Inquiry held between 20 January 2004 and 25 October 2004 Land west of the A1(M) at Stevenage, Hertfordshire File Refs: APP/X1925/V/02/1103811 E1/K1935/2/3/16

Report to the First Secretary of State

The Planning Inspect rate oTemple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

GTN 1371 8000 by D Lavender MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the First Secretary of State Date 1 December 2004

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004

FOUR APPLICATIONS BY THE WEST OF STEVENAGE CONSORTIUM

TO

NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND STEVENAGE BOROUGH COUNCIL

FOR OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSIONS

FOR DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 5,000 DWELLINGS AND BUSINESS PREMISES (USE CLASSES B1 AND B2), SHOPS (USE CLASSES A1, A2 AND A3); LEISURE, SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES (USE CLASSES D1 AND D2); OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING; AND PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE, HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES; AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES;

AND

APPROXIMATELY 3,600 DWELLINGS AND BUSINESS PREMISES (USE CLASSES B1 AND B2); SHOPS AND OTHER USES (USE CLASSES A1, A2 AND A3); LEISURE, SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES (USE CLASSES D1 AND D2); OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING; PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES; AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES

ON

LAND WEST OF THE A1 (M) AT STEVENAGE

HERTFORDSHIRE

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

1

CONTENTS

Subject Pages Recitals 5-6 Summary of recommendations 6 Glossary 254 1. Structure of Report, main abbreviations and other introductory matters 6-7 2. Procedural matters 7-8 3. The site and surroundings 8-9 4. Development plan background 9-11 5. The proposals 11-12 6. Common ground 12-13 The Evidence to the Inquiry 7. Affordable housing 13-21 8. Agriculture and soils 21-22 9. Archaeology and the historic environment 22-24 10. Community services and facilities 24-31 11. Education 31-38 12. Employment 38-42 13. Footpaths and rights of way 42-47 14. Green Belt 47-55 15. Hydrology 55-56 16. Landscape 56-67 17. Lighting 67-68 18. Luton airport 68-77

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 2

19. Nature conservation 77-81 20. Noise 81-83 21. Norton Green landfill 83-84 22. Open space 84-87 23. Rush Green airfield 87-89 24. Safety/security/crime prevention 89-91 25. Shopping/retail 92-93 26. Stevenage regeneration 94-95 27. Traffic and transportation 96-133 28. Travellers’ site 134-135 29. Utilities/services 135-138 30. Waste management 138-139 31. Strategy/Section 38(6)/prematurity/sustainability 139-177 32. Overall conclusions by the parties to the Inquiry 177-182 33. Third parties 182-194 34. Planning conditions and Obligations 194-209 Inspector’s conclusions and recommendations Preliminary matters 210 Main considerations 210 Quantitative matters and strategy 210-218 Locational factors 218-227 Green belt 219 Landscape 220-222 Nature conservation and hydrology 222-223

Luton airport 223-224 Rush Green airfield 224-225 The historic environment 225-226 Stevenage regeneration 226 Other locational considerations 226-227

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 3

Qualitative matters 227-247 Affordable housing 227-228 Travel and transport 228-239 Introduction 228-229 Number and location of proposed links across A1(M) 229-232 Design of links across A1(M) 230-231 Meadway 230-231 Bessemer Drive 231-232 Proposals for sustainable travel and transport 232-236 A1(M) 236 Other off-site road junctions 237 Stevenage bus terminus 237-238 Rail travel 238 Overall Conclusions on travel and transport 238-239 Travellers’ site 239 Community services and facilities 239-241 Fire station Youth facilities Library provision Retail provision 241 Noise impact from increased traffic 241-242 Employment 242 Education 242-243 Footpaths and rights of way 244-245 Open space 245-246 Safety, security and crime prevention 246-247 Other qualitative matters 247 Matters about which the Secretary of State particularly wishes to be informed Relationship to the development plan 247-248

Relationship to PPG2 248-251 Relationship to PPG3 251-252 Relationship to PPS7/PPG7 252 Relationship to PPG9 252 Relationship to PPG13 252-253 Relationship to PPG15 and PPG16 253 Relationship to PPG17 253 Impact on existing amenities and infrastructure 254 Other relevant considerations 254

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 4

Conditions and Obligations 254 –258

Conditions See annex 1 Introduction to the Obligations 254 Affordable Housing Agreement 255 Unilateral Undertaking and security deed 255-258

Overall conclusions 258-259 Recommendations 260-269 Glossary 270 -271 Annexes 1. Inspectors conclusions on planning conditions 272-279 The core documents include: List of core documents CD/IPD/7 Planning conditions submitted to the Inquiry CD/MISC/9a Affordable Housing Agreement submitted to the Inquiry CD/MISC/10c Unilateral Undertaking on Community Infrastructure submitted to the Inquiry CD/MISC11e Security Deed submitted to the Inquiry CD/MISC/11f List of appearances CD/MISC/8 Record of the Inquiry programme CD/IPD/9

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 5

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

File Ref: APP/X1925/V/02/1103811 Land west of the A1(M) at Stevenage, Hertfordshire

The applications were called in for decision by the First Secretary of State by directions made under section 77 of the 1990 Act on 7 November 2002. The Inquiry sat for 41 days between 20 January 2004 and 25 October 2004 and the site inspection was undertaken on 3 June 2004. The four applications are in two identical pairs and are made by The Stevenage West Consortium, one pair to the North Hertfordshire District Council, and the other pair to Stevenage Borough Council, each relating only to the administrative area of the respective Local Planning Authorities. The first pair of applications (Stevenage Borough Council Ref 01/00423/1, North Hertfordshire District Council Ref 01/01157/1) is dated 24 July 2001. The development proposed in this pair of applications is approximately 5,000 dwellings and business premises (Use Classes B1 and B2), shops (Use Classes A1, A2 and A3); leisure, social and community facilities (Use Classes D1 and D2); open space and landscaping; and provision of infrastructure, highways and public transport facilities; and ancillary facilities. The second pair of applications (Stevenage Borough Council Ref 01/00506/OP, North Hertfordshire District Council Ref 01/01408/1) is dated 31 August 2001. The development proposed in this pair of applications is approximately 3,600 dwellings and business premises (Use Classes B1 and B2), shops (Use Classes A1, A2 and A3); leisure, social and community facilities (Use Classes D1 and D2); open space and landscaping; and provision of infrastructure, highways and public transport facilities; and ancillary facilities. The reasons given for making the directions were the same in each case and were “that the proposals may conflict with national policies on important matters and could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality”. On the information available at the time of making the direction the following were the matters on which the Secretary of State particularly wished to be informed for the purpose of his consideration of the applications:-

