified (bats, breeding birds, winter birds, reptiles, invertebrates) these were very limited, especially having regard to the size of the site. It is considered appropriate mitigation could ensure their continued survival and protection. As set out in the Council’s Scoping Opinion in respect of the proposed development site dated 5 July 2017 (Ref: 6/2017/0860/EIA 2), breeding birds are considered to be the only ecological constraint to works. It is considered by Hertfordshire Ecology that harm to breeding birds can be satisfactorily avoided through an appropriate condition to a future planning decision.

2 Documents viewable at http://planning.welhat.gov.uk/searchresults.aspx

Policy SP18 – North east of Welwyn Garden City – SDS1 (WGC4)

29) Should the Master Plan make provision for the development of health facilities to serve the new local community? Welwyn Hatfield Response a) It is important to ensure that residents of the development at SDS1 have good access to local health facilities. WHBC will work with the appropriate health bodies, in particular NHS England and the East and North Hertfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to promote this outcome.

b) Because of the way in which health services today are being planned and provided, it is not possible for WHBC to require provision of such facilities within SDS1 through the master-planning process. Should an opportunity arise to provide facilities within the site, working with the health bodies, this will be pursued by WHBC. The latest position of the health bodies, however, is set out in their joint Regulation 19 response to the Local Plan, dated 29th September 2016, which includes the following:

“With the shift to provide more community based services, the way in which primary care (traditionally delivered from GP premises), community care, mental health services and acute services are commissioned is changing. There is limited funding towards investment into the infrastructure to deliver these services and health commissioners as well as providers are tasked to optimise the limited funds available. Any new investment into existing or new premises also needs to be sufficiently sized and flexible enough to deliver community and some mental health services. East and South East of Welwyn Garden City….. is a case in point; an options appraisal will be undertaken to look at how, and from where, health can be best delivered to both existing patients and new residents..” c) There is an existing GP surgery at Moors Walk, approximately 0.5km from the western end of SDS1. The availability of any capacity at this surgery and other existing surgeries and their ability to absorb the increase in population resulting from development at SDS1 will be a key factor in the future planning of health services in this locality. Policy SP19 relating to the strategic site South east of Welwyn Garden City – SDS2 (WGC5) – contains a requirement to provide “ Community facilities; including healthcare (in the East Herts part of the development) and leisure facilities;”. These new facilities would be likely to be located in the northern neighbourhood centre, within East Herts site EWEL1, and the Strategy Diagram at Figure 12 of the Plan identifies this location as being about 1.2km from the eastern end of SDS1. If these new facilities are delivered they are likely to be another factor in health provision for the development at SDS1.

Policy SP18 North East of Welwyn Garden City

30) Should the Master Plan require the provision of a small neighbourhood centre at which such facilities, along with other provision for the new community, could be located? Welwyn Hatfield Response a) Policy SP18 sets out that alongside approximately 650 new homes the site will provide the following non-residential uses: • A new small convenience shop in an accessible location to meet the day-to-day convenience shopping needs of new residents and to include community facilities including a community hall. This will augment the existing neighbourhood centre at Moors Walk • A 2 form entry primary school that allows for dual use for community purposes • Formal and informal open spaces for leisure and recreation, including play areas, sports fields, allotments and community orchards. b) It is the proposed that these facilities will be located together to form a community hub at the eastern end of the site as set out on the North East Welwyn Garden City Strategy Diagram (Figure 11). c) The mix of non-residential uses at the site and their location has been arrived at having regard to the following factors: • The size of the development • The site shape • The relationship of the proposed development to the existing neighbourhood of Panshanger • An assessment of existing provision of services and facilities in the area and an analysis of any gaps • Engagement with infrastructure providers • Consultation comments from the local community d) Based on feedback from the development industry and a review of new retail facilities delivered in new developments elsewhere, it appears that a minimum of 1000 dwellings is required to support a small neighbourhood centre. It is therefore considered unlikely that such a centre would be viable within the new development. There is however potential for the development to accommodate a new small convenience shop (under 280sqm). A shop of this nature would support the sustainability of the development and is consequently a requirement of policy SP18. e) The development is within a 15 minute walk (as set out in Examination Library Document SA/6a), of the existing neighbourhood centre at Moors Walk which lies to the west of the site and offers a range of facilities and services, including a doctor’s surgery. The facilities include a small supermarket and a post office to meet the day- to-day convenience shopping needs of new residents.

f) Given the size of the new development and its close relationship to the existing neighbourhood facilities at Moors Walk, North East of Welwyn Garden City will be planned as an extension to the existing neighbourhood rather than as a standalone new community. The provision of new facilities within the development therefore reflects this.

