Enjoying our local countryside.

This time of tension and lock down provides us with a timely reminder of the importance of the countryside for mental and physical health and well-being. One of the five purposes of the Green Belt laid down in the NPPF is “to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.” Without the protection of the Green Belt planning policies we can’t assume that our countryside will continue to be there.

 Local Plan consultation.

The submissions and comments are still being listed on the consultation portal, so it is not yet possible to see just how many responses there have been, but it is a goodly response. Thank you all for your contributions.

The Society’s comments prepared by Jed Griffiths our planning consultant will be listed in due course. We have objected on Green Belt grounds to all the proposed sites in the parish.

Coronavirus has delayed an already stretched out process. At some point the council officers will present a report on the consultation to the Cabinet Planning and Parking Panel (CPPP) with recommendations as to the way forward. The next meeting of the CPPP is scheduled for Thursday 4^th June.

The Inspector’s Stage 8 hearing sessions into the sites already in the Draft Plan will continue but no decision has been taken yet on when they are likely to be held, whether they are likely to be virtual hearing sessions or to take place in the same way as the previous hearings did.

NMDGBS will be represented by Jed Griffiths and our written comments were submitted prior to the deadline last month.

 ??16,000 dwellings??

NMDGBS has consistently argued that the target of 16000 dwellings (known as the Objectively Assessed Number) in the Draft Local Plan is far too high. In part the OAN figure is calculated on assumptions about the strong economic expansion that the Council desired to see over the plan period. These assumptions were highly aspirational when they were made several years ago but now, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer predicting a severe recession “the likes of which we have not seen”, they are totally unrealistic and surely must be reviewed.

Please let your local councilors know if you agree with this argument.

Green Belt beyond North Mymms.

NMDGBS is a long-standing member of the Countryside Charity (CPRE) through CPRE (Herts) as indeed are many of our members. CPRE nationally sends out a regular campaigns newsletter which you can access at https://www.cpre.org.uk

We also belong to the London Green Belt Council which brings together over 100 organisations including councils, residents & environmental groups with a shared concern for London’s Green Belt. Their latest newsletter deals with the emergency change to planning law that permits Councils to hold virtual planning committee meetings. It also includes a round-up of recent developments within the London Metropolitan Green Belt of which we are a part. Our problems are shared throughout the area and we can learn from what is happening in other planning authorities. Check out the details at http://londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk

North Mymms District Green Belt Society
Newsletter – April 2020

In this difficult time, we hope that you are managing to keep safe. The Easter weekend has been a good time to reflect on how lucky we are to live surrounded by the Hertfordshire countryside especially as it is looking so good this spring. It is this countryside which is in danger from excessive development to accommodate the London pressure.

The Local Plan Consultation

The consultation deadline has been extended to 5.00pm 1st May.
If you haven’t already lodged your comments, there is still time to do so.
Full details of the Proposed Changes consultation can be found here

The relevant chapters of the consultation document for North Mymms are:

• Chapter 13 Welham Green.
• Chapter 14 Brookman’s Park
• Chapter 15 Little Heath.

Responses can be made through the consultation portal or by completing a Response Form which can be downloaded from the portal and returned by email or post.
However, please note that the Council’s website strongly recommends commenting on-line as paper comments will not be processed until officials are back in the office.

Key points to make:

