Since the summer the principal planning matter has been the Issues and Options Consultation, published by the District Council, as a first step in the development of its Core Strategy.
This is the document at the centre of the suite of documents known as the Local Development Framework which has to be ready to replace the current Local Plan by 2013. As its name suggests, it will set out the basic wishes of the Council for the state of the district and development within it in the years up to 2031. Other documents covering detailed aspects of development planning, infrastructure needs and services to be supplied will all relate to the strategies set out in this central document. This first consultation is designed to elicit input from
the public and others. The next stage will be the
development of preferred options and a further public consultation. The content of the consultation draft had been prepared over the last two years or so, during which time the East of England regional plan was in force. This plan adopted a top-down approach whereby central government dictated how many houses were to be built, and where, and how many jobs were to be created. The consultation draft reflected much of this information, or something approaching it, in its content.
We now know that the new government will revoke regional plans and put in their place a process called 'localism' under which local communities will determine their own planning needs and priorities for inclusion in Local Development Frameworks.
In addition, much of future development is to be business-led through the recently created Local Enterprise Partnerships. Both of these initiatives are totally new concepts and no one yet knows how they will work.
Given the changed circumstances, we declined in our response to accept the information which served as a background to the consultation questionnaire and suggested to the District Council that the development of the core strategy should be restarted, only this time building it up on the basis of what communities in the district want, possibly through parish and town plans.
However, we recognised that it would be necessary to adjust the aggregate of the outputs of community planning to reflect business needs and, no doubt, government inducements for house building and new employment initiatives. We did not think it the role of the Council to pre-empt the outcome of these two distinct strands of planning. Consequently, we did not at this stage answer the questions seeking indication of how new development should be apportioned between the District's five major settlements and its villages, nor in which direction the boundaries of Hertford should be extended. Our preference is for development based on local need rather than diktat.
We did however record our concern about the eastward march of Welwyn Garden
City and the need to retain a strong rural separation from Hertford and nearby villages. We objected strongly to the proposal, buried in the document, that where there was insufficient brownfield land within settlements attention should be turned to developing greenfield sites, all in the interest of protecting the countryside. These latter would include private residential gardens, parks, sports fields and allotments.
Where possible, we answered the consultation questions, commenting on environmental, transport and employment matters. At this stage we have not pursued the provision of social housing because it is not yet clear how this is to be provided in future. We hope that the District Council will put in place a new process to satisfy the intentions of the government's localism approach to planning and that social housing will be addressed as part of it.
Finally, we confirmed our opposition to the development known as Harlow North, on the grounds that it would do little for the regeneration of Harlow and would be more likely to serve as a dormitory for City workers, imposing more strain on the already stretched rail services.
This is the document at the centre of the suite of documents known as the Local Development Framework which has to be ready to replace the current Local Plan by 2013. As its name suggests, it will set out the basic wishes of the Council for the state of the district and development within it in the years up to 2031. Other documents covering detailed aspects of development planning, infrastructure needs and services to be supplied will all relate to the strategies set out in this central document. This first consultation is designed to elicit input from
the public and others. The next stage will be the
development of preferred options and a further public consultation. The content of the consultation draft had been prepared over the last two years or so, during which time the East of England regional plan was in force. This plan adopted a top-down approach whereby central government dictated how many houses were to be built, and where, and how many jobs were to be created. The consultation draft reflected much of this information, or something approaching it, in its content.
We now know that the new government will revoke regional plans and put in their place a process called 'localism' under which local communities will determine their own planning needs and priorities for inclusion in Local Development Frameworks.
In addition, much of future development is to be business-led through the recently created Local Enterprise Partnerships. Both of these initiatives are totally new concepts and no one yet knows how they will work.
Given the changed circumstances, we declined in our response to accept the information which served as a background to the consultation questionnaire and suggested to the District Council that the development of the core strategy should be restarted, only this time building it up on the basis of what communities in the district want, possibly through parish and town plans.
However, we recognised that it would be necessary to adjust the aggregate of the outputs of community planning to reflect business needs and, no doubt, government inducements for house building and new employment initiatives. We did not think it the role of the Council to pre-empt the outcome of these two distinct strands of planning. Consequently, we did not at this stage answer the questions seeking indication of how new development should be apportioned between the District's five major settlements and its villages, nor in which direction the boundaries of Hertford should be extended. Our preference is for development based on local need rather than diktat.
We did however record our concern about the eastward march of Welwyn Garden
City and the need to retain a strong rural separation from Hertford and nearby villages. We objected strongly to the proposal, buried in the document, that where there was insufficient brownfield land within settlements attention should be turned to developing greenfield sites, all in the interest of protecting the countryside. These latter would include private residential gardens, parks, sports fields and allotments.
Where possible, we answered the consultation questions, commenting on environmental, transport and employment matters. At this stage we have not pursued the provision of social housing because it is not yet clear how this is to be provided in future. We hope that the District Council will put in place a new process to satisfy the intentions of the government's localism approach to planning and that social housing will be addressed as part of it.
Finally, we confirmed our opposition to the development known as Harlow North, on the grounds that it would do little for the regeneration of Harlow and would be more likely to serve as a dormitory for City workers, imposing more strain on the already stretched rail services.