Policy SP18 – North east of Welwyn Garden City Site SDS1 (WGC4) 31) What is the evidence base justifying a gypsy and travellers site in this area in addition to one within Birchall Garden Suburb? How robust is it? Welwyn Hatfield Response a) The Council’s evidence on the need for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches is set out in the Welwyn Hatfield Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment 2016 (HOU/16), the GTANA. The evidence indicates a need for 61 additional pitches to be provided in the borough over the plan period. b) The evidence was considered during the Stage 3 hearing session in February 2018. At this session, the Council agreed with the Inspector that this evidence would be updated to indicate participation rates. This update has been completed and the revised document is available in the Examination Library ( HOU/16a) and as Examination Document EX/76 . The GTANA assessed the need for, but not the locational options for delivering, additional pitches. c) A Call for Sites was held in 2013 (working with the Gypsy and Traveller community to publicise the event). No sites suitable for the provision of additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches, have been promoted within any of the borough’s existing urban areas, although this is not unexpected in areas such as Welwyn Hatfield where high land values prevail in an environment of competing land uses. d) The subsequent assessments of site suitability, availability and deliverability (HOU/13 and HOU/19) have informed the decision to allocate sites in the Local Plan at Welham Green, and at Oaklands and Mardley Heath. However, jointly these allocations are not sufficient to meet the overall need. e) The shortfall is proposed to be delivered in association with the levels of growth at the borough’s largest development sites, the Strategic Development Sites, where the opportunity exists to deliver a wide range of housing types and mix in relatively low density environments 1. The principle of this approach is set out in paragraph 9.25 and Table 6 of the Plan, associated with Policy SP7, a policy that was examined at the earlier Stage 3 hearing session. f) Without the proposed distribution strategy associated with the strategic development sites, there will be an insufficient supply of land to meet the need for additional pitches. This policy approach is therefore an essential tool in planning to address the assessed need, helping to reduce the waiting list for a pitch on the Hertfordshire County Council site at Holwell and helping to minimise levels of unauthorised encampments and developments in the borough.

1 A requirement does not apply for SDS3 and SDS4. These are sites in highly accessible locations within the existing urban area close to passenger transport interchanges where the opportunity exists to maximise dwelling capacity at very high densities. Gypsy and Traveller sites are built to significantly lower densities and would not be compatible with the objective of making the most effective use of urban land. (By way of example, an average 15 pitch site requires around 1ha of land whereas a current planning application for site SDS3 (Pea02b) would, if approved, see the equivalent of 200 homes on the same net site area, with a significant effect on land values.