• Object to the unrealistic targets.The target level of 16,000 dwellings over the plan period (2021 – 2036) is far too high for the Borough. Even the Council’s offer of 14,000 is unrealistic. The assumptions underlying the plan envisaged a 20% increase in the population of Welwyn/ Hatfield without any consideration of how this might be achieved. The assumptions are out of date. Even before the recent budget, HM Treasury’s own estimates pointed to a slowing of the rate of economic growth over the next 15 years. And now we have the pandemic shutdown with unknown economic consequences.
  It is irresponsible to continue with these targets and to use Green Belt land to increase the size of Welwyn/Hatfield. If the Green Belt is to be used for housing, it should be reserved for local people.
• Support the Council in its resistance against the target of 16,000 dwellings.
• Emphasise the importance of the Green Belt in maintaining the character of our villages.
• Keep up the pressure on the individual sites.
  Emphasise the harm to the Green Belt which would be caused by development, and the lack of infrastructure to support it.
• Our website http://northmymmsgreenbelt.org.uk has details of the proposed sites for North Mymms and suggestions for the arguments you might use in your submissions.
• Finally, don’t be put off by the references to “soundness” and “legality” in the consultation portal. For “legality” you may tick all as a “yes”. For “soundness” tick “yes” in support of the recommendation to remove an allocation from the Plan, e.g. HS22 and HS24. Otherwise tick “no. It is not necessary fill in the box on alterations to the Plan if you don’t want to.

The Local Plan Consultation.
The consultation deadline has been extended to 5pm 1st May.
If you haven’t already lodged your comments, there is still time to do so.

Full details of the Proposed Changes consultation can be found here

The consultation deadline has been extended to 5.00pm 1st May.

If you haven’t already lodged your comments, there is still time to do so.
Full details of the Proposed Changes consultation can be found here

The relevant chapters of the consultation document for North Mymms are:

• Chapter 13 Welham Green.
• Chapter 14 Brookman’s Park
• Chapter 15 Little Heath.

Responses can be made through the consultation portal or by completing a Response Form which can be downloaded from the portal and returned by email or post.
However, please note that the Council’s website strongly recommends commenting on-line as paper comments will not be processed until officials are back in the office.

In making your comments, don’t be put off by the references to “soundness” and “legality” in the consultation portal. For “legality” you may tick all as a “yes”. For “soundness” tick “yes” in support of the recommendation to remove an allocation from the Plan, e.g. HS22 and HS24. Otherwise tick “no. It is not necessary fill in the box on alterations to the Plan if you don’t want to.

Below are some points that you might consider including in your representations.

Unrealistic targets.

The target level of 16,000 dwellings over the plan period (2021 – 2036) is far too high for the Borough. Even the Council’s offer of 14,000 is unrealistic. The assumptions underlying the plan envisaged a 20% increase in the population of Welwyn/Hatfield without any consideration of how this might be achieved. The assumptions are out of date. Even before the recent budget, HM Treasury’s own estimates pointed to a slowing of the rate of economic growth over the next 15 years. And now we have the pandemic shutdown with unknown economic consequences.

It is irresponsible to continue with these targets and to use Green Belt land to increase the size of Welwyn/Hatfield. If the Green Belt is to be used for housing, it should be reserved for local people.

Welham Green

Reference: Chapter 13
No overall view of the impact of the totality of the proposals on the Village which would be overwhelmed by the expansion.

Site WeG1: Units 1-3, 51 Welham Manor

• Site not “previously developed” but occupied by small industrial units whose removal would lead to loss of employment land.
• Site previously promoted for housing development and rejected in 1993 and 2001
• No vehicular accessed. Unsustainable as a site on its own.
• No defensible green belt boundaries

 SiteWeG3a: Land at Welham Manor and west of Station Road

•  Not acceptable on Green Belt grounds, do not accept assessment of “moderate harm” only
• Site is currently open farmland; development would encroach on open countryside. No suitable Green Belt boundary
• Severe impact with high visibility on local landscape
• Reduction of important gap between Welham Green and Brookman’s Park.
• Marked increase in traffic on Station road
• Increase in flood risk as surface water run off drains into Station Road and Skimpans Brook.

