HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
STRATEGIC PLANNING AND PARTNERSHIPS PANEL
FRIDAY 17 JUNE 2005 AT 10.00 AM
EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN – DRAFT REVISION TO THE REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY (RSS) FOR THE EAST OF ENGLAND ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE EiP AND CONSULTATION ON DRAFT ‘LIST OF MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS’
Report of the Director of Environment
Author: Paul Donovan Tel: 01992 556289
Executive Member: Derrick Ashley
Local Members: -
1. Purpose of report
1.1 To advise Panel of the emerging arrangements for the Examination in Public (EiP) into the draft East of England Plan and to seek its advice on the draft ‘List of Matters and Participants’ that have been issued for consultation by the EiP Panel.
2. Summary
2.1 The EiP into the draft East of England Plan is scheduled to commence on 14th September 2005 and is expected to run until the end of the year. The EiP Panel has issued its draft ‘List of Matters and Participants’ for consultation, to which the County Council will need to respond. The consultation closes on 29th June 2005.
2.2 The draft list of ‘matters’ to be discussed at the EiP appears to provide sufficient context to enable the County Council to build on the representations it has already made on the draft Plan in its submissions to the EiP Panel. However, there are a range of concerns regarding how important Hertfordshire issues are handled within the matters upon which the County Council may wish to make recommendations to the EiP Panel. In addition, officers are in the process of liaising internally and with colleagues in district councils and other public bodies on detailed issues it may wish to raise.
2.3 The County Council is identified as a participant for those matters that are Hertfordshire-specific (Matters 8H, J and K). There are concerns that in other cases it would not be appropriate, nor would it be possible, for strategic authorities to negotiate representative attendance at a range of key matters for discussion (as is proposed for matters 1-8A and 9). Under the draft list of participants as it currently stands it would appear possible for all strategic authorities to be invited to participate in all matters 1-8A and 9 without the EiP process being compromised.
2.5 The response to the consultation on the draft ‘List of Matters and Participants’ will be made by the Director of Environment in association with the Executive Member and the Chair of this Panel.
3. Conclusion
3.1 Whilst the list of matters provides sufficient context for the County Council to continue to raise the concerns it has already identified in relation to the draft East of England Plan, the manner in which the matters have been drafted does not enable those issues to be adequately addressed at the EiP.
3.2 Whilst the County Council is quite rightly identified as a participant at those matters that are locationally specific to Hertfordshire, the arrangements for strategic authority participation at other matters are far from satisfactory.
3.3 The views of Panel are sought on the issues raised in paragraphs 4.7 to 4.28 of this report.
4. Background
4.1 Public consultation on the draft East of England Plan (the Plan) closed on 16th March 2005. The County Council’s response to the consultation exercise was considered by a special meeting of the County Council on 8th March 2005.
4.2 The next stage in the preparation of the Plan is for an EiP to be held, presided over by a Panel appointed by the Government. The membership of the Panel has now been confirmed and the commencement date for the EiP set (14th September 2005). The EiP, which is to take place in Ely, is expected to last until the end of the year.
4.3 The arrangements for preparation for and proceedings of the EiP are very similar to those that have historically existed for Examinations in Public into draft Regional Planning Guidance and Structure Plans (both of which have been superseded by the requirement of Regional Assemblies to produce Regional Spatial Strategies – the East of England Plan in the case of the East of England). These arrangements can be summarised as follows:
· unlike Local Plans prepared by districts councils and the County Council, those who have made objections/representations to the Plan do not have a right to appear at an EiP.
· the EiP Panel, taking advice from GO-East and EERA, analyse responses to the consultation exercise and identify what the key issues appear to be and which organisations/individuals might best be placed to take part in a discussion of these at the EiP.
· the EiP Panel then publishes its draft ‘list of matters and participants’ for public consultation for 28 days.
· the EiP Panel considers the responses it receives to the draft ‘list of matters and participants’ before issuing a final version. That final version effectively represents the agenda for the EiP and those organisations/individuals who will be attending.