g) The distribution of pitch numbers is proportionate to the overall number of dwellings estimated to be delivered at these strategic locations (with provision proposed either within the SDSs or on a suitable alternative site). The approach is justified as the SDSs are of a sufficient size and scale to deliver a wide range of housing mix and type to meet the varied housing needs of the wider community, proximate to facilities and services such as schools and public transport. Overall pitch numbers per new site are limited to no more than 15 so as to assist with the promotion of community cohesion and effective site management. h) The proposed approach responds to representations received throughout the plan making process, including from the Gypsy and Traveller community. (The Council’s response to Question 32 below provides further detail). i) The Hertfordshire Police Authority (csio6865) also advised at an early stage of plan- making that sites should have an adequate provision of services and that the size of sites was critical. Smaller sites of between 5 and 15 pitches would assist with effective management and assist the Council in discharging its responsibilities under S17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 2. j) At SDS1 (WGC4) Panshanger, provision is to be made for 6 pitches. Provision at Birchall Garden Suburb, for 11 pitches to meet the needs of Welwyn Hatfield and 4 pitches will meet needs arising in East Herts, was previously considered at the joint Birchall Garden Suburb Hearing Session in January 2018. k) Whilst the Plan does not indicate precise locations for the delivery of pitches at either the two SDSs, the development areas (including that part within East Herts that forms part of the wider Birchall Garden Suburb proposals), are separated from each other by an Ancient Woodland and a larger Wildlife Site which form part of a proposal for a country park 3. Given the limited number of pitches proposed at each SDS, there is sufficient scope within each of these very large development areas to ensure at planning application stage 4 the sites proposed do not dominate a settled community. l) No alternative strategy has been promoted by representors that would positively plan to meet the identified accommodation needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community. Representors have suggested at various consultation stages that either existing sites should be expanded or new sites should be provided in more rural locations away from new housing. The submitted Plan does include proposals to extend two existing sites (at Welham Green and to the east of Hatfield) and allow for a higher pitch capacity at another existing site (at Oaklands and Mardley Heath). However, no further expansion or increased capacity opportunities are available or considered appropriate. Sites in isolated rural locations will be remote from services and facilities. Such locations are not considered to be the most sustainable option and would be contrary to a national policy aim of enabling travellers to access education, health, and welfare and employment infrastructure 5.

2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/17 3 Chapter 13, Figure 13.1: East Herts Main Modifications Consultation 2018: https://www.eastherts.gov.uk/mainmodifications 4 Paragraph 25 of National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (NPPTS) 5 Paragraph 4(j) – NPPTS: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457420/Final_ planning_and_travellers_policy.pdf

26 m) An alternative approach of including a criteria based policy in a Local Plan should, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the national Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS), be used where there is no identified need. Clearly a need has been identified and, as discussed at the Stage 3 hearing session, indications from recent monitoring of unauthorised encampments and developments, are that the need is pressing and that sites should be identified and delivered. Relying upon a criteria based policy approach may undermine the ability of the Council to ensure that sites are delivered as part of the overall strategy for growth.

32) Is a gypsy and traveller site in this location supported by the gypsy and traveller community? Welwyn Hatfield Response a) Yes. The Council has consulted on both accommodation needs and the provision of sites to meet the need for additional pitches throughout plan preparation. Consultation has been open to all, and at the early stages of plan-making, the local gypsy and traveller community were engaged in identifying key requirements for the location and size of sites. Key issues arising from various stages of consultation are set out below in chronological order: • 2009 - Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper ( LPD/1 ): Consultation with relevant consultation bodies and the wider community. Over 1,000 responses received on the matter of Gypsy and Traveller site provision. Provision of new sites within areas identified for urban expansion was the most preferred option. (SUB/1f , pages 97/98). • 2009 – Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper ( LPD/1 ) – Q2: Criteria to guide the allocation of sites. Service providers agreed there was a need for pitches in appropriate locations, with adequate service provision. Sites with 5 to 15 pitches assist with effective site management. ( SUB/1f , page 98). • 2009 - Consultation with the local Gypsy and Traveller community indicated a need for additional sites. Sites should be able to co-exist with the settled community, either on the edge of existing settlements or alongside new housing (no respondent indicated that a site in the countryside was preferred). ( SUB/1f , pages 145-147). • 2011 - Accommodation Needs Assessment ( HOU/3 ): The Council worked with the local Gypsy and Traveller community , traveller community representatives and service providers. The need for access to good bus services, GP and dental surgeries, schools and shops was highlighted. Sites of between 10 and 20 pitches are easier to manage than larger sites. (Holwell was considered too large). The importance of children having access to education was noted, but integrating within society can be problematic due to prejudice frequently encountered. • 2012 - Emerging Core Strategy Consultation (LPD/4 ): Consultation with relevant consultation bodies and the wider community. Policy CS7 indicated that pitch provision would be made to meet assessed need, including at Broad Locations for Growth (BLG). At that time, land north-east of Welwyn Garden City was described as BLG1 in draft Policy CS15 . The County Council’s Gypsy