 Site WeG10: Land at Dixons Hill Road

•  Not acceptable on Green Belt grounds. Do not agree with assessment of “moderate harm” only.
• Housing development would encroach on to local countryside, contrary to one of main purposes of the Green Belt
• Inadequate Green Belt boundaries resulting
• Damage to strategic Green Belt gap between Hatfield and Potters Bar
• Impact on local wildlife sites
• Problems with local flooding and advice from Thames Water about the inadequacy of wastewater services

Bell Bar and Brookman’s Park

 Reference: Chapter 14

 Site BrP1: Upper Bell Bar Farm

•  Bell Bar is a scattered hamlet on the A1000 north of Brookman’s Park and not part of Brookman’s Park
• The site was rejected by the Council for inclusion in the Draft Plan in 2016 for good reasons: nothing has changed
• The site contributes to the strategic gap between Potters Bar and Hatfield
• Development on this site is unsustainable, there is no access to shops, primary schools or medical services
• The proposed housing development would overwhelm the area and totally change its character.
• Poor access, either onto busy A100o or through narrow country road to Welham Green.
• Inevitable additional car usage onto busy A1000
• No reason to remove Bell Lane itself from the Green Belt.

Site BrP4: Land west of Brookman’s Park railway station 

• Support the Council’s proposal to remove this site from the draft Plan on Green Belt grounds
• Site assessed as “high harm” to the Green Belt
• High harm to the strategic gap between Potters Bar and Hatfield
• Would narrow the gap between Brookman’s Park and Welham Green
• Proposed site has weak Green Belt boundaries
• Impact on local wildlife sites -Brick Kiln Wood
• Flooding issues – Mimms hall Brook/ Skimpans Brook/ swallow holes at Water End
• Currently agricultural land.
• Poor access onto Station Road at a dangerous bend/railway bridge

Little Heath

Reference: Chapter 15
Sites LHe4/5 Videne and Studlands, Hawkshead Road

• Site should be rejected on Green Belt grounds where the assessment was “high  harm”.
• It is not necessary to alter the Green Belt boundary beyond the site to include the Jehovah Witness Hall.

 Site BrP7

• Support the Council’s proposal to withdraw this site from the draft plan on Green Belt grounds. Development would cause “high harm”
• Site is not sustainable, not within walking distance of Potters Bar town centre and there are no local facilities.

The consultation deadline has been extended to 5pm 1st May.
If you haven’t already lodged your comments, there is still time to do so.

Full details of the Proposed Changes consultation can be found here

Welham Green

13.1 Welham Green is one of four larger villages that fall into the third tier of settlement types, known as ‘Larger Excluded Villages’, as set out in Policy SP3: Settlement Hierarchy.

13.2 Welham Green is a sustainable locations for development in the borough, following the main towns, as a large village excluded (inset) from the Green Belt and offering a range of services and facilities, employment and good public transport connectivity, including a railway station.

Proposed changes to sites allocations at Welham Green

13.3 There were two sites proposed for allocation in the Draft Local Plan 2016 at Welham Green for 80 dwellings as part of a mixed use scheme (SDS7/WeG4b) and 12 (additional) Gypsy and Traveller pitches (HS35/GTLAA01).

13.4 There were 11 additional sites promoted at Welham Green for consideration by the Council and three of these sites are proposed for allocation (i.e. 5 sites in total with a combined capacity of 284 dwellings and 12 (additional) Gypsy and Traveller Pitches).

13.5 The consultation sites section indicates the additional sites that are proposed for allocation. The map below illustrates all the sites proposed for allocation along with proposed changes to the Green Belt boundary. These changes are now the subject of this consultation.

13.6 For information, the implications of the proposed changes for the Draft Local Plan site allocation policy relating to this settlement are shown on the following pages, including the site specific policy requirements. These requirements complement the other policies set out in the plan to ensure that any site specific requirements are properly planned for. This does not however form part of the current consultation. Changes to the policy, if agreed by the Inspector following the relevant hearing sessions, will be subject to consultation at Modification stage.

Little Heath

15.1 Little Heath is one of five smaller villages that fall into the fourth tier of settlements in Policy SP3: Settlement Hierarchy of smaller villages excluded (inset) from the Green Belt, reflecting the settlements level of sustainability compared to the larger villages such as Brookmans Park or Welham Green. It is considered that settlements of this type are suitable for new development where it is compatible with its scale and character.