i. The relationship of the proposed development to the relevant policies and proposals in the Hertfordshire Structure Plan Review1991-2011 (adopted April 1998), the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 2 with Alterations (adopted 1996), and the Stevenage District Plan Review 1990 (adopted October 1994); to the policies and proposals in the 2nd deposit draft of the Stevenage District Plan Second Review 1991-2011; and to the proposed Alterations to Roll the Structure Plan forward to 2016 published by Hertfordshire County Council in July 2002;

ii. The relationship of the proposed development to Government policy advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 2 (PPG2) on ‘Green Belts’, especially as regards the appropriateness of the development, its compatibility with the purposes of including land in the Green Belts, and the extent to which it would fulfil Green Belt objectives;

iii. The relationship of the proposed development to Government policy advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 3 (PPG3) on ‘Housing’, particularly in respect of the sustainability of the proposals, the density of the residential development, the application of the sequential approach to brownfield/greenfield sites, the provision of affordable housing, car parking provision, and the need for good layout and design;

iv. The relationship of the proposed development to Government policy advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 7 (PPG7) on ‘The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development’, regarding development in the countryside, especially the need to protect the countryside for its own sake, and to avoid the loss to development of the best and most versatile agricultural land;

v. The relationship of the proposed development to Government policy advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 9 (PPG9) on ‘Nature Conservation’, regarding the protection of wildlife and natural features;

vi. The relationship of the proposed development to Government policy advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 13 (PPG13) on ‘Transport’, particularly as regards the Government’s objectives to reduce the need to travel, especially by car, and ensure that jobs, shopping, leisure

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 6

facilities and services are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling; vii. The relationship of the proposed development to Government policy advice in Planning Policy

Guidance Note No. 15 (PPG15) on ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ and Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 16 (PPG16) on ‘Archaeology and Planning’, regarding the protection of the historic environment, and in particular Listed Buildings and sites of archaeological importance;

viii. The relationship of the proposed development to Government policy advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 17 (PPG17) on ‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’, in respect of the provision of an adequate supply of open space and sports and recreational facilities;

ix. The impact of the proposed development on the existing amenities and infrastructure of the area, including public transport and the local road network;

x. Any other material considerations relevant to the Secretary of State’s consideration of the applications; and

xi. Whether any permission should be subject to any conditions and, if so, the form these should take.

Summary of Recommendations: I recommend that the first pair of applications, for 5,000 dwellings, be refused and that the second pair of applications, for 3,600 dwellings, be permitted, subject to the Secretary of State being content with certain matters relating to the extent of the Green Belt in this part of Hertfordshire, travel and transportation planning in the area and the form and structure of relevant planning Obligations.

1. Structure of the Report, Main Abbreviations and other Introductory Matters

1.1 In view of the range of matters covered and the depth of evidence on each, the Inquiry progressed on a topic-by-topic basis rather than by hearing all the evidence from each party in turn. The topics are relatively self-contained so, in the interests of simplicity, I have followed a similar structure in this Report.

1.2 The Report accordingly begins with procedural matters and general descriptive material including a brief portrait of the site and its surroundings and a factual note of the relevant planning policy documents. The evidence on the individual topics are then dealt with in turn, each introduced by a summary of policy requirements and, where appropriate, other background information, before continuing under separate sub-headings with the main points raised by the applicant and the respective Rule 6 parties. These topics are all arranged in alphabetical order, for no other reason than to facilitate navigation through a lengthy document, the exception being strategic matters which, for similar reason, appears towards the end of the topic sequence. Section 32, which records the overall conclusions of the parties to the Inquiry, may be regarded as an executive summary of their respective cases. A summary of the points made by others opposing and supporting the schemes, follows separately in the normal way, as do my conclusions and recommendations. References to core documents are in italic font within square brackets [CD/…].

1.3 However, in order to avoid interrupting continuity between reasoning and recommendations, I include my commentary on the planning conditions proposed during the Inquiry in a separate annex. For ease of reference, I also include a paginated tabulation of contents at the front of the Report. Lists of appearances and a record of the Inquiry programme together with the planning conditions and Obligations submitted to the Inquiry are included with the Core Documents [CD/IPD/7].

1.4 The West of Stevenage Consortium, includes Persimmon Homes, Taywood Homes, Bryant Homes and The Garden Village Partnership, which I hereinafter refer to as WSC. I include a glossary of other abbreviations used, at the end of this Report. The site has

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 7

become known locally as “Stevenage West” and I adopt that generic title for the proposals in all of their various forms. There is a plan of the respective ownerships in the plans volume of the S106 planning Obligation (Unilateral Undertaking) that has been proffered with the applications [CD/MISC/11e].

2. Procedural Matters

2.1 The site for the proposed developments is the same in all four applications, but straddles the administrative areas of Stevenage Borough Council and North Hertfordshire District Council, both of which lie within the County of Hertfordshire [CD/PA3/12e volume 4 of 4 plan 9.0/1 and CD/PA5/12e volume 4 of 4 plan 9.0/1].

2.2 The applications [CD/PA3/1-8 and CD/PA5/1-8] are in outline form and each is accompanied by a site plan, a layout drawing in the form of a Master Plan, drawings for the proposed means of access (from Meadway and Bessemer Drive) and a land use budget. They are also accompanied by a considerable amount of descriptive material included in the Environmental Information that informed the Environmental Impact Appraisal of both pairs of applications [CD/PA3/9-15 and CD/PA5/9-15]. Further Environmental Information was variously requested by Stevenage Borough Council on 5 December 2001 and by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 7 April and 30 April 2003 in Directions made under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 [CD/PA3/22a and CD/PA5/22a]. This further information, including accordingly revised Master Plans, was provided before the opening of the Inquiry [CD/PA3/16-36 and CD/PA5/16-36, and summary at WSC/PRO/1, paragraphs 2.11.1-2.11.8]. It has been the subject of consultation and publicity processes. Revised Master Plans were submitted during the Inquiry to address certain criticisms made during the course of evidence [CD/PA3/16C and CD/PA5/16C]. The changes involved are of a relatively minor nature and since no third party interests would thus be prejudiced, I have taken account of these revised plans and the Environmental Information, as supplemented, in considering the proposals and making my recommendations. All is, however, of an illustrative nature only. Subject to general compliance with the respective Master Plans (which do not depart significantly from those on which the Environmental Impact Assessment has been based) details of design, siting, external appearance and landscaping remain as reserved matters. Only details of means of access fall to be determined at this stage. Planning Applications booklets contain all the details relevant to each application [CD/PA3/1a-8 and CD/PA5/1-8], with up-to-date lists of substituted drawings, and the drawings themselves, are also included as core documents [CD/PA3/37 and CD/PA5/37].

2.3 Further Notices under Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 were served on O2(UK) Ltd on 17 May 2004. No representations were received [CD/PA3/38 and CD/PA5/38].