section worked with the borough’s Gypsy and Traveller community to take part in the consultation event. Responses were received from households 6 residing on the borough’s largest site. All respondents supported the provision of additional pitches in the borough and all but one respondent supported the principle of delivering a new site at this broad location (BLG1) . Some respondents also supported provision elsewhere. Responses noted that existing families had nowhere else to live and additional pitches would be required for newly forming households in the future. • 2015 - Local Plan Consultation ( LPD/5 ): Consultation with relevant consultation bodies and the wider community. Confirmed no sites available in urban areas. The pressing need for additional pitches meant that sites would need to be allocated in the Green Belt (CS4). Pitch provision would be made at [Strategic] Sites WGC4 , WGC5, Hat1, Hat2 and at other smaller sites within the borough. • 2016 – Needs Assessment ( HOU/16 ): The Council engaged with the Gypsy and Traveller community to update its evidence of accommodation needs (recently updated as HOU/16a and EX/76 ). • 2016 - Draft Local Plan Proposed Submission ( SUB/6 ): Consultation with relevant consultation bodies and the wider community. Proposed site/pitch provision in association with Strategic Development Sites. The Reg. 22 Consultation Statement provides a summary of responses received ( SUB/1 ). b) It can be seen from the consultation carried out at the early plan-making stages, that the borough’s Gypsy and Traveller community have expressed the view that: • There is a need for additional sites to meet the accommodation needs of existing and newly forming households; • Sites should be accessible to services and facilities including bus stops, schools, GPs and dentists; • Sites should not be large, 10-20 pitches would be better and easier to manage; • New pitch provision at (what were at the time described as) two broad locations for growth, i.e. north-east of Welwyn Garden City (and north-west of Hatfield) were supported by the local Gypsy and Traveller community to help meet the need for additional pitches. c) The Council considers that the strategy is positively prepared and is justified by the evidence.

6 31% of households responded

Policy SP18 – Land North east of Welwyn Garden City – SDS1 (WGC4)

33) To what extent does this proposal have ramifications for highway safety and the free flow of traffic on the wider highway network? What mitigation measures have been put forward to ensure that this development does not undermine these principles? Welwyn Hatfield Response a) The potential traffic impacts of the proposed development at SDS1, together with those of other Local Plan growth, have been modelled through the WHaSH modelling work. The results of this work are presented in the examination library documents INF/12, INF/13 and INF/15. In parallel with this work, indicative schemes for local mitigation measures have been developed for a number of key links and junctions in the Plan area.

b) Hertfordshire County Council as local highway authority commented under the Regulation 19 consultation on the likely effects on the highway of bringing forward the Local Plan growth sites. Their comments dated 21 st October 2016 include the following:

“The sites located in Eastern WGC (WGC4 Panshanger Aerodrome site and WGC5 Land to South East of WGC) will increase congestion on the approaches to Mundells Gyratory and the Birchall Lane/ A414 Roundabout. Revised schemes at Mundells have been tested and the results found that it alleviated some of the delay issues. The proposed mitigation reduces the predicted delay at the Birchall Lane/A414 Roundabout and will need to be taken forward by developers.” c) The mitigations schemes referred to are listed, with indicative costs, in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan at paragraph 5.112. They are Scheme No.2 (Mundells Gyratory) and Scheme No.11 (Birchall Lane roundabout). It is likely that the development of SDS1 would need to make a proportionate financial contribution to these mitigation measures, but such costs would not be at a level where the viability of the site’s development would be jeopardised.

d) Subject to these mitigation measures being carried out, the County Council has raised no objection to the inclusion of SDS1 as a development site in the Plan. The County Council goes on to say in its Regulation 19 response that:

‘This is an established site within the Borough’s growth plans. In terms of transport it is well located to build on existing bus services, cycle and pedestrian links to the other areas of Welwyn Garden City. It is noted that Policy SP18 includes reference to a requirement for suitable access arrangements and any necessary wider strategic and local highway mitigation measures. These are issues which will be considered in greater detail in the future by Transport Assessments which will accompany planning

applications for the site.” e) Elsewhere in the County Council’s representations under ‘ Transport, Access and Road Safety’ the importance of promoting the use of sustainable transport modes is emphasised, as is the role of Travel Planning, in achieving modal shift and alleviating congestion on the highway. Policies SP4 and SADM3 of the submitted Plan will also be important here.

