28 July 2000

CASE to:

David Bell

North Hertfordshire District Council

Dear Mr. Bell

North Hertfordshire District Plan No.3 – West of Stevenage

Thank you for your letter of 24^th July 2000. I am writing to you on behalf of both CASE itself and the some 3000 individuals who adopted the CASE Objections and who have appointed CASE as their agents for the purposes of the North Herts District Plan ("the Plan").

You have invited CASE to comment on the Legal Advice obtained by the Council with regard to whether or not the Plan is in conformity with PPG3.

You will recall that CASE submitted detailed objections to the Plan which were adopted by all those thousands of individuals who appointed CASE as their agent. Of particular relevance is the objection CASE lodged to the West of Stevenage proposals that stated:

"The proposals for the West of Stevenage totally fail to take into account the provisions of the new PPG3, as does the Adopted County Council Structure Plan. As is made clear in paragraph 37 local authorities are required to revise their Plans to take into account the provisions of PPG3. Accordingly the Policies relating to West of Stevenage need to be withdrawn and re-drafted so as to accord with the new version of PPG3.

In particular the Local Plan should apply the sequential approach advocated in PPG3. Under the provisions of PPG3 no development should be allowed in relation to West of Stevenage until:

It is clear from the evidence given at the EIP that applying this approach (in particular as to densities on sites already identified, but not yet developed) that no development will be required or be permissible under the provisions of PPG3 within the period of the County Structure Plan. In fact there is no requirement for the Local Plan to identify sites that will not be required within five years (see paragraph 34 of PPG3). There is no doubt that applying this approach both the County and the District have sufficient urban and brownfield sites to meet their needs over the next five years and that, accordingly, West of Stevenage need not and should not be included in the Local Plan and this Policy and all other references to West of Stevenage should be deleted from the Plan."

Mr. Lockhart-Mummery Q.C. has advised the Council that these objections are correct and that in the light of them it would be pointless to proceed with the present version of the Plan which should be withdrawn.

It will come as no surprise to you that CASE agrees with this advice. I am pleased to note from your letter that the Council will be looking at the wording of PPG3. When they get round to this, the Council will see that its provisions could not be clearer.

Indeed Planning Inspectors are already insisting that the provisions of the new PPG3 be complied with. For example, as reported in the 28^th July edition of the Planning Journal in respect of Wokingham District Council’s local plan, inspector Douglas Machin ruled that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Berkshire Structure Plan, three proposals for major greenfield allocations to accommodate 2,500 dwellings should be rejected, as they were not in line with the new PPG3.

In the circumstances the Council should withdraw the Plan forthwith. CASE agrees with Counsel that it would be inappropriate to try to carry out further work and then to prepare a 2^nd deposit draft. The work involved requires a major review both at local and county level of how Hertfordshire’s housing requirements should be met in the light of PPG3. This cannot adequately be done as a mere re-draft of the Plan designed to meet CASE’s objections.

To continue incurring expenditure proceeding with a plan that is accepted by the Council not to be in conformity with PPG 3, and in the face of Mr. Lockhart-Mummery Q.C.’s opinion, would be folly. Under the provisions of PPG12 the Council are required to negotiate with objectors to try to reach agreement on amendments to the 1^st draft Plan. However, as Mr. Lockhart-Mummery Q.C. correctly points out in his Advice, bringing the Plan into conformity with PPG3 is not a matter capable of resolution by negotiation with Objectors such as CASE. The Plan requires a wholesale reconsideration in the light of countywide housing assessments that have yet to be undertaken. It should therefore be withdrawn at this stage and re-drafted in the light of these assessments once they have been completed and once the County Councils views are known.

To go forward to a Local Plan Inquiry in which the Objectors views will almost certainly prevail would achieve nothing but wasted expenditure and will delay the implementation of a Plan that conforms to Government guidelines. Indeed the District Auditor would almost certainly consider such unwarranted expenditure to be improper thus raising questions of whether Councillors who chose to proceed with the Plan in its present form should be surcharged.

At paragraph 9 of his opinion Mr. Lockhart-Mummery Q.C. advises that:

CASE agrees that the Council should take into account all the implications of a decision to withdraw the local plan and to bring it into conformity with PPG3. With regard to those considerations Mr. Lockhart-Mummery expressly refers to, CASE makes the following submissions:

1. The effect on housing supply

The impact on North Hertfordshire’s housing supply will be minimal. The proposed West of Stevenage Development was never intended to meet the housing requirements of North Hertfordshire. The proposal was to meet the Countywide housing requirement. All other local councils in Hertfordshire are required to carry out their own housing capacity assessment. As CASE pointed out at the EIP and in the "Alternative Report" we issued thereafter, the proposed densities were very low. If realistic densities are applied to the sites identified at the EIP, the West of Stevenage development is entirely unnecessary. The housing densities now required by PPG3 are greatly in excess of that required to make up the countywide shortfall.

2. The effect on housing needs

For the reasons set out above the effect on both North Hertfordshire’s and the County’s housing needs will be minimal.

3. The relationship between meeting housing needs, and economic and employment considerations

There is no evidence available to suggest that not proceeding with West of Stevenage will have any adverse impact on economic and employment matters.

4. The substantial amount of work already undertaken by all parties including developers towards the anticipated development

In addition to the matters expressly referred to by Mr. Lockhart-Mummery Q.C., the Council should also take into account the following matters:

1. The substantial work, time and expenditure of local residents and organizations such as CASE, CPRE, Friends of the Earth and local community groups such as the Hitchin Forum and Hitchin Society have invested in opposing the West of Stevenage development.

2. The scale and determination of local opposition to this development.

3. The determination of local people that greenfield sites should only be developed as a last resort. PPG3 is designed to put into effect this view.

4. The fact that, notwithstanding the work done to date, no answer has been forthcoming to the question as to how this development can proceed without causing unacceptable traffic and environmental damage. It is significant that neither a Traffic Impact Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Assessment has been made public. The reality is that, if it were to proceed, this development would, inevitably, be totally unacceptable in these respects.

5. At the EIP North Herts District Council strenuously opposed this development on environmental and other cogent grounds. The evidence set out in NHDC’s comprehensive submissions represents a compelling factor to be taken into account by the Council in arriving at their decision.

In the circumstances the considerations in favor of withdrawing the non-conforming Plan far outweigh those other considerations referred to by Mr. Lockhart-Mummery.

I trust that the Council will find these submissions helpful in arriving at its decision as to how to proceed.

If you have any queries or would like to meet to discuss any aspect of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Tim Akeroyd

Chairman