Agenda item

The Vice-Chairman advised that Councillor K Warnell had withdrawn Question 4.

Question 1

Councillor C Woodward had submitted a question to the Executive Member for Environment and the Public Space.  Although absent from the meeting, he had asked that, given:

·        East Herts had three Air Quality Management Areas, one of which, Sawbridgeworth, had no Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP), and the oldest, Hockerill had exceeded World Health Organisation guidelines since at least 2007 and now failed the EU legal maximum by almost double for nitrogen dioxide (and failed on highly hazardous particulate matter pollutants);

·        the duties placed on East Herts District Council by the Environment Acts 1995 & 2002 to actively reduce emissions and to do so by clearly defined times; and

·        the AECOM Sustainability Appraisal for the draft District Plan stated that “car borne traffic is likely to be the most used transport” and that there was no hard evidence that modal shift had yet or, would occur (beyond wishful thinking), and that the reliance of the AQAP for Hockerill on a Bishop’s Stortford Urban Transport Plan was now misplaced as HCC have abolished it;

whether the Executive Member could clarify why the latest official progress report was three years old and to report to Members on how many of the actions set in the AQAP had been fully achieved or, wholly or partially failed.  He also asked the Executive Member on the legal risk to East Herts Council and perhaps individual Members of approving a draft District Plan with in excess of 4,100 new homes in Bishop’s Stortford and 500 in Sawbridgeworth, as well as the health condition and figures for early mortality expectations of residents in the towns affected, in the stated context of Hertfordshire County Council’s Air Quality Strategy opening comment that ‘residents are dying prematurely due to poor air quality’ and AECOM’s admission that further development would have a “residual (minor) negative impact”.  Councillor C Woodward had bracketed ‘minor’ given recent measures showing that Hockerill was at 76 microns versus the absolute legal maximum of 40 given doubt that any negative impact  from new development was not legally and ethically acceptable when East Herts had for many years not resolved the current situation or delivered on its own AQAP.

The Executive Member for Environment and the Public Space responded by reminding Members of the considerable time and resources the Council had given to air quality issues, particularly in Bishop’s Stortford, over the past six months.  He referred to the Bishop’s Stortford Infrastructure and Congestion summit, the Hertfordshire Sustainability Forum and the forthcoming Air Quality Summit Steering Group meeting in October 2016.  These all involved working in partnership with professionals, local bodies and stakeholders and sought to address air quality and climate change issues.  By way of example, he referred to joint action across member organisations via the Climate Change Framework and Action Plan for Hertfordshire, which was looking at the scope for the promotion of electric vehicles.  In East Herts, the Council was looking at innovative ways to encourage behaviour change such as the use of electric taxis.  He also reminded Members that scrutiny task and finish groups had been set up on climate change and sustainable transport.

The Executive Member acknowledged that there was more to do, but believed that his summary of actions demonstrated the Council’s commitment to air quality issues. 

In respect of the potential risk to Members in approving the Draft District Plan against the backdrop of the air quality issues referred to in the question, the Executive Member referred to the Government’s helpful advice on local authority obligations.  This stated that local authorities were not legally obliged to achieve air quality objectives, although they were required to work towards the objectives by drawing up action plans setting out measures they intended to take in pursuit of them.

The Executive Member quoted the legislative position with regard to the Environment Act 1995, the Air Quality Regulations 2000 and the Air Quality (Amendment) Regulations 2002.  These confirmed that the Council did not have a legal obligation to achieve air quality objectives, as the Government had concluded that this would be unreasonable, given that so many sources of emissions were beyond local authority control.  Therefore, it was clear that the Council generally, and Members individually, did not risk legal action in the circumstances outlined within Councillor Woodward’s question.

Question 2

Councillor K Warnell, in respect of BISH5, referred to a letter from Housing Minister Brandon Lewis on 6 June 2016, which stated, “the Government has put in place the strongest protections for the Green Belt.  The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development may be allowed only where very special circumstances exist, and that Green Belt boundaries should be adjusted only in exceptional circumstances, through the Local Plan process and with the support of local people.  We have been repeatedly clear that demand for housing alone will not change Green Belt boundaries.”