Policy SP18 North East of Welwyn Garden City

34) Does the policy effectively deliver the requirement of paragraph 143 of the NPPF to encourage the prior extraction of minerals? Welwyn Hatfield Response a) The NPPF (para 142) sets out that minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth. Paragraph 143 provides minerals guidance for local planning authorities when preparing Local Plans. This includes to adopt appropriate policies in order that known locations of specific mineral resources of local and national importance are not needlessly sterilised by non-mineral development and to set out policies to encourage the prior extraction of minerals, where practicable and environmentally feasible, if it is necessary for non-mineral development to take place. b) The Council has worked collaboratively with the Minerals Planning Authority (Hertfordshire County Council) throughout the preparation of the Plan to ensure that the policy requirements in paragraph 143 of the NPPF are met. Full details of joint working with respect to strategic minerals planning and development issues are set out in the Memorandum of Understanding between WHBC and Hertfordshire County Council (document reference DTC/8) c) Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) initially raised concerns about the development of the site potentially sterilising minerals reserves. In response the landowners were requested to conduct a Minerals Investigation. Two separate reports, prepared by consultants WYG, were subsequently supplied to HCC for their consideration, one relating to land to the west of the site owned by Homes England and the other relating to land in the central and eastern portions of the site owned by Mariposa. d) The report relating to land owned by Homes England concluded that development would sterilise a not insignificant potential yield of sand and gravel resources. However it was asserted that prior extraction from the land was not likely to be practical. In a letter dated 10 July 2014 the County Council (Appendix 1) confirmed that it agreed with the conclusions of the report. In the letter HCC noted that whilst prior extraction on a large scale may not be appropriate, there may be scope for some opportunistic extraction for use on site during construction. e) The report relating to land owned by Mariposa concluded that development would sterilise a potentially significant yield of sand and gravel resources. Despite identifying a number of constraints that would reduce the excavation area, it was concluded that prior extraction could not be ruled out at that stage. It was recommended that more detailed technical assessment be carried out to better understand the viability and practicability of mineral working. An intrusive site investigation was subsequently carried out and a second report submitted to HCC for their consideration. This confirmed the presence of a substantial quantity of potentially commercial sand and gravels. f) Several meetings took place in 2015 between HCC and Mariposa in regards to minerals. Following a request from Mariposa’s planning agent, HCC wrote to Mariposa on 25 February 2016 setting out its position (Appendix 2). The letter

acknowledged the evidence that had been supplied to date and advised that given the presence of a potentially viable sand and gravel resource, and in light of the established principle of mineral safeguarding within national planning policy, it was expected that further investigation should be carried out to establish whether the site would be economically viable to extract. It was noted that while extraction of a large scale may not be appropriate, there may be scope for some opportunistic extraction for use on site during construction of the residential development itself. HCC stated in the letter that they had not objected to the area being allocated for housing in the Local Plan but would continue to seek assurances that the potential for the ‘opportunistic’ use of some minerals on site within the development itself has been fully considered consistent with the principles of sustainable development. g) As set out in the MOU between WHBC and HCC (document reference DTC/8) it was agreed that Policy SP18 North East of Welwyn Garden City set out a requirement that: “The developer will need to demonstrate that the ‘opportunistic’ use of some minerals on site within the development itself has been fully considered, subject to it not prejudicing the delivery of housing within the plan period .” h) In their response to Policy SP18 in the Regulation 19 consultation on the Draft Local Plan (dlpps 2032), HCC welcomed this commitment and advised that they will continue to work with WHBC on the masterplan, SPD and any future application on this site. i) In conclusion, the policy is supported by the Minerals Planning Authority and it is considered it will effectively deliver the requirement of paragraph 143 of the NPPF to encourage the prior extraction of minerals.

Appendix 1 to Question 34

Chief Executive and Environment Director: John Wood

Spatial and Land Use Planning Mrs Sue Tiley Minerals and Waste Team Via email CHN216 County Hall, Pegs Lane Hertford, Herts SG13 8DN Telephone: 01992 556227 Minicom : 01992 556611 Contact: [email protected] Date : 10 July 2014 Dear Sue,

Potential housing allocation Land off Herns Lane (WGC4) Minerals Issues

I have been sent a consultants report (WYG Environment on behalf of the Homes and Communities Agency) regarding the above site and the potential for mineral extraction prior to built development. I have read the report and the supporting appendices with their technical evidence.

