Agenda item

The Team Leader (Planning Policy) presented a report seeking approval of the Green Belt Assessment Report (Appendix A) and the accompanying parcel assessment maps (Appendix B) as part of the evidence base for the new Local Plan.

 

Members were advised that the report covered the key findings of the green belt assessment and seeks agreement to use the document as part of the new local plan evidence base and to inform development management decisions.

 

The Team Leader (Planning Policy) said that the assessment had been commissioned jointly with North Hertfordshire and Stevenage Borough Councils using MHCLG grant funding. The work was required due to changes in national planning policy relating to the green belt, including the introduction of the concept of grey belt.

 

Members were advised that Appendix A contained an outline of the methodology and results with a general narrative around the issues raised by green belt and grey belt. The report also covered locally defined matters including which settlements were considered to be large built-up areas and historic towns for the purpose of the review.

 

The Team Leader (Planning Policy) said that the accompanying assessments covered around 260 parcels of land which were defined in East Herts and for each parcel, Appendix B contains a map and a description of the parcel, an assessment against each of the purposes of green belt and a conclusion about whether or not it was grey belt.

 

Officers explained that the assessment provides crucial information and evidence to determine how green belt and grey belt issues may fit into an overall local plan strategy. The sole aim of the work was to look at the performance of the existing green belt against the 5 purposes of green belt, which were:

 

(A)      to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.

(B)      to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.

(C)      to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

(D)      to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

(E)       to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

 

The Team Leader (Planning Policy) said that grey belt was defined as any land in the green belt that did not perform strongly against purposes A, B and D. He emphasised that rules and regulations around green belt and green belt assessments were clearly set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and national planning policy guidance.

 

Members were advised that grey belt was still green belt and government guidance required councils to look at all options for meeting development needs before looking at green belt and the release of green belt was a last resort.

 

The Team Leader (Planning Policy) said that grey belt land was sequentially preferable if green belt was required to meet development needs. The Panel was advised that officers would be using other evidence alongside the green belt assessment to develop the strategy.

 

Members were advised that although grey belt was defined by purposes A, B and D, the assessment does also record outcomes against all of the purposes.

 

The covering report included a summary of the findings at paragraph 3.14, and the assessment outcomes were only an indication of performance against green belt purposes and not an indication of the suitability of a site for development. The panel was advised that identifying an area as grey belt did not make a parcel more suitable for development or more likely to come forward for development.

 

The Team Leader (Planning Policy) said that in the event of green belt being required to meet need, grey belt parcels of land would be sequentially preferable to parcels that meet the purposes of green belt more strongly.

 

Members were advised that it had been discovered that local greenspaces had been omitted from the report and maps, and this would be resolved in the final document and the second recommendation that the chair had already mentioned was added to the report.

 

The Team Leader (Planning Policy) said that there had been two late representations from Urbana on behalf Tarmac Trading Limited and from Mr Rubino, a landowner with landholdings west of Hertford Heath.

 

The Urbana comments related to three principal issues:

 

·             the presentation of parcel boundaries at varying map scales.

·             whether assessments had taken account of development yet to come forward but already allocated in the current District Plan.

·             the differing assessment outcomes for parcels HFW12 and HFW14.

The Panel was advised that that there was only one set of parcel boundaries and that any perceived variation resulted from differences in map scale and presentation. Officers would seek clarification from the consultants regarding the treatment of committed allocations and the differing assessments of the two parcels identified. The outcome of those discussions would be reported before consideration by Executive.

 

The Team Leader (Planning Policy) said that the second representation, made via two emails, concerned parcels HF1, HH10 and HH12 located between Hertford and Hertford Heath. The comments had pointed out that parcel assessment boundaries should follow established parish boundaries and questioned the methodology used in assessing the relationship between settlements.

 

Officers advised that parcel boundaries had not been derived from parish boundaries but had been defined according to landscape characteristics and the contribution of land to Green Belt purposes. Members were advised that crossing administrative boundaries was a normal feature of the methodology.

 

The Team Leader (Planning Policy) further clarified that parcel numbering was an organisational tool only and did not indicate a relationship with particular settlements. He set out the consultant’s responses had indicated that parcels were defined to reflect identified variations in contributions to green belt purposes and in some cases a parcel adjacent to a settlement would be grouped with parcels adjacent to different settlements. The numbering system was there to aid legibility of the study.

 

Officers advised that the representation also challenged the assessment of parcels on the basis of the relationship between Hertford and Hertford Heath. The Panel was advised, for the purposes of the assessment, the relevant relationship is between Hertford and Hoddesdon as the larger built-up areas and neighbouring towns to which the Green Belt purposes apply.

