Transcript Panshanger Residents Meeting

Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
1
We design one to be mindful of the
other don’t we?
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
2
Panshanger Residents Meeting
•What
are the proposals?
•What does the WHBC Core Strategy mean for us?
•How can we influence what happens next?
18th January 2013
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
4
Remember No Way to 10k?
In the last government decisions about planning and housing allocations
were made centrally and we came under the East of England Plan and
it’s Regional Spatial Strategies. WGC residents had virtually no say in the matter.
But the Wel Hat 10k plan was overturned by the High Court in 2009, the
judge said:
“inadequate consideration had been given to the environmental
effects of expansion” and that “the decision had been taken to erode
the Green Belt without alternatives being considered”.
From the Review: Campaigners feared the most obvious vulnerable
open spaces included land near to the Commonswood Nature
Reserve on the south side of Welwyn Garden City and Panshanger
Airfield.
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
5
Core Strategy & Local Plan
New legislation means that local authorities must produce a local plan that
sets planning policies. These must be examined by independent planning inspectors.
The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012.
The framework gives guidance to local councils in drawing up local plans and
on making decisions on planning applications.
From the Planning Inspectorate:
The Government aim is for every area to have a clear local plan which
sets out local people's views of how they wish their community to
develop, consistent with the framework and against which planning
applications for planning permission will be judged.
 Our current ‘District Plan 2005’ will be updated with a new Local Plan
The Core Strategy document will form a key part of the local plan!
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
6
Local people should decide
Currently there is no housing target for Wel Hat as the High Court scrapped it.
Under the new Localism Act and NPPF that replaces the old system
Welwyn Hatfield Council decides how many homes are needed and has a duty
to consult us on the issue. All part of the localism agenda.
It has identified that 6,800 are needed by 2029
700 on the aerodrome site and 200 near the hospital
The biggest development (2000) would be in Hatfield
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
7
We were consulted in 2009...
Core Strategy Issues and Options 2009 consultation:
6,682 comments were made, here is comment from the CS p.21:
“The majority of responses were especially concerned about growth at
Welham Green, Brookmans Park, Little Heath and Panshanger in Welwyn
Garden City. Most respondents were either opposed to Green Belt release or
saw it as a last resort after a rigorous search for brownfield sites. A variety of
issues were raised relating to the broad locations but generally people were
concerned about the level of infrastructure required, maintaining the character
of existing towns and villages and the quality of the environment. People were
also concerned about the loss of agricultural land, flood risk, coalescence
between towns and village and the impact on the historic and natural
environment. “
Only Panshanger remains from that list.
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
8
From
2009
Core
Strategy
document
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
9
Only these two
locations remain
Why not
elsewhere in
the borough?
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
10
Land Availability Assessment Oct 2012
Page 28 states:
“The results of the Phase 2 Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment (SHLAA) indicate that of the
103 sites assessed in this process, 16 are considered
suitable, available and achievable for development in the
Green Belt or on safeguarded land.
These sites adjoin Welwyn, Welwyn Garden City,
Hatfield, Brookmans Park, Welham Green, Oaklands
and Mardley Heath and Cuffley. “
This recent document is omitted from the CS docs. It suggests 230
homes in Brookmans Park , 210 in Welham Green & 150 in Cuffley.
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
11
Where we fit in...
Green Belt
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
12
You may wish to comment!
Six documents are open for consultation, four seem to be key but all
can be commented on.
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
13
10 Reasons you may wish to
comment:
1) Previous Consultations:
Local resident’s views from previous consultations have not informed
or directed this consultation.
People overwhelmingly objected to the proposal for Panshanger in
2009, and yet it remains an unchanged broad location for growth in
2013.
2) Balance:
Putting almost all new housing for the next 18 years in only two
locations will have a detrimental effect on those areas, and put
unnecessary pressure on local services and infrastructure. The quality
of life of existing residents is likely to fall.
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
14
10 Reasons you may wish to
comment:
3) Landscaping: Panshanger specific policy in the Core
Strategy “CS15 Broad Location for Growth1–Neighbourhood
Extension North East of Welwyn Garden City”
Implies that existing Panshanger residents will have their current view
of the Mimram Valley obscured by some form of new landscaping,
Residents of the Tewin area will have a screen from the new
development but Panshanger residents won’t.