Given the comments that the county council previously gave regarding sites in this area and the information provided in the comprehensive consultants report, I can confirm that the county council agrees with the conclusion.

Given the close proximity of existing housing, and therefore the need to impose suitable buffer zones it is unlikely that, for this and other reasons, the mineral would constitute a viable economic reserve. However, whilst prior extraction on a large scale may not be appropriate on this site, there may be scope for some opportunistic extraction for use on site during construction.

I hope that these comments are of help to you, if you require any further information regarding minerals or waste issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Julie Greaves Team Leader - Minerals and Waste Planning Appendix 2 to Question 34

Chief Executive and Director of Environment: John Wood

Spatial Planning & Economy Unit Minerals and Waste Team CHN216 Katy Mourant County Hall Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Hertford, Herts SG13 8DN 14 Regent's Wharf All Saints Street [email protected] London N1 9RL Telephone : 01992 556732 Minicom : 01992 556611 Contact : Gemma Nicholson My ref : SLUP/GN Sent via email

Date : 25 February 2016

Dear Katy,

Re: Former Panshanger Aerodrome

I am writing in response to the request from Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (working on behalf of Mariposa) to confirm the county councils position in regards to the site at the Former Panshanger Aerodrome. Primarily the request is for the county council to confirm whether it would or would not object to the allocation of the site for housing and whether or not the site would require prior extraction of minerals.

As you are aware, mineral resources are essential to the wider community. To prevent their permanent loss, and in accordance with national guidance, the Minerals Local Plan and most of the district local plans include policies to resist the sterilisation of minerals when other development is proposed, by encouraging its prior extraction.

Accordingly, in line with Minerals Policy 5 Mineral Sterilisation, the Minerals Planning Authority encourages mineral extraction prior to other development taking place where any significant mineral resource would otherwise be sterilised.

On behalf of Mariposa, WYG produced a Site Investigation and Minerals Evaluation Report in November 2014, a copy of which was provided to the county council. This report concluded that there is approximately 2 million tonnes of mineral resource potentially available for extraction on this site.

Several meetings have taken place with Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners and the county council in regards to minerals. Given the presence of a potentially viable sand and gravel resource, and in light of the established principle of mineral safeguarding within national planning policy, and Minerals Local Plan Policy 5, the consultants had been asked to investigate further with potential operators whether the site would be economically viable to extract. This, together with the evaluation report, would enable the establishment to the extent and quality of the resource and the likelihood of being able to work it.

It was confirmed at the meeting held in July 2015 that Mariposa were investigating the potential mineral extraction to avoid mineral sterilisation with potential mineral contractors. Following this they would need to consider whether mineral extraction would be commercially viable in this instance. As far as the county council is aware, no further correspondence has been received detailing the outcome of this exercise.

In order to fulfil Policy 5 Mineral Sterilisation and avoid an objection by the county council, the developer would need to demonstrate that:  The land affected does not contain potentially workable mineral deposit and/or  There is an overriding need for the development; and  The mineral cannot practically be extracted in advance

Discussions at the meeting held in July 2015, highlighted a number of points for consideration for larger scale extraction in this area, it was noted that these would be dependent on timing and the current circumstances. Whilst extraction on a large scale may not be appropriate on this site, there may be scope for some opportunistic extraction for use on site during construction of the residential development itself.

As stated in the meeting notes, the county council has not objected to the area being allocated for housing in the Local Plan. The county council would continue to seek assurances that the potential for the ‘opportunistic’ use of some minerals onsite within the development itself has been fully considered. Examination of these opportunities would be consistent with the principles of sustainable development.

As stated at the meeting in July 2015, the county council have confirmed they would be happy to attend future meetings if required and attend a meeting with the district council if this would be helpful.

I hope that these comments are of help to you, if you require any further information regarding minerals or waste issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Nicholson Minerals and Waste Policy