15.2 There is a primary school, a parish hall and a pub in Little Heath and it is well served by adjacent Potters Bar for other facilities such as shops, a railway station and secondary schools.

Proposed changes to the site allocations at Little Heath

15.3 There were two sites proposed for allocation in the Draft Local Plan 2016 for this settlement for 135 dwellings (HS24/BrP7 and HS25/LHe1). One of these sites HS24 (BrP7) is included in this consultation as the Council’s Cabinet (30th January 2020) resolved to consult on the potential for this site to be removed.

15.4 There were three additional sites promoted at Little Heath for consideration by the Council and two of these sites are proposed for allocation. The two additional sites (LHe4 and LHe5) are proposed to be a single allocation in the plan to provide suitable access and to ensure an appropriate Green Belt boundary can be formed. (i.e. two site allocations with a combined capacity of 71 dwellings).

15.5 The consultation sites section indicates the new sites that are proposed for allocation and the potential removal of a site from the Draft Local Plan. These changes are now the subject of this consultation event.

15.6 The map below illustrates the sites proposed for allocation along with proposed changes to the Green Belt boundary.

15.7 The proposed changes to the Draft Local Plan relating to this settlement are also shown on the following pages. These include updates to the proposed site allocations including the site specific policy requirements. These requirements complement the other policies set out in the plan to ensure that any site specific requirements are properly planned for.

Bell Bar and Brookmans Park

14.1 Brookmans Park is one of four larger villages that fall into the third tier of settlement types, known as ‘Larger Excluded Villages’, as set out in Policy SP3: Settlement Hierarchy demonstrating its relative sustainability following the borough’s two towns at Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield.

14.2 Brookmans Park is therefore a sustainable location for development in the borough, following the main towns, being a large village excluded (inset) from the Green Belt and offering a range of services and facilities, employment and good public transport connectivity including a railway station.

14.3 Bell Bar and Brookmans Park are considered together as the potential changes to the Green Belt benefit from being considered comprehensively.

Proposed changes to the site allocations at Bell Bar and Brookmans Park

14.4 There were three sites proposed for allocation in the Draft Local Plan 2016 at Brookmans Park (HS22/BrP4, HS21/BrP13 and HS23/BrP14) for 274 dwellings. However, the Council’s Cabinet (30th January 2020) resolved to consult on the potential removal of HS22 (BrP4).

14.5 There were 17 additional sites, or site options, promoted at Bell Bar and Brookmans Park for consideration by the Council and one of these sites are proposed for allocation (i.e. a total of three sites with a combined capacity of 128 dwellings).

14.6 The consultation sites section indicates the new site that is proposed for allocation. These changes are now the subject of this consultation event.

14.7 The map below illustrates all the sites proposed for allocation along with proposed changes to the Green Belt boundary.

14.8 For information, the implications of the proposed changes for the Draft Local Plan site allocation policy relating to this settlement are then shown on the following pages, including the site specific policy requirements. These requirements complement the other policies set out in the plan to ensure that any site specific requirements are properly planned for. This does not however form part of the current consultation. Changes to the policy, if agreed by the Inspector following the relevant hearing sessions, will be subject to consultation at Modifications stage.

1. The latest consultation on the Welwyn Hatfield Local plan is now under way. Full details can be accesses through the Council’s web site here. Comments must be received by 5.00pm on Wednesday 1st April. The NMDGBS will be submitting its comments towards the end of the consultation period.

2. This consultation is complicated because the proposals do not fully reflect what the Council’s cabinet agreed at its meeting on 30th January. Then, it decided to withdraw several of the sites already proposed in the draft plan. The decision reflected the latest Green Belt Study which assessed the “harm” that would be caused to the Green Belt. Included in the sites to be withdrawn were HS22(BrP4) and HS24(BrP7). However, when the council advised the Inspector of their intentions he responded saying that only he can remove sites from a Plan once it has been submitted for examination. This would be done as a ‘Main Modification’, which the Inspector would only do after the site has been in examined in public (now set to be in May sometime) and if after the examination, the Inspector considers the inclusion of the site to be “unsound”, then he can recommend it to the Council to be removed.   The public examination is likely to take place in May. The NMDGBS will attend and makerepresentations.