 

The Team Leader (Planning Policy) said that Hertford Heath was classified as a village within the assessment and is therefore not assessed in the same way as larger built-up areas. He advised that the relationship between Hertford and Hertford Heath was not relevant to the assessment methodology.

 

The Panel was advised that, notwithstanding this acknowledgement, the representation continued to misunderstand that the Green Belt purposes are assessed in relation to the larger built-up areas and neighbouring towns. Officers had therefore concluded that no amendments to the assessment were required.

 

In response to a question from the Chair, officers confirmed that while Green Belt land existed around Hertford Heath, villages were not assessed in the same way as large built-up areas for the purposes of the Green Belt assessment methodology.

 

The Chair said that officers would provide further feedback on the matters raised by Tarmac before the report progressed to Executive and that any necessary amendments could be incorporated at that stage.

 

The Panel Members sought clarification on the purpose of the Green Belt Assessment and its relationship to national planning policy. Officers explained that the assessment had been commissioned in response to updated Government policy and guidance on green belt and grey belt and had been prepared using a nationally prescribed methodology.

 

Members discussed the role of the assessment within the wider Local Plan process and raised concerns regarding the naming of parcels and the potential for public misunderstanding. Officers advised that parcel names were used for identification purposes only and had no bearing on the assessment outcomes.

 

In response to questions regarding grey belt, officers emphasised that grey belt remained green belt and that the assessment did not identify land for development. The assessment provided a consistent evidence base to assist the Council in considering Green Belt matters and responding to planning applications.

 

Members expressed concern that residents might interpret grey belt designations as indicating future development opportunities. Officers reiterated that the assessment was a technical evaluation of Green Belt performance against national policy purposes and not an assessment of development suitability. It was suggested that additional explanatory guidance for residents would be helpful.

 

Further questions were raised regarding a specific parcel, the methodology used to define parcels, the role of other land uses and designations, and the ability to alter Green Belt boundaries. Officers advised that existing planning protections remained in place and that any changes to Green Belt boundaries could only be made through the plan-making process in exceptional circumstances.

 

The Panel noted the clarification provided by officers regarding the purpose and status of the Green Belt Assessment.

 

The Members present who were not on the District Plan Executive Panel welcomed the report and asked whether future development needs could potentially be met on land outside the green belt and Grey Belt. Officers advised that this would be considered through the Local Plan process and that it was too early to reach conclusions.

 

Members commented that the report was clear and robust but were concerned that Grey Belt designations could be perceived as indicating land suitable for development. They emphasised the need to make clear that Grey Belt remained Green Belt and continued to be subject to planning constraints. There were also raised questions regarding land uses, parcel definitions and Green Belt boundaries.

 

Officers explained that the assessment considered Green Belt purposes only and did not determine future land uses or development suitability. Parcel boundaries had been identified through landscape and landform characteristics as part of the assessment methodology. Green Belt boundaries could only be altered through the Local Plan process in exceptional circumstances.

 

Members raised concerns that residents may misinterpret Grey Belt designations, particularly in relation to parcels containing community facilities such as allotments and sports grounds. Members suggested that a frequently asked questions document be published to explain the purpose of the assessment and the meaning of Grey Belt, which officers agreed would be helpful.

 

The Panel noted that similar concerns had been raised regarding the designation of land containing North Road Cemetery. Officers reiterated that the assessment was a technical evidence base and did not indicate that any site was proposed for development.

 

Councillor Dumont proposed and Councillor Crystall seconded, a motion that the Executive be advised that (A) the Green Belt Assessment, attached as the main report at Appendix A and a series of individual parcel maps and reports at Appendix B (parts 1 to 19), be agreed as part of the evidence base to inform the new East Herts Local Plan and as a material consideration for Development Management purposes in the determination of planning applications and (B) any minor amendments to the content of the Green Belt Assessment be delegated to the Director for Place, in consultation with the Executive Member for Planning and Growth.

 

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED - that the Executive be advised that (A) The Green Belt Assessment, attached as the main report at Appendix A and a series of individual parcel maps and reports at Appendix B (parts 1 to 19), be agreed as part of the evidence base to inform the new East Herts Local Plan and as a material consideration for Development Management purposes in the determination of planning applications.

 

(B)   any minor amendments to the content of the Green Belt Assessment be delegated to the Director for Place, in consultation with the Executive Member for Planning and Growth.