2.4 At the Pre-Inquiry Meeting, Hertfordshire County Council voiced concern that the Inquiry would inevitably stray into matters that could only be determined in a different and wider forum [CD/IPD/4, paragraphs 3.1-3.2]. It was accepted, however, that the applicant was entitled to decisions on the applications and that the Inquiry should proceed accordingly [CD/IPD/1, annex I]. In the light of continuing concern expressed by the County Council at the potential breadth of evidence on housing capacity, a “scoping session” was held involving advocates of the main Inquiry participants. This was conducted in public on 27 February with an agenda [CD/IPD/5] and minutes

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 8

[CD/IPD/7], which record the limitations that I set on housing capacity evidence. The Inquiry progressed accordingly.

3 The Site and Surroundings

3.1 The site lies between Junction 7 (to the south) and Junction 8 (to the north) on the west side of the A1(M) motorway-standard trunk road [CD/PA3/19, figure 1 and CD/PA5/19, figure 1]. This road physically separates the applications site and other open countryside to the west from the main built up area of Stevenage, to the east. The site is an area of predominantly arable farmland and pastures extending in all to some 281 ha. It mostly occupies land that rises gently westwards to a plateau forming the upper eastern edge of the Langley valley, through which the B656 Hitchin to Codicote route runs on a broadly parallel alignment to the A1(M). To the north, the site includes part of the gently sloping southern side of the Almshoe valley which, like the Langley valley, is part of the typically undulating rural landscape on this side of Stevenage. A line of pylons traverses the northern extremity of the site in the vicinity of Todd’s Green where, just beyond the site, there is also a small cluster of houses, small-holdings and farmsteads to the north east of Lucas’s Wood. The southern part of the site includes the Norton Green Landfill [CD/PA3/12e and CD/PA5/12e, volume 4 of 4, plan 9.0/5] and encircles (but does not include) a travellers’ site and Transco High Pressure Gas Main compound on three sides [plan at CD/MISC/12] and CD/WSC/PRO/19C, foreground of photograph I]. Also included within the site is a small area of land to the east of the A1(M), containing playing field and highway land (required to establish the proposed Meadway access) [CD/PA3/1a-8 and CD/PA5/1-8 drawing 8059-66-A].

3.2 Beyond the site to the south is the small settlement of Norton Green, with Newton Wood and Knebworth Park further to the south [CD/PA3/19, figure 1 and CD/PA5/19, figure 1]. To the west of the site is Dyes Farm and further to the south west is the village of Langley. Also to the west, alongside the B656 at Rush Green, are a small private airfield and a scrapyard. Coney Cottages (one of which is now known as Hillside House) border the site further to the north, a little to the north of which is Almshoebury Farm. This occupies a ridge approximating to the divide between the Langley and Almshoe valleys. The village of St Ippollitts (of which there are various spellings) is to the north west.

3.3 There are at present five existing access points between the site and Stevenage itself, across the A1(M). The first commences as a residential estate road within the Fishers Green area of Stevenage and passes over a road bridge to run alongside a section of the northern tip of the site, continuing through open countryside to Todd’s Green. The second is a pedestrian underpass from the Symond’s Green residential area of Stevenage, joining directly to the extensive public rights of way network within the site and surrounding countryside. The third is known as Meadway and effectively extends off the western end of Redcar Drive past a small group of prefabricated houses known as Cartref. Beyond Cartref the exiting access on the Stevenage side, consists of a narrow concrete road looping around the outside of some existing playing fields, past a small car park and continuing under A1(M). On the far side of A1(M), this road turns southwards to a gated field access. A westerly spur, which is unsurfaced, carries on across the central part of the site before leading on down the side of the Langley valley to Rush Green. Further to the south is the fourth access, which is a westward extension of Bessemer Drive. This also crosses beneath the A1(M) in an underpass, where it then bifurcates. The northern limb serves as the main vehicular access to the Norton Green Landfill Site, the travellers’ site and the Transco High Pressure Gas Main compound, while the southern limb serves as the main vehicular access to the settlement of Norton

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 9

•

•

•

Green itself. The fifth and southernmost access is at Six Hills Way, and consists of a pedestrian tunnel beneath the A1(M), forming a direct link between Norton Green and Stevenage.

3.4 Stevenage itself is a new town, originally developed mainly during the 1950s and 1960s and lying wholly to the east of A1(M). It has now grown to a population of some 80,000 [CD/WSC/PRO/10A, appendix 11] and has become one of the largest settlements in Hertfordshire. It lies to the east of Luton, north of Welwyn Garden City and south of Hitchin and Letchworth. The residential areas of the town take the form of discrete residential neighbourhoods, with the older houses mainly grouped around short culs-de-sac served by a comprehensive network of distributor roads and segregated footpaths and cycleways [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, page 20A and figure 9, page 42A]. The pedestrianised town centre includes a wide range of modern shops, together with a large modern arts centre, a police station, fire station, bus station and library and all of the other facilities and services that would be expected of a town of this size. The railway station is to the west side of the town centre, and this is served by the main north-south London-Cambridge railway line. Further to the west of the town centre, between the railway line and the A1(M), are the main industrial and employment areas. These are arranged largely in a long, narrow corridor to the west side of Gunnels Wood Road, south of Meadway and continuing southwards beyond Six Hills Way. On the northern edge of the town, just to the east of Junction 8 on the A1(M) is the Lister Hospital. This is a sizeable and modern General Hospital [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 1].

4. The Development Plan Background

4.1 At the opening of the Inquiry, the statutory development plan for the area included:

the Hertfordshire Structure Plan Review 1991-2011, approved April 1998 (SP1998) [CD/DP/1d].

the Stevenage District Plan 1990, adopted November 1994 (SDP1994) and covering the period 1990-2001 [CD/DP/8a].

the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 2 with Alterations, adopted in April 1996 (NHDLP1996) and covering the period 1991-2001 [CD/DP/6].

4.2 SP1998 [CD/DP/1d] was produced to respond to the 1994 version of Regional Planning Guidance for the South East. New Regional Planning Guidance for the South East was adopted in March 2001 (RPG9). It includes Hertfordshire and covers the period to 2016 [CD/RPG/1b, paragraphs 1.1-1.5 and 1.8-1.9]. However, Hertfordshire changed regions in 2000 and became part of the East of England Region. New Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England (RPG14) is at consultation stage [CD/RPG/6] and is unlikely to be published in its final form until 2005 [CD/IPD/4, paragraph 1.1]. It will cover the period 2001-2021. In the interim, RPG9 [CD/RPG/1b] provides the currently approved regional framework for Hertfordshire and, in normal circumstances, SP1998 would require updating in accordance with it.