3. The result is that the Draft Plan currently includes sites that the Council no longer supports but which the Inspector may later find are suitable.

4. The Draft Plan currently proposes building 12,000 dwellings; the Inspector has asked for proposals to meet a target of 16,000 dwellings. In this consultation the Council is proposing 14,000 dwellings and is arguing that to go further will cause undue harm to the Green Belt.

5. The NMDGBS argues that the figure of 12,000 dwellings for the borough is too high. It does not reflect the natural organic growth of the local population but rather is influenced by ambitious desire for economic expansion and a response to the housing pressures from London. Meeting that target will inevitably require land from the Green Belt. The target of 16,000 just make things so much worse.

6. Though we are disappointed at the proposed increase in the Council’s target from 12,000 to 14,000 dwellings we are encouraged by their determination to resist allocating sites within the Green Belt where to do so would cause “high harm” to the purposes of the Green Belt. However there is still a prospect that the Inspector will disagree with the Council and seek to achieve the full 16,000 target.

7. It is as important as ever to respond to this consultation. As many people as possible should do so: it may be the last chance. The previous consultation received over 10,000 responses. Let that be our target!

8. What arguments do we use?
   Object to the unrealistic targets. It may be a lost cause, but we should continue to press for a sensible and proportionate increase. Even the 12,000 figure overstates the natural growth of the Borough and is based on assumptions of economic growth which were over-optimistic at the time and are now out of date.Support the Council in its resistance against the target of 16,000 dwellings.

   Argue that if the Green Belt is to be used for expansion, it should be reserved for local people.
   Emphasise the importance of the Green Belt in maintaining the character of our villages.
   Keep up the pressure on the individual sites, emphasising the harm to the Green Belt which would be caused by development, the lack of infrastructure to support new development.

Minutes of the 44^th Annual General Meeting.

Gary Mabbutt, President, welcomed local councillors, members and residents and our Speaker, Planning Consultant, Jed Griffiths.   After 44 years the Society still had a strong voice and at this time was in need of an even stronger voice to uphold the Green Belt.   He thanked the committee and asked anyone present who could assist in any way to come forward and join.   Help was always needed especially with the Local Plan at its present stage.   He urged members to use the website to keep up to date.

Update of Local Plan Consultation with Planning Consultant Jed Griffiths,MA Dip TP FRTPI

Jed explained that there had been six stages so far with the Inspector asking Council to supply sites for 16,000 dwellings.   The Council asked for sites to come forward and had 140 replies.   Representations were made, Councillors were lobbied with complaints of significant harm to Green Belt, strategic gaps decreased between settlements and environmental harm.   The Council is putting forward a plan for 14,000 dwellings.

At present most sites which would encircle Welham Green have gone.

WeG3a for 68 dwellings (access?) and WeG10 for 120 dwellings (surface water?) remain with Marshmoor for 80 dwellings (science park)

BrP 1 for 104 dwellings at Bell Bar makes a revision of the green belt (extension of Brookmans Park)   BrP 4 for 250-300 dwellings – against as good quality agricultural land, woodland and countryside gap.

LHe 4/5 is still in.   HS24 – members need to comment.

LHe3 – rejected by Council.

Jed urged everyone to respond to the Consultation either by email, on line or by letter.

A question and answer session followed.

The Chairman thanked Jed who was warmly applauded by the audience.   He reiterated that the community must respond to the document individually.   Local people can see what the issues are and it is important to show these. For instance the traffic problems at WeG10 and BrP1. We will provide information through our website.   There were 10,000 responses last year.   We need 10,000 again.

The President asked anyone who had pictures of local problems to let us have them.   He thanked everyone for coming and their questions and urged people to be proactive and join the committee.

The turn out was estimated to be between 120 and 140 members