Agenda item

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth presented the Call for Sites Update and said that the Council agreed to a review of the District Plan in late 2023 and a revised timetable was agreed in October 2024.  In order to update the District Plan, the planning department needed to assemble a huge amount of evidence and a call for sites exercise was undertaken between July and September 2024.

The Executive Member for Planning and Growth said that landowners, developers, agents, and site promoters were invited to submit areas of land for the council to determine if they would be suitable for development. She said that submitting a site did not confirm that it would be selected for allocation in the District Plan and the report only detailed the outcome of the call for sites and presented the sites submitted.

Councillor Glover-Ward proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Swainston seconded the proposal.

Councillor Hart asked about weighting given to certain criteria when the planners were assessing the sites for development. 

Councillor Estop said that it was important to have a sound District Plan and the planning department would now move to produce Strategic Land Availability Assessment to look at the sites and determine the best sites to allocate for development. She said this was the best process for a spatial strategy and not speculative submission of planning applications for larger sites. She did not think that Full Council was the right place for oversight of the process and needed to be a Member led Committee.

Councillor Buckmaster said he had faith in the planning policy team and said there was an Executive sub-committee to look at the review of the District Plan. He said that this report was part of the District Plan process, and the vast number of sites would be filtered out following engagement with other bodies such as the County Council and Herts Highways. He said that the reason for asking his earlier question under Item 8 was that the proposed reorganisation of local government would put additional pressure on the process and felt that a conversation needed to be had with the government about what could realistically be achieved over the next few years.

Councillor Deering understood that this report was part of a process and knew that not all sites would be picked. He said that any communications with the public would be very important, and he called on the administration to do so. He said that the Conservative group would be supporting the recommendation but made it clear to residents that by supporting it, they were not taking any views on any particular sites.

Councillor McAndrew said that developing the District Plan was a massive task and said that there was a danger that some sites could come forward through the planning process to be developed.

Councillor Woollcombe said he welcomed the call for sites and asked whether there would be a similar call for infrastructure as the district was short on sewage treatment and water supply infrastructure.

Councillor Swainston welcomed recognition from Members that this was an essential process to go through.

Councillor Wilson responded to comments about communicating with residents and said that this would take place. He said that all councillors were responsible for communicating key messages to their resident.

Councillor Williams responded to Councillor Woollcombe’s question that a call for infrastructure did not exist.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that she could not guarantee that sites that come through would not have planning applications submitted. In relation to the infrastructure, Thames Water and Affinity had a five-year programme of infrastructure that they would be building based on likely sites that would come forward in the District Plan. The Executive District Plan Committee would be dealing with the strategic decisions, and these were meetings that other councillors could attend.

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

RESOLVED – that (A) the Call for Sites submissions be noted and agreed for evaluation through the Strategic Land Availability Assessment; and

(B)        the results of the Strategic Land Availability Assessment be reported in due course.