4.3 Indeed, in 2000 HCC commenced a review to roll forward SP1998 from 2001 to 2016 and published a second stage deposit version of proposed Alterations in March 2003 (SP2003). However, Government Office for the Eastern Region made representations and advised that the Alterations should not continue in advance of, and in addition to, current work on draft RPG14 [CDWSC/PRO/10A, appendix 10]. On 20 May 2003, HCC therefore resolved to postpone the holding of an Examination in Public of the

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 10

Structure Plan Alterations (originally envisaged to be held in or about September of that year). It was further resolved to continue background work on the Alterations while keeping progress on the draft RPG14 under review [Minute appended to CD/IPD/4]. As such, SP2003 has not been abandoned and remains a material consideration in the determination of these applications.

4.4 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (which received Royal Assent just as closing speeches were about to be delivered at the Inquiry and came into effect while this report was being drafted) has a bearing in this respect. This is because it may now be anticipated that draft RSS/RPG14 [CD/RPG/6] will emerge as a “new style” Regional Spatial Strategy. Whatever the case may be, it will be informed by a range of other strategies and studies. These include the Regional Economic Strategy produced by the East of England Development Agency and the Government’s Sustainable Communities plan, which itself identifies four areas within which growth should be concentrated. Two of these affect Hertfordshire, namely the London, Stansted, Cambridge Growth Area and the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Growth Area [CDWSC/PRO/10A, appendix 4]. Of particular note, however, is that under the new regime a Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) would supplant both Regional Planning Guidance and Structure Plan processes and have statutory development plan status. In the interim, SP1998 remains as part of the development plan for up to a 3 year period during which it is “saved” and RPG9 has also become part of the statutory development plan for Hertfordshire in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Initial Regional Spatial Strategy)(England)Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No.2206).

4.5 Both SDP1994 and NHDLP1996 pre-date SP1998 and, like SP1998 itself, also pre-date a range of current National Planning Guidance, particularly Planning Policy Guidance Notes 3 “Housing”, 12 “Development Plans”, 13 “Transport” and 17 “Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation”. North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) commenced work on the preparation of a replacement Local Plan (the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 3) shortly after approval of SP1998. However, following publication of PPG3 the deposit draft was withdrawn in December 2000 to allow an urban capacity study to be carried out in line with PPG3 advice. With the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 now in force, NHDC envisages the preparation of a Local Development Framework to a timetable running about 6-9 months behind that of RSS/RPG14 [NHDC/PRO/1, paragraph 9.8]. Stevenage Borough Council (SBC) similarly took approval of SP1998 as the starting point for the Stevenage District Plan Second Review 1991-2011(SDP2004) but persevered notwithstanding the publication of PPG3. By the close of the Inquiry, this had progressed to modifications stage following receipt of the Inspector’s report into objections.

4.6 Importantly for the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (formerly Section 54A of the Town and County Planning Act 1990), SP1998 and SDP2004 include specific provisions for housing development at Stevenage West [CD/ DP/1d, policies 8 and 9 and Volume 2 of CD/DP/9h, Stevenage West Chapter]. However, SP2003 and NHDLP1996 do not, while RPG/RSS14 (like RPG9) is silent on the subject.

4.7 In view of the specific reference to the site in SP1998, HCC, SBC and NHDC collaborated in the production of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) to guide development here. This was published independently by the respective Local Authorities shortly before the first pair of outline applications were submitted. Although it is therefore in three separate volumes [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)] each is identical in

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 11

substantive content. The SPG contains 46 Master Planning Principles, formulated to guide the decision making process for Stevenage West [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii), Section 1]. The SPG derives out of SP1998 and is consistent with it, and it has been prepared in the proper manner. In line with paragraph 3.16 of PPG12, it is therefore a further material consideration in the determination of the applications. Among other things the Master Planning Principles require efficient use of the land to meet the needs of all sections of the future community [MP1] and that the new development takes the form of a series of inter-linked urban villages, each having a mixed use centre within which local facilities will be concentrated [MP2].

5. The Proposals

5.1 The proposals as illustrated in the submitted Master Plans [CD/PA3/16C and CD/PA5/16C] are for a new Stevenage “neighbourhood” in the form of a linear development focussed on three new “urban villages” arranged along a central transport spine (CTS) [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19 illustration at top of page 20A and figure 3]. This spine would link with the existing road network of Stevenage via a new underpass at Meadway and a redesigned underpass at Bessemer Drive [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figures 14 and 15]. Although the CTS would extend northwards towards Todd’s Green and Fishers Green, vehicular access to Stevenage Road here would be for emergency use only. Other existing accesses, including that at Meadway, would be retained for non-vehicular use [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 9].

5.2 Each of the “urban villages” would include retail and community uses. The largest would be the main mixed use centre close to the Meadway access. Provision would be made here for primary and secondary schools. The smaller centres, to the north and south, would also each have a primary school associated with them [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 5]. Employment land would be provided in four locations close to the A1(M) while the main open space provision would be a linear park along the western side of the site, sports pitches to the north near Todd’s Green, and more sports pitches close to the travellers’ site further to the south [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 21]. There would also be land retained for nature conservation purposes together with an area of allotments, land for a cemetery and a green composting site. A mix of dwelling types and sizes would be provided [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 7], including affordable housing, special needs housing and housing for key workers. Up to 50 dwellings embodying experimental construction and design (modular, green roof systems, renewable energy and grey water recycling) would be phased into the affordable housing provision. Funding for necessary off-site works and facilities is also proffered including for measures to maximise bus usage, ensure sufficient highway capacity [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 13], secure suitable emergency service provision, expand the library service and protect wildlife interests. This would be supplemented by measures to encourage future occupiers to adopt sustainable practices in waste recycling and to ensure that the development would be energy efficient. All of these matters would be dealt with by proposed planning conditions and S106 planning Obligation.

5.3 After the applications for 5,000 dwellings (PA5) were submitted, HCC advised that it would regard any proposal in excess of 3,600 dwellings as being in excess of the SP1998 housing requirement for the period 1991-2011. WSC does not accept that contention, but submitted the applications for 3,600 dwellings (PA3) in response. The two pairs of applications are now advanced on the basis that PA3 represents the first phase of PA5. Nonetheless, if the view is taken that development should not exceed 3,600 dwellings

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 12

and that there should be no commitment to further development post 2011, PA3 has also been formulated to stand independently [CD/WSC/OPEN, paragraph 51].

5.4 It is envisaged that development would be phased over a number of years [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, pages89A and 90B]. As originally intended, 3,600 dwellings could be completed by 2011, and 5,000 dwellings by 2014, with associated facilities being rolled out in tandem over the construction period. [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 28]. However, assuming that the applications are not determined until mid 2005, construction would now be unlikely to begin before the latter part of 2006, with completions following from Spring 2007 onwards. On that basis, a probable figure for completions before April 2011 would be about 1,700 dwellings given a completion rate of some 400 per year [CD/WSC/PRO/1, paragraphs 2.13.6 – 2.13.11].