· because, in most cases, there are a wide range of disparate matters considered at an EiP, the organisations/individuals taking part in the debate vary for each matter discussed – i.e. there are a set number of places ‘at the table’ but these places are filled by those organisations with expertise/interest in the particular matter being discussed.
· ‘participants’ may produce additional written submissions to the Panel setting out their views on the matters they have been invited to take part in discussion. Non-participants may also make submissions.
· the EiP Panel organise one or more ‘Preliminary Meetings’ at which arrangements for the EiP are discussed.
4.4 Following the EiP the Panel comes to conclusions on the matters discussed and makes recommendations to the Secretary of State (SoS). The SoS considers the Panel’s recommendations before issuing ‘Proposed Changes’ to the draft Plan for public consultation. Following that consultation, the SoS issues the Plan and it comes into force.
4.5 The EiP Panel has issued its draft ‘list of matters and participants’ for consultation, responses to which must be made by 29th June 2005. The County Council’s response will be made by the Director of Environment in association with the Executive Member and the Chair of this Panel.
Draft ‘List of Matters and Participants’
4.6 The draft ‘List of Matters and Participants’ is attached to this report.
Matters
4.7 The County Council raised a wide range of representations to the draft Plan. These included:
· the overall scale of employment and housing growth proposed in the region and in Hertfordshire.
· the manner in which the Plan proposes to distribute that growth.
· specific growth locations identified within Hertfordshire (west and north of Stevenage, North of Harlow within East Hertfordshire, Broxbourne and Bishop’s Stortford).
· the absence of a robust spatial strategy for the Region, but particularly for Hertfordshire.
· the scale of greenfield and Green Belt releases that would be required.
· whether specific sites/broad locations should be specified in the Plan.
· lack of evidence as to whether resources would be available to implement the Plan, including the lack of commitment to infrastructure requirements and in some cases the failure to even assess these.
4.8 On the whole, the list of ‘matters’ covers all the key issues of concern identified by the County Council in its response to the consultation on the draft Plan. However, the manner in which matters are proposed to be discussed at the EiP raise concerns about how the EiP will be able to properly handle Hertfordshire issues. The following are examples of some of these concerns.
Hertfordshire Spatial Development Strategy
4.9 One of Hertfordshire local authorities’ main concerns throughout the preparation of the East of England Plan has been the lack of consideration of what a spatial development strategy for Hertfordshire for the next 20 years, based on sustainability principles, should look like – taking account of such factors as housing need (including affordable housing), infrastructure and environmental opportunities and constraints, economic and social objectives, regeneration requirements, and so on.
4.10 In response to these spatial strategy concerns, EERA commissioned a consultancy study (the Hertfordshire Housing Development and Spatial Strategy Audit) to assist the process. All Hertfordshire authorities were severely critical of that study for a range of reasons, but particularly its failure to develop a robust spatial strategy for the County. This robust spatial strategy vacuum still exists.
4.11 The way in which the list of matters are formatted does not reflect the importance of dealing with these spatial strategy issues on a County basis. Hertfordshire issues are currently considered under three sessions (though possibly 4 if Royston were to be dealt with under ‘Matter 8G: Cambridge Sub-Region’ – see below). There are well-recognised Hertfordshire spatial strategy issues – to the extent that EERA commissioned a specific study to explore how this should be handled by RSS. This has not happened for any other County in the region.
4.12 The only way the EiP can properly consider these Hertfordshire spatial strategy issues is for there to be a separate Hertfordshire matter at the EiP - subsuming current matters 8J (Stevenage and rest of North Herts), 8K (Western part of London Arc in Herts) and parts of 8H (Stansted/M11) within it. Alternatively, there should be a separate EiP session relating to Hertfordshire after all Hertfordshire specific matters have been discussed. If 8J, 8K and 8H are retained in any form, all relevant district councils and the County Council would need to be participants at these sessions.