4) Green Belt:
The area identified as WGC4 is not within the Metropolitan Green
Belt. However, the documentation states that Green Belt land, in reality
all the land on the north side of the actual grass airstrip, may be
required so there will be a review of Green Belt boundaries
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
15
10 Reasons you may wish to
comment:
5) Gravel Extraction: This precise area was the subject of a large campaign
to prevent gravel extraction only a few years ago. Campaigners won and
future extraction was ruled out. The Land for Housing in Urban Areas
document states on page 13 that:
“...land here forms part of a sand and gravel belt and part of the site has potential
for gravel extraction”.
6) School Provision:
By council calculations, 700 houses mean a 1 to 1.5 class form entry is
required, which since existing primary schools are full, requires the
building of a new primary school, but there is no available land to
accommodate this and no plans to build it. When the Bovis estate was
built Bericot Green was set aside by the developer for a new school.
That plot lay undeveloped for twenty years and no school was ever
built.
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
16
10 Reasons you may wish to
comment:
7) Unsustainable Development: The Core Strategy CS 1 policy is
given the following reasoned justification in section 4.3:
...whilst protecting and enhancing natural resources and heritage assets of the
borough, minimising the need to travel and avoiding areas of greatest risk from
flooding. It meets the need for housing and economic development at a level which
can be supported by the necessary infrastructure and which recognises environmental
limits, seeks to protect mineral resources, prevent pollution and minimise waste. It
promotes the delivery of high quality sustainable housing within walkable
neighbourhoods where residents can easily access services to meet their day to day
needs, and designed to protect and enhance the built environment and character of
the local landscape.
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
17
10 Reasons you may wish to comment:






8) Supporting Infrastructure:
The Core Strategy document contains many references to infrastructure,
what we have now and what will be required. Policy CS12 is called
Infrastructure Delivery but it contains no actual detail about how and
when infrastructure will be delivered. It also references the Infrastructure
Development Plan as providing more details. This plan is an 84 page
document with most of it headed Infrastructure Requirements. The final
page, page 84, is the only one titled Implementation, and yet this still gives
no actual detail or timeline for when any of the infrastructure will be
implemented.
Three key infrastructure points are
A) Water – water is already piped into the area as extraction was\harming
the Mimram. There is no capacity for 700 more homes on this scheme.
B) Sewage – the current treatment works, RyeMeads is at capacity and
further expansion is complicated by an RSPB site.
C) Run off from Panshanger will potentially pollute the Mimram and the
water table and cause flooding downstream in Hertford
10 Reasons you may wish to
comment:
9. Coalescence:
Welwyn Garden City is a unique and distinct from any other adjacent towns.
Developing the Panshanger site will result in a built environment right up to
the East Herts border. The CS document on page 36, section 5.7 talks of:
an allowance for growth immediately adjacent to the borough boundary on the
edge of Welwyn Garden City, on land in East Hertfordshire with the potential to
deliver around 1,500 dwellings.
10) Panshanger Aerodrome:
Panshanger Aerodrome pre-dates all the housing in the area and is one of the
few thriving small airfields still surviving. It plays an important role in training
new pilots and connects with the local community through social events. The
airfield buildings also represent WW2 heritage and should be valued as such.
The only other remaining airfield in Hertfordshire, is Elstree. Airfields like
Panshanger provide employment for instructors, maintenance engineers,
catering staff and other employees.
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
19
A quick guide to commenting...
•Commenting on the proposal is daunting at first glance
•The main documents alone total 600 pages
•There is a How To guide available on the internet that
takes you through it
•Once you’ve made one comment it quickly becomes
familiar.
Lets have a quick look at the website:
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
20
We can also try and look at it online now?
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
21
More Q & A
•Deadline has been extended to the 31st Jan for all.
•Councillor Representation?
•Comments in writing are ok!
• Do we want form a committee?
Thank you for taking part tonight!
Meeting presentation 18/01/2013
22