6. Common Ground and general positions adopted by the parties represented at the Inquiry

6.1 Given the breadth of subject matter involved, the parties found it impractical to produce a Statement of Common Ground to inform the scope of evidence before the Inquiry opened. The parties did, however, contribute to a Statement of Common Ground that was compiled in parallel with the Inquiry itself [CD/IPD/3]. This is only a partial document, not least because it has neither been revised nor edited following questioning of the various witnesses. It should not therefore be regarded as a summary of the positions reached during the Inquiry on any particular subject, but rather as a compendium of the broad areas of agreement and dispute over the proposals as a whole.

6.2 That said, a close working relationship has developed between WSC and the three Local Planning Authorities involved over the years following identification of Stevenage West in SP1998, with a view to advancing the proposals on a collaborative basis. This included the Garden City 21 programme of technical and public consultation, which involved a series of community and technical seminars, focus groups, workshop, hands on planning sessions and conferences. A Local Visioning Conference formed the central focus of the Garden City 21 programme with the intention of working together towards establishing a shared vision for the new development [CD/GAR/2, CD/GAR/ 4, CD/GAR/5 and CD/GAR/6 and CD/GAR.C/1 and CD/GAR.C/2].

6.3 In particular, a range of Topic Groups and Sub-Groups was established to consider suitable approaches to the main development components. These included Social Infrastructure, Transport, Resources, Design, Development Processes and Environment [CD/IPD/3, tab 2]. Contributors included not only WSC, HCC, SBC and NHDC but also other interested parties including The Commission for New Towns, statutory bodies and more local organisations and groups. The Topic Groups met regularly during the period 1998-2000 [CD/TOP/1, 2 and 3], effectively until the final run-up to the submission of PA5. Discussions and negotiations resumed only as the Inquiry approached but continued throughout its duration, particularly in relation to traffic and travel considerations and matters to be included in Section 106 Obligations relating to affordable housing and a wide range of community infrastructure. If the development is to take place, WSC and the three Local Authorities share a common desire to achieve a scheme that represents an exemplar of putting sustainability principles into practice. There is thus a good measure of agreement over many of the matters that need to be resolved in bringing development to fruition. In reporting the cases for the respective parties on these detailed matters, I therefore focus primarily on arguments that remained unresolved at the close of the Inquiry.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 13

6.4 In essence, however, the main area of dispute is one of principle, with WSC arguing that development would accord with existing and emerging planning strategy, meet important housing needs, create a sustainable community and contribute to the regeneration of Stevenage New Town. HCC and NHDC counter that there is no need to release the land for housing development, particularly having regard to its relationship to the Green Belt, a view supported by a Local Amenity Group known as the Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion (CASE). SBC is, however, supportive of the proposal subject to being assured that expected local benefits would materialise. Other participants in the Inquiry have a narrower focus. The Highways Agency (HA) has a safeguarding interest in the A1(M) and its approaches, London Luton Airport Operations Ltd (LLAOA) main concern is to ensure that development does not compromise the future growth potential of the airport, while Gabriel Securities has an investment interest in land fronting Bessemer Drive, which gives rise to traffic and environmental objections. A further Rule 6 party was Bellway Homes/AMEC Developments who have an interest in a competing site north of Stevenage. However, the objection by this party was transferred to written representations before the Inquiry opened [CD/RULE/8 and CD/LET/46].

The Evidence to the Inquiry 7. Affordable and Special Needs Housing Policies 7.1 RPG9 seeks to secure a range of dwelling types and sizes to meet the needs of all sectors

of the community and to promote balanced communities, with affordable housing provided to meet locally assessed need [CD/RPG/1b, policy H4].

7.2 In draft RSS/RPG14, policy provision would be made to secure an annual average rate of

supply of affordable housing of at least 7,200 dwellings in the Eastern Region. If total annual housing provision exceeds 23,900 dwellings, however, affordable housing would be required to constitute at least 30% of the total [CD/RPG6, policies SS13 and H2].

7.3 Both SP1998 and SP2003 say that the type and level of affordable housing will be

identified from Local Authority housing needs surveys and housing strategies, with targets to be indicated in Local Plans [CD/DP/1d and CD/DP/2f, policies 10]. The provision of housing for those with physical disabilities and other special needs is to be considered in both market and affordable housing proposals [policies 11].

7.4 NHDLP1996 includes a requirement that, for the District as a whole, 25% of new

dwellings on sites of 20 or more houses are to be affordable units for local people in need. The proportion may, however, vary from site to site according to a number of criteria [CD/DP/6, policy 29A]. SDP1994 includes a range of policies aimed at securing specific types of housing in specific locations to meet various needs [CD/DP8a, policies H6-H11]. It adopts a welcoming stance towards proposals for affordable housing and seeks to negotiate for “a significant proportion of affordable housing for local need only” on sites over 5ha.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 14

7.5 The SDP1994 approach to special needs housing is carried forward, with minor proposed modifications, into SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d, policies H11 and H12 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1page 77 of 111 in which policies H13 and H14 would be deleted and H12 modified]. Policy for affordable housing would, however, be modified to include a requirement that at least 20% of dwellings on sites for 25 houses or more, or 1 ha or more, are affordable and that 2-5% will be for other types of affordable tenure [policy TW15 as proposed to be modified in CD/DP/9h, volume 1]. Stevenage West is identified as a potential site for affordable housing provision and the manner in which such housing is to be secured is also specified [policies TW16 and TW17 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1]. In the Stevenage West Chapter of SDP2004 policy SW3 requires, among other things, that the development proposals provide affordable housing in accordance with an up-to-date housing needs survey, and a mix of housing in term of density, size and tenure. Policy SW12 stipulates that a minimum of 25% of the total number of dwellings on the site should be for affordable housing.

7.6 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)], MP14 seeks

provision for a mix of house types, tenures and sizes spread throughout the community. Main points of the case for the West of Stevenage Consortium 7.7 The present shortage of affordable housing is having a detrimental effect on the delivery

of public services and economic development in the County, particularly in relation to housing for key workers. This is recognised in a range of evidence [CD/SBC/16, CD/FOLLETT/PRO/1] including, in particular, HCC’s Key Worker Housing Strategy [CD/HCC/17] which says:

“Employers in Hertfordshire have been experiencing increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff. Whilst the most significant concerns are in the areas of national skills shortage, the problem in Hertfordshire is exacerbated by the high cost of living in the County and house prices in particular. This is having a detrimental effect on the delivery of public services and economic development. Solutions must be found if Hertfordshire is to have thriving sustainable communities”.

