Consultation on bringing forward development of LA3

This note refers to Dacorum Borough Council’s consultation on the Main Modifications proposed to meet the requirement of the inspector. Comments have to be submitted by 5^th February.

(Yesterday, you may have received proposals from the developer we will look at the issues raised in this later, but remember, both are important.)

The consultation portal is found here: http://consult.dacorum.gov.uk/portal/planning/mods/consult

The sections that include reference to LA3 are MM18 to MM23. They can be reached either from the options at the top left on the page, or following the arrows at the bottom of the page. Navigation is unclear, but if you persevere you will be able to submit comments on line!

Our concern is in essence as follows.

The planning inspector proposed that the gypsy and traveller element of the development be brought forward, having rejected the proposal for a site at Tring. This is to meet the government requirement for gypsy and traveller pitches in the borough. InLA3 it is indicated in the corner nearest Winkwell with access onto Chaulden Lane.
This access may also be used to provide Emergency and other access to the bottom of the housing site.
Whether the whole development or solely the gypsy and traveller element is brought forward, the status of the gypsy and traveller site is changed. As a ‘potential allocation’ in an ‘Indicative Land Use and Access Plan’ it has not been subjected to the scrutiny of the inspector nor the critical analysis by the public, with particular reference to Dacorum’s strategy.
The proposed deletion, by Dacorum, of the statement in MM21 ‘that the development will initially be progressed as an outline application covering the site as a whole’ underscores this concern. We are concerned that consideration of the whole site being inclusive of the gypsy and traveller element will not take place.

We urge you to comment on section MM21, urging the reinstatement of the requirement for a full outline plan including all accesses and strategic items (to include the gypsy and traveller site) for consultation dealing with the site as a whole. This is an essential prerequisite to guide the individual applications.

Alternatively you may write or email your comments, but please refer to “Main Modifications to the Pre-Submission Site Allocations DPD and LA3 MM21”. Use the contact details below.

In whatever way you communicate, please make it clear that you are a user of the lanes bordering the site and/or view the site as a local resident.

Dacorum Borough Council

Strategic Planning & Regeneration
The Forum
Marlowes
Hemel Hempstead
Herts
HP1 1DN
Tel: +44 (0)1442 228660
Email: Strategic.planning@dacorum.gov.uk

If you need help on this, please contact a member of BEVA's Planning Group. Details are in your Bourne Ender

For more details

The full document for the proposed modifications with access to all the relevant correspondence appears here:

http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/home/planning-development/planning-strategic-planning/local-planning-framework/site-allocations/site-allocations-examination-2016

With specific reference to LA3 and a link to the LA3 Master Plan:

http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/home/planning-development/planning-strategic-planning/local-planning-framework/site-allocations/localallocations/la3-west-hemel-hempstead

On the next few pages I put together my personal thoughts …………….

Some background information

The prospect of 900 houses at LA3, an area that extends out of Hemel to end on the corner where Chaulden Lane meets Pouchen End Lane, has been on the cards for years as part of a borough-wide plan to provide much needed housing. There are other areas, one of which is LA5, a smaller development in Tring. LA5 was due to start before LA3, so up until recently, any development seemed a long way off, particularly as the phasing over several years was due to start in the far north-eastern corner working its way down towards Winkwell.

Running alongside this issue is the requirement for all councils to deliver a set number of pitches for gypsies and travellers to a predetermined timescale. Aiming to avoid large isolated sites, the council has incorporated small sites into its housing proposals; in the case of LA5, 5 pitches and in LA3, 7. In this way tenants would have access to facilities and the sense of isolation and alienation would be avoided. This aligns with both Dacorum’s policy[i] and government policy[ii].

The overall plan for the whole of Dacorum was put to an independent planning inspector. She questioned the soundness of the designated area for the gypsy and traveller site in LA5 in Tring because of the potential impact on the AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). It is interesting to read precisely what she said as it refers only to the lack of ‘formal assessment by the Council to assess its likely impact on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’[iii]. She proposed it should not go ahead. This all led to a seemingly simple solution to the potential shortfall in gypsy and traveller pitches; bring forward the LA3 element of gypsy and traveller provision.

Is it as simple as this?

Bringing forward LA3, where the developers are not objecting, would seem straightforward; a change in timeframe. But is that all?

If you look at the ‘Draft Master Plan’[iv] you will note on page 21 a map showing ‘Indicative Land Use and Access Plan’. On this is shown a ‘Potential Allocation for Travellers Site’. Does the bringing forward above mean that the ‘indicative’ and ‘potential’ elements have now become ‘proposed’? When I did not voice my objections to LA3 I felt I was being consulted on the principle of LA3, which included a gypsy and traveller site. I did not feel I was being consulted on elements which were designated ‘indicative’ or ‘potential’.

In not objecting to the principle of development of LA3, about which I’m clearly not happy but aware of the housing needs, I would seem to have acquiesced to the position of the gypsy and traveller site. The opportunity for consultation contained in the initial document has been removed as seen in MM21.

‘The Council’s expectation is that the development will initially be progressed as an outline application covering the site as a whole, followed by a series of reserved matters (or full applications) for each phase (or series of phases). This is in order to secure a comprehensive approach to the delivery of the scheme and associated works and contributions.’

This, a vital step in the consultation process, has been removed, and with it the apparent positioning and access of the gypsy traveller site.

Why do I oppose the ‘potential’ gypsy and traveller site?

If the position of the gypsy and traveller site is further progressed than we were led to believe, then we must look at why the potential or proposed position is incongruous with the overall development.

Interestingly, the developers at LA5 said that with a gypsy and traveller site, the development would not be viable. InLA3 the influence of the gypsy and traveller site, wherever it would be sited, is much reduced because of the larger number of houses. Nevertheless, there has been no resistance from the developers because the ‘potential’ site with its position in the far corner and giving access along Chaulden Lane effectively removes the site from LA3 development and places it in the existing housing in Chaulden Lane and Winkwell..

Specifically:

LA3 is seen as an ‘inclusive community’ (See ‘Vision’ page 20 of LA3 ‘Master Plan’- link below). The potential site would not be inclusive for gypsies and travellers. It is surely the school, the shop, the health services of the LA3 development to which the pitches should have access in the same way as the other 900 households. The ‘potential’ gypsy and traveller site is the least inclusive.
If there is access onto Chaulden Lane for the gypsies and travellers they cannot have vehicle access to the main LA3 site, otherwise there would be a through route!
If there were a through route to part of LA3, vehicles of all types would more directly access Chaulden Lane and Winkwell. Chaulden Lane is not appropriate for a main access for the site.
The most direct access to a main road, the A41 would be via Winkwell. This is already a bottleneck.
Dacorum’s core strategy seeks to protect rural lanes.