Alternative scale of growth – 66,000 dwellings for Hertfordshire
4.13 The support of the majority of Hertfordshire local authorities for a scale of housing growth of 66,000 dwellings in the County for the period 2001-2021 reflects a range of factors, including the lack of a robust spatial strategy for Hertfordshire being developed through the preparation of the Plan, along with a lack of justification for growth at Stevenage, Broxbourne, Bishop’s Stortford and Harlow-related growth within East Hertfordshire. Unless there is a specific Hertfordshire session to deal with Hertfordshire spatial strategy and other issues, the Hertfordshire proposals for 66,000 dwellings will not receive the attention required.
Strategic justification for growth at Stevenage
4.14 The strategic justification for growth at Stevenage was based on a Hertfordshire-wide spatial strategy. The development plan process in Hertfordshire is clear that planning permission should not be granted for development west for Stevenage until such time as there has been a strategic justification for growth of Stevenage. That strategic justification should comprise:
· what role Stevenage should play within a spatial strategy for Hertfordshire.
· what role Stevenage should play within a spatial strategy for the Region.
4.15 EERA has identified Stevenage as a significant centre within Hertfordshire. This is different to that of Harlow for which a sub-regional role is identified. The only way the EiP can properly explore the role of Stevenage within a spatial strategy for Hertfordshire is at a session where all Hertfordshire issues are discussed, informed at least by all Hertfordshire authorities. This does not currently exist.
Stevenage and North Hertfordshire
4.16 Matter 8J relates to ‘Stevenage and rest of North Hertfordshire’ – to include district level apportionment of regional growth to Stevenage and North Herts…………….’ The majority of North Hertfordshire is not affected by Stevenage-related growth proposals and as a consequence it is unclear what benefit there would be in having North Hertfordshire considered along with potential requirements at Stevenage. North Hertfordshire district is not a growth location. If the list of matters is not amended to reflect issues addressed in paragraphs 4.9 to 4.12, the proper place for North Hertfordshire to be considered should be in a revised ‘Matter 8K: Western part of London Arc in Herts – to include district level apportionment of regional growth to Dacorum, Hertsmere, St Albans, Three Rivers, Watford and Welwyn Hatfield’. However, both North Hertfordshire District and the County Council would need to be participants at a revised matter 8J relating to growth at Stevenage.
Royston’s role in the Cambridge Sub-Region
4.17 Matter 8G deals with the district level apportionment of regional growth to the Cambridge sub-region but excludes ‘specific apportionments within the sub-region that may be appropriate within North Herts at Royston’, along with two other localities not within Hertfordshire. The list of matters proposes that Royston’s contribution to the Cambridge sub-region be dealt with under matter 8J ‘Stevenage and rest of North Hertfordshire’. How can Royston’s contribution to the Cambridge sub-region, if any, be dealt with outside the main part of the EiP at which the sub-region is to be debated? If this were rectified, both the County Council and North Hertfordshire district would need to be invited to participate in Matter 8G. Even if not rectified, it is clearly likely that submissions to and discussion at matter 8G will include at least some consideration of the role of Royston, and yet North Hertfordshire District and the County Council would not be participating.
The robustness of the Plan
4.18 In some instances, the list of matters as they are currently worded do not appear to recognise the requirement for the justification for certain aspects of the Plan to be targeted for discussion. For example:
· the County Council’s criticisms relating to how the overall scale of housing and employment growth in the Plan was developed is not adequately reflected in the list of issues to be examined under Matter 1A ‘Population, household growth and migration’. As currently worded, this matter would largely focus on general influences on the overall scale of growth that might be appropriate. This is required, but so too is a debate on how the Plan arrived at the scales of growth proposed.
· there are serious transparency concerns, including decision-making processes, relating to some of the proposals in the Plan – for example in relation to Stevenage and to proposals for growth to the north of Harlow in East Hertfordshire. One of the purposes of the EiP should be to clarify and test those processes and decisions.
· the importance of sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental assessment processes as a mechanism to test the soundness of the Plan and the potential implications of the shortcomings of these processes.