7.8 It is intended that Stevenage West would provide a wide range of dwelling types to

ensure a balanced community in terms of age, income, household composition and tenure. In particular, as an extension to a major urban area within a growth area and having established transport and communication facilities, either of the PA3 or PA5 schemes would present a unique opportunity to deliver a substantial quantity of affordable housing. This would be in a sustainable location and of a range of types that policies at all levels seek to secure [CD/AFF/5, pages 3,5 and 8, SDP2004 policy H15 with CD/DP/9e, volume 1 paragraph 3.275 and 3.300 endorsement and CD/AFF/7].

7.9 Following discussions with the three Councils, WSC proposes that 27.5% of housing on

the site would be affordable, 2.5% of which (125 units in PA5 and 90 units in PA3) would be “ring fenced” to provide HCC with the opportunity to secure dwellings for households that also have special needs. For the PA5 scheme, total affordable housing provision would amount to 1,375 affordable homes and for the PA3 scheme it would amount to 990 affordable homes, thus making Stevenage West one of the largest schemes for the provision of affordable housing in the country. The requirements have emerged from discussions with the Housing Corporation and have been subject to

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 15

consultation with relevant Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) who have shown considerable enthusiasm and support [CD/SBC/PRO/2(1)].

7.10 The necessary land would be offered by WSC to Registered Social Landlords at a 40%

discount to its open market value, as each phase of development proceeds and in clusters of no more than 30 dwellings. It would then be for the RSLs and the two District Councils to determine how the affordable housing would be provided. Precise needs and funding are both likely to vary during the period of development, so the S106 planning Obligation has been drafted to provide for considerable flexibility in both respects. It is anticipated that this framework would enable RSLs and the Local Planning Authorities to work strategically with the Regional Housing Board and Housing Corporation to secure funding.

7.11 It is not the case that public grant funding would need to represent 100% of the total Cost

Index as intimated in NHDC submissions, since grant generally amounts to only 60-65%, the rest being raised as a loan by the relevant RSL. While the Housing Corporation’s priorities for funding schemes may also change [CD/AFF/9a, b and c], the primary motivation behind abolition of Local Authority Standard Housing Grant was to avoid cash-rich District Council’s recycling Central Government funding for affordable housing. It would no longer be possible for Local Authorities to reclaim this money in the form of grant, but it would still be available to RSLs directly from the Housing Corporation. Whatever the case may be, Housing Corporation funding is increasingly moving towards larger schemes that enable it to exercise greater control over what is being spent and how.

7.12 Key worker housing is more appropriately referred to generally as intermediate housing

rather than affordable housing, because it may require less subsidy and involve different tenure patterns. For example, if the need is to provide accommodation to attract business personnel relocating to the area, it may not be necessary for tenure to be permanently controlled. RSL rental charges may contribute towards any shortfall in subsidy, as may cross-subsidisation from other phases or schemes. Furthermore, the NHDC Housing Strategy 2004-2007 says that capital receipts generated by the sale of its own Council housing stock to an RSL have generated some £20m for investment in capital housing schemes, so the Housing Corporation would not be the only source of funding available to RSLs. While it is envisaged that, at least to some extent, the affordable housing would be funded by the Housing Corporation, provision would not therefore be reliant upon such funding.

7.13 If nominated RSLs are unable to secure the necessary funding or decide not to take up

the offer, then the S106 planning Obligation has been drafted to provide a menu of 8 alternatives. These include offering less land but at a greater discount, making the land available to a wider range of RSLs for a limited period. Alternatively, it would provide for discounted sale to key workers, letting to key workers or at a social rent for fixed periods, a cash contribution to subsidise other phases, discounted sale to a special needs organisation, or sale to an approved group of self-builders [CD/MISC/11e]. It is important to note that this is not a sequential cascade of options, and that any one could be chosen in preference to another. There is also the opportunity for the Local Authorities to consider alternative funding mechanisms, for example by exploring what can be achieved through land costs and/or Private Finance Initiatives. None would be as satisfactory as provision in the manner proposed before this menu of other options is triggered, but would entail less public subsidy and enable a suitable solution to be found

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 16

in each case. The approach is fully compliant with the advice in Circular 6/98 [CD/GOV/2, paragraph 33(c)]. The Housing Corporation has seen a copy of the draft S106 planning Obligation and there has been no indication that it is not content [CD/MISC/16]. Despite continuing changes in the funding regime, there is thus a very good prospect that 27.5% of the housing provided on the site would be affordable. The affordable housing provision would not only meet appropriate policy criteria, but as identified by the SP1998 EIP Panel [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 5.36], would also be an important and significant benefit of the proposal, which points strongly in favour of enabling early implementation of the Stevenage West development.

7.14 Having thus agreed the provision in quantitative terms, it is for HCC, SBC and NHDC

rather than the developer to determine the nature of the special needs component and how it should be addressed. That accords with the relevant SP1998, NHDLP1996 and SDP2004 policies, which are all promulgated on the basis of meeting needs that prevail at the time detailed proposals are formulated [CD/DP/1d, policy 11, page 62, CD/DP/6 policy 29A, page 21, and CD/DP/9d policies H12 and H13 page 33 and paragraphs 3.54 and 3.55 as proposed to be modified by CD/DP/9h page 77 of 111]. As such, they would be matters to be agreed between HCC, SBC and NHDC at detailed stage for each phase. HCC nonetheless still seeks specific provision for a children’s home, for private sheltered accommodation and for a private nursing home.

7.15 In these respects, it is the duty under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 of the District

Councils to take account of the housing needs of the area. Section 23 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on the County Council to provide for children and Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 places a duty on the County Council to also provide accommodation for those with special needs. It is accepted that SP1998 policy 11 and SDP2004 policy H12 refer to special needs provisions. There is no equivalent policy in NHDLP1996, but policy MP14 in the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)] also embraces special needs provision. However, there is nothing in this policy structure beyond that falling within the normal scope of affordable and special needs housing. There is thus no policy justification for requiring what HCC seeks, which would effectively be institutional uses not falling within any of the policy provisions or in the glossary definition in the Master Planning Principles SPG. Policy MP14 does not in any event specifically require provision to be made on site. It could equally be made elsewhere in Stevenage for example. Moreover, the policy does not insist upon provision, the wording being “expects”. A children’s home and a nursing home would also not fall within Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and as such would fall outside the scope of the present applications. All that could therefore be provided would be a site for such provision and this, WSC contends, would be unreasonable. In terms of SDP2004 policy H12, it would also be dependent upon prior identification of need.

