Agenda item

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services drew Members’ attention to the last paragraph of the motion which suggested writing to Thames Water threatening to serve them with a noise abatement notice. He said that if Members were minded to pass the motion, the wording would need to be amended as the council could not consider serving notice until a proper investigation had been carried out.

Councillor Cox requested a recorded vote on the motion. He did not receive the support of five Members so the request fell.

Councillor Cox presented his motion on notice. Councillor Woollcombe seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.

Councillor Glover-Ward responded to the motion and thanked Councillor Cox for his well-intentioned motion as there were significant water resources challenges facing East Herts. She said that the council needed to have regard to the Thames Water Basin Management Plan in line with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. She said that quality of water was an important consideration and measures to safeguard water sources were included in policy WAT2 of the District Plan.

There were, however, multiple organisations that had roles and responsibilities to respond to these challenges, and it was important to remember that the Council’s responsibility, as detailed in Section 83 of the Water Act 2003 was to conserve water.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that the council was already meeting its responsibility on conserving water. The District Plan stated that East Herts was facing high water stress (paragraph 23.4.5) and acknowledged the high per head per day water usage in East Herts of 160 litres which was 10 litres per day more than national norms. To address this, Policy WAT4 included a specific water target of 110 litres per head per day. She said that strengthening this target could be proactively considered through the District Plan update. East Herts planners have already discussed a reduced target with the Environment Agency (EA) who would be supportive of East Herts pursuing similar increased water efficiency gains.

Councillor Glover-Ward added that the Hertfordshire Water Study 2017 was over six years old, and the council would produce an updated Water Cycle Study to inform the District Plan update. This work would identify where water management/quality issues may be occurring in East Herts, and in turn what solutions may be appropriate plus will support any policy changes in the revised District Plan. She said that the importance of Hertfordshire’s chalk streams could not be underestimated as a rare and beautiful habitat and the council’s planning policy team was already working with the EA to ensure that the findings of the CaBA (Catchment Based Approach) Chalk Stream Restoration Strategy, published in October 2021, were incorporated into the District Plan update.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that in the future, the council would only be able to plan for the new homes that were needed, if it had evidence from the water industry that demonstrated that there would be an adequate water supply without causing unacceptable harm to the environment.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that the allocated strategic sites at Gilston and Ware were key to meeting this housing need. She said that the Environment Agency were a statutory consultee in the planning process including providing technical advice. As a statutory consultee, it was not for the council to tell the EA how to advise on development proposals. Should the EA consider there to be a specific issue with development proposals coming forward, they would tell the council.  She said that Officers had already spoken to the Environment Agency regarding the position in the Greater Cambridge Area and the EA was clear that the situation was different in East Herts and that there was no need to prevent development coming forward now. The position was kept under review as a matter of course and particularly when the council would be undertaking the District Plan update. 

Councillor Glover-Ward said that the council needed to remember that it must be able to demonstrate that it has an adequate supply of housing to meet EH housing needs.

As allocated sites in the District Plan, Gilston and Ware were key to the council being able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. She said that if the motion was agreed, it would weaken the five-year housing land supply position and lead to an increased risk of speculative development across the district particularly around towns and villages such as Buntingford that were not in the Green belt.  Speculative development would mean that the council would lose a significant degree of control over where new housing is built, the infrastructure to support that housing and ability to influence quality outcomes for communities.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that a further consequence of agreeing the motion was that it could seriously legally compromise past and future resolutions of the Development Management Committee because it made unfounded and out of context accusations as to the integrity of consultee responses to planning applications.

In summary, Councillor Glover-Ward said that the motion was premature, coming ahead of the detailed work associated with the District Plan update and if agreed, the effect of this motion would be to:

·        Weaken the Council’s Five Year Housing Land Supply by creating uncertainty around the deliverability of sites

·        Increase the risk of speculative development across the district without appropriate infrastructure provision and the ability to positively influence the planning outcomes for communities.

·        Undermine confidence in the plan-led system, which not only allows the Council to set out the spatial strategy for the district, but it also provides development certainty as allocated sites have gone through a rigorous testing process.

·        Reduce the Council’s ability to influence quality placemaking and outcomes for communities.

·        Result in compromising the legal integrity of past and future resolutions of the Development Management Committee. For example, Gilston, Ware2 (and other applications) by exposing the Council to risk of legal challenges based on comments made on consultee responses.

·        Lead to a potential challenge from the Gilston applicants and/or objectors to the proposals.

·        Jeopardise the Council’s relationship with statutory consultees as a result of telling them how they should be responding to development proposals.

She said that the most appropriate way to deal with this matter was to proactively work with the EA and the water companies on the District Plan update. To write to them as outlined in the motion would have other consequential implications as stated above. She urged Members to vote against this motion.

Councillor E Buckmaster said there were some worthy points in the motion and respected Councillor Cox’s intentions but did not think this was the best way of dealing with the issue. He felt it would be worth adding it to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s work programme and the committee could invite witnesses to answer these questions.

Councillor McAndrew said that the Hertfordshire Water Study was started in 2015 and ended in 2017 but the document went up to 2052 so it was only right that the document would need revisiting.

Councillor Stowe said he agreed with the comments from Councillor Glover-Ward and felt this was the wrong way to deal with the situation. He felt it could be dealt with through the revised District Plan and engagement with the agencies concerned.

Councillor Crystall said he appreciated the frustration over the council’s powers in this area. He said the motion risked causing the District Plan serious problems. He said that taking it through the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was an excellent idea and would give more opportunity to discuss the issues with the planning team in a more effective manner. He also urged Members to vote against it and promised to ensure that an improved motion about water supply would be brought to Council in the future to get support across the Chamber.

Councillor Deering said he agreed with the sentiment of the motion but agreed with Councillor Glover-Ward’s comments that it would have serious ramifications with the District Plan and past and future applications heard by the Development Management Committee.

Councillor Hart was worried that the council were not looking at the long term and the plans for resolving the water shortage.

Councillor Goldspink said she appreciated the intention behind the motion but was worried about the suggestion that if agreed, would question the validity of statutory responses.

Councillor Estop said the water cycle was the most important part of infrastructure and felt that this could be used as evidence for sustainable development. She said she would be abstaining as the Chair of the Development Management Committee.

Councillor Woollcombe said he appreciated the support from the Chamber on green issues. He said he felt the Council were missing the sense of urgency and said the council could not wait for a District Plan that could be years away when the district was looking at a 450 million gallon water shortfall.

The motion to support the motion having been proposed and seconded was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared LOST.