Addressing the contents of this letter, Councillor K Warnell asked the Leader of the Council, given that the “very special circumstances” statement was a subjective opinion and evidential results of the Neighbourhood Plan survey of every household in Bishop’s Stortford showed 72.28% were against development here and a further 89.21% were against Green Belt development, where, when and how the “support of the local people” in the Brandon Lewis letter had been sought and gained in this specific case as no evidence thereof had been presented.  He also asked if the Council had any letters or government guidance since the 6 June letter that countermanded the Government’s position.

In response, the Leader of the Council referred to clarification she had received from the Government and a letter from the new Minister for Housing and Planning, Gavin Barwell MP, dated 18 August 2016.  Copies of this letter had been placed in the chamber for Members’ information.  This stated that it was for local authorities to determine whether adjustments to the green belt should be made, whilst allowing local communities to have their say.

The Leader reminded Members of the urgent need to identify sites to meet an objectively assessed housing need of 16,390 new units in the plan period up to 2033.  This was likely to rise to 19,500 given continuing work in other areas.  She referred to the short supply of brownfield sites, thus necessitating either green field or green belt land being identified for this housing need.

The Leader also referred to the Council’s sustainable approach in satisfying itself that all available options for development outside of the green belt had been exhausted.  Other options outside of the green belt had been considered, such as focussing development around an existing settlement like Buntingford, a new settlement in the north of the District and spreading the new housing around the villages throughout the District.  These options had been dismissed as unsustainable or undeliverable within the plan period.

Therefore, the approach taken, which had been consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, had been to identify locations which were the most sustainable in terms of existing infrastructure.  She acknowledged the genuine concerns that local people might have with the loss of some green belt.  However, Members had to make difficult decisions based on material planning considerations which outweighed the loss of greenbelt.

The Leader reminded Members that a further round of consultation would be undertaken and that ultimately, it would be the Independent Inspector who would make the decision.

In response to a supplementary question, the Leader advised that local communities had been consulted on the sites in question within the 2014 consultation.

Question 3

Councillor G Cutting welcomed the Council’s commitment to requiring developments in Bishop’s Stortford to mitigate their impact on congestion and air pollution, and the intention expressed in the first draft of the Infrastructure Development Plan to obtain developer funding for cycling, walking, bus and road improvements to improve sustainable transport options in the town.  He asked the Executive Member for Environment and the Public Space if he would confirm that the Bishop’s Stortford Town Centre Development Framework would provide further detail on what will be required to demonstrate sustainable transport options in the town and whether the Council will firm its commitment to fund the continuing effort required by the Council and its key stakeholders to work with bus companies, local businesses and residents to identify and deliver behaviour change that would reduce existing levels of air pollution, as well as mitigate the impacts of new development, a commitment which he believed must be made in the forthcoming new Action Plan for the AQMA and also be clear in the Infrastructure Development Plan.  He also asked the Executive Member to explain how the AECOM sustainability work suggested that there was no problem with climate change mitigation as the new developments would replace less efficient ones and so “carbon emissions from the built environment will fall over time”.  Since all the large scale development in Bishop’s Stortford was on brownfield or greenfield land not replacing existing buildings, did the Executive Member agree this was clearly wrong and totally missing the point of a sustainability review.

In reply, the Executive Member for Environment and the Public Space commented on emerging suggestions from the Bishop’s Stortford Town Centre Planning Framework, such as switching off the gyratory, creating new links through development sites such as the Goods Yard and alternative locations for parking, which could reduce traffic volumes circulating the town.  He also referred to corporate initiatives on setting up task and finish groups and hosting an Air Quality summit as detailed in his answer to Councillor C Woodward’s question above.

In respect of AECOM sustainability work, the Executive Member stated that this addressed the various aspects of development, from new larger developments, where there would be the potential to fund and design low carbon and renewable energy schemes, to redevelopment of the existing built environment, where policy provision was made to reduce carbon emissions.  He did not believe that the AECOM sustainability work stated that all new development would replace existing buildings, rather that, it acknowledged if redevelopment took place, emissions from the built environment as a whole would fall over time.  The Sustainability Appraisal had suggested that it was not possible to conclude significant effects as the proposed approach set out in the Plan performed well in terms of climate change mitigation objectives.

The Executive Member commented that the overall policy approach set out in the Plan would ensure that development demonstrated how carbon dioxide emissions would be minimised; that carbon reduction was met on site; and that, existing materials were re-used and recycled in construction.  He referred specifically to Policy CC2, TRA1 and EQ4 and advised that an Air Quality Guidance document would be submitted to the next District Planning Executive Panel meeting on 13 October 2016.