7.16 HCC has not submitted any evidence of need for the 6 place children’s home on the site

and it seems from cross-examination that this figure was arrived at simply on the basis of the operational economics. Indeed, the anticipated need for a development of the size proposed would be 1.4 children for PA3 and 1.9 children for PA5 [HCC/PRO/2A appendix 9]. It must be the case that some community needs will be represented in such small amounts that it would be unreasonable to require WSC to seek to meet them. Any need that does exist, on a County wide basis, could be satisfied anywhere within the County and is not dependent solely upon provision within the applications site. A children’s home would not be a good neighbour to residential development

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 17

[CD/AFF/10]. HCC is in any event seeking to secure funding for three new homes in the County through Private Finance Initiatives and has identified 9 potentially suitable sites. The anticipated surplus of education land claimed by HCC in support of its housing capacity analysis and of two homeless hostels within the next 8 years also suggest that further sites may be relatively simple to find in the future.

7.17 Provision of private sheltered accommodation is a matter for the private sector in the

light of market demand, and could likewise be provided off-site. There is no quantitative or locational need at Stevenage West for this or for a private nursing home, the only evidence to the Inquiry on the latter subject intimating that provision had increased in the County between 2000 and 2001 [CD/AFF/11 paragraph 3.1].

7.18 These requirements of HCC, effectively to sterilise about 1.5ha of land at Stevenage

West for a children’s home and further land for private care homes for the elderly, are not therefore based on need as required by policy H12. They are also unreasonable in terms of paragraph B13 of Annex B to Circular 1/97.

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council 7.19 While the major part of the applications site lies within North Hertfordshire District,

proximity to Stevenage means that the main beneficiary of affordable housing provision would be Stevenage Borough. The provision of adequate affordable housing is also regarded as a very important requirement for Stevenage. SBC has broadly reached agreement with WSC on the level of provision and on the delivery process, as set out in the proffered Section 106 planning Obligation.

7.20 In effect, the Obligation would provide for the affordable housing land in each phase of

development to be offered at 40% discount to two RSLs with the option for WSC to retain the building contract for its construction. A broad range of other options is included in the event that neither of the two RSLs can secure the necessary funding. Nevertheless, the ideal option is to provide the affordable housing in the numbers and form preferred by the Councils but this may require the input of additional public grant, the availability of which is always likely to be uncertain. By allowing each of the Councils to decide which route it wants to take, a suitable solution should always be found.

7.21 Stevenage policy was subject of extensive debate during the SDP2004 Inquiry in 2002.

The Inspector’s recommendation was that 22% was a reasonable minimum level that was likely to be achievable on the majority of sites [CD/DP/9e, volume 1 of 2, paragraph 3.298 on page 179] and it is intended to modify the plan for adoption accordingly. SBC is therefore also content with the proposed quantum of affordable housing.

7.22 If the scheme is to be kept within 100% of the 2004/5 Total Cost Indicator (TCI) for an

average 76 sq m house assuming a guaranteed cost of £1,000 per sq m, an RSL making the full on-cost deduction would be able to afford to pay about £28,693 for a serviced plot in Stevenage Borough. This would increase to about £38,728 in North Herts (because TCIs are set at a higher level in North Hertfordshire, reflecting higher property values). This compares with the discounted price for a serviced plot, which is believed to be approximately £28,708, but the figures are a ‘snap-shot’ assessment that will vary over time according to a number of factors [CD/SBC/PRO/2 appendix A]. Some

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 18

schemes in Stevenage Borough may have difficulty in paying discounted land value, but in North Hertfordshire the figure is well within, so is set at about the right level. There can, however, be no guarantee that schemes would be funded at 100% TCI by the Housing Corporation. Nonetheless, the figures also assume all provision would be subsidised rented housing, which is the most expensive in grant terms. Since there would be other forms of tenure (shared ownership, discounted purchase and intermediate rented) generating higher incomes, the level of subsidy required for these would be less.

7.23 Special needs housing is a requirement of the County Council rather than the Districts,

Provision is proposed at a ratio of 2.5% , which is included within the 27.5% figure for affordable housing on the site as a whole. This would equate to 90 units for PA3 and 125 units for PA5. This should be sufficient to meet HCC requirements for need generated by the scheme, and such provision would be a matter for negotiation between the partnership of Authorities and RSLs involved. While it is acknowledged that HCC would not have determining powers, it would not be good partnership to exclude HCC requirements.

7.24 HCC is incorrect to assert that the Housing Corporation will not make funding available

to schemes negotiated through the S106 planning Obligation process. While the Corporation’s philosophy has increasingly sought to secure more affordable dwellings for less public money, this simply reflects a trend to work with a select fewer number of Housing Associations that operate more pro-actively. There have also been other changes including, for example, a greater emphasis on key-worker housing influenced by ODPM and Treasury. Discussions with the Housing Corporation indicate a more flexible attitude towards grant funding of suitable schemes and although the precise position is still emerging, there is no reason to believe that funding in the manner anticipated would not be available for Stevenage West. In any event, the menu of options included in the S106 planning Obligation would ensure suitable provision whatever the level of grant. The various Housing Associations consulted are also supportive of the arrangements proposed to deliver affordable housing on the site [SBC/PRO/2/(1)].

Main points of the case for Hertfordshire County Council 7.25 The County Council has statutory duties to provide accommodation for various

categories of people in need that extend beyond the duties of the District Councils. These duties are contained in Section 21 of the National Assistance Act and include provision for the elderly, the disabled, and those whose needs are not met in other ways.

7.26 Section 8 of the Housing Act [CD/GOV/32] further requires each Local Authority to

plan to meet its housing needs as identified by a needs assessment. Those surveys generally identify a wide range of pressing needs, among which Local Authorities have to set priorities. However, when schemes come forward that may contribute to meeting those needs, HCC is only a consultee and not the determining planning authority. Only option (g) in the menu provided by the S106 planning Obligation [CD/MISC/11e] bears directly on special needs housing of the type HCC is required to provide. That option is but one of a number that become available if the initial offer to two RSLs is not taken up, and even then there can be no guarantee that SBC or NHDC would select that option in preference to others that meet their own needs.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 19

7.27 In order to ensure that Stevenage West would create a balanced and inclusive community in accordance with Master Plan policy MP14 [CD/SPG/1], it is necessary to make provision for these special needs. That point has never been in contention with WSC. Such provision is envisaged in the applications [CD/PA3/10 and CD/PA5/10 page 40, paragraph 6.80] and should be broadly in proportion to that with which such groups are found in the wider community. While HCC is content that the 2.5% provision within the affordable housing total of 27.5% is sufficient in quantitative terms, the focus of its concern is to ensure that the required special needs housing is actually delivered. In this context, HCC considers that the S106 planning Obligation should include a positive commitment providing special needs housing rather than simply offering it as one of a range of options. It should provide for special needs housing to be provided in combination with other affordable housing needs within individual phases, rather than in single blocks of either special needs or affordable housing, as now. It should also establish a clear standing for HCC in the decision making process, although HCC expects to be able to work satisfactorily with SBC and NHDC in this respect.

Provision for children in care 7.28 In accordance with its statutory obligations, HCC requires that provision be made for the

needs of children in care and for the elderly. Although it is likely that a development of the size proposed would generate a need for only 2 children in care, HCC would wish to make provision on the site for 6. This is firstly because it is inefficient to make provision in smaller amounts and secondly because of resistance from communities elsewhere when seeking to introduce care homes into established residential areas [CD/AFF/10, for example]. It would be a subsidised housing/community facility but should not be bracketed with affordable housing because HCC provides children’s homes itself rather than through an RSL. HCC wants WSC to provide a site of sufficient size (about 0.15 ha) to avoid the risks of neighbour complaints, and HCC would then build the required accommodation and either expect WSC to contribute, or would compensate WSC depending on the actual nature and extent of provision and overall cost. While HCC is currently considering 9 sites in the County and has submitted bids for PFI funding (under which the private sector would undertake the capital cost of provision and HCC would obtain PFI credits to cover revenue expenditure), only 3 sites are likely to be needed, and the applications site is well placed to be one of those.

Provision for the elderly 7.29 HCC acknowledges that provision of sheltered accommodation for the elderly is

essentially a commercial decision for the private sector, but HCC has an interest in that it purchases places in such nursing homes and wishes to ensure an adequate supply of places. There is at present a supply of 6,492 nursing home beds in the County, serving a population of about one million [CD/AFF/1]. It may therefore be assumed, on a pro-rata basis, that PA5 would generate a need for 66 additional nursing home spaces. While the development may initially be mainly for young families, need for nursing home accommodation would inevitably grow over the years and it would not be possible to make provision once all the land has been developed. Land for a nursing home should therefore be reserved from the outset close to the proposed community centres.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 20

Affordable housing generally 7.30 HCC also proffers words of caution to the District Councils over the affordable housing

offer from WSC. Funding from the Housing Corporation would need to be huge, and would be central to delivery of affordable housing by RSLs. In effect, with PA5 the subsidy for land acquisition for 1,375 affordable dwellings alone would amount to some £20,000 per unit (assuming land cost at £1m per acre and 18-24 units per acre) or £27 m in total. However, the Housing Corporation has recently intimated that in future it will expect S106 planning Obligations to deliver affordable housing with little or no social housing grant. Rather, the intention is to make such schemes self-funding, so that public funding can be better used elsewhere [CD/AFF/9a, 9b and 9c]. There is also no valuation evidence to demonstrate that the offer from WSC is all that the development can afford. In this respect, it should be borne in mind that the site has an area of 132 ha and that WSC has set the land price at market value, some £2.5 m per ha [SBC/PRO/2 appendix A]. Several of the “menu options” also do not provide for the affordable housing to be available in perpetuity. Weight should be given to affordable housing provision only if there is a guarantee that it would actually be provided, and there is no guarantee that it would be provided in the quantity and type envisaged by SBC and NHDC here.

Main points of the case for North Hertfordshire District Council 7.31 The most recent Housing Needs Survey for North Hertfordshire District was carried out

in 2002 [CD/NHDC/3] and identified that there would be an annual shortfall of 357 affordable homes in the District. Over the 9 year period to 2011 this would amount to 3,212 homes. The report did not take account of provision on the applications site, but recommended seeking to negotiate towards achieving 35% on all suitable sites coming forward throughout the District. If PA5 were to be permitted, 1,375 homes would be provided at the agreed 27.5% ratio and if 72% were to be within North Hertfordshire District’s area (the rest in Stevenage Borough Council’s area) this would represent 1,000 homes. NHDC would be content with that number based on the 27.5% ratio rather than 35%. This is because the latter figure is contained only as a recommendation in a report that does not have any formal planning policy status. Moreover, because the S106 planning Obligations proffered in conjunction with PA3 and PA5 deal with a wider range of community benefits than affordable housing alone, it would be reasonable to apply the lower percentage figure in this case.

7.32 NHDC thus generally supports the WSC and SBC approach to affordable housing, but

has some reservations. 7.33 In particular, the SBC calculations [CD/SBC/PRO/2, appendix A] assume that Housing

Corporation funding will be at 100% of the Total Cost Index. If funding at that level is not available, affordable housing would need to be provided in a different form, or be funded in a different way. If RSLs are unable to secure Housing Corporation funding in the amount anticipated, less than half the quantity of affordable housing anticipated may actually be delivered, because provision would rely primarily upon the less satisfactory menu of alternative options included in the S106 planning Obligation. Indeed, even under the main approach agreed by WSC with SBC and NHDC, the Housing Corporation would need to fund the acquisition of 55% of the plots on the site and the construction costs of the dwellings on them at WSC’s going rate. This may typically be assumed to be about £1000 per square metre. In total, land and construction costs would

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 21

thus represent a very significant sum of public money, especially given that the developer contribution would amount to only 45% of the land cost.

8. Agriculture and Soils Policies 8.1 Draft RSS/RPG14 requires Local Authorities and other Agencies to formulate policies

that increase the landscape, historic and wildlife value of farmland, accommodate changes in agriculture, and encourage sustainable use of soil resources [CD/RPG6, policy ENV6].

8.2 SP1998 seeks to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land from development

[CD/DP/1d, policy 40]. This is supplemented in SP2003 with a requirement to protect, store and re-use top soil when development takes pace [CD/DP/2f, new policy on pages 86 and 87 and policy 40].

8.3 Both SDP1994 and SDP2004 also contain policies to avoid loss of high quality farmland

[CD/DP/8a, policy EN25 and CD/DP/9d, policies EN24 and SW11 with CD/DP/9h, volume 2].

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 8.4 Some 60% of the applications site is grade 3a agricultural land and 1.5% is grade 2, the

remainder being class 3b [WSC/PRO/8(i), table CPM1 on page 3]. The majority of the site therefore comprises land classified as “best and most versatile” [WSC/PRO/8 paragraph 2.5]. It should also be borne in mind that the County of Hertfordshire contains a relatively high proportion of land of this quality (48.8% compared to 38.8% in England as a whole [WSC/PRO/8 paragraph 2.7] albeit within the lowest of the two relevant categories.

8.5 DEFRA was consulted about the potential loss of agricultural land by Stevenage

Borough Council in 2001. While DEFRA was concerned to ensure the productive capability of the land continued as long as possible while development progressed, and suggested that the development be laid out in a way that would minimise “urban fringe” problems, it raised no objection in principle to the proposals [CD/WSC/PRO8(1]). This reflects the views of MAFF recorded in the SP1998 EIP report [CD/DP1b paragraph.5.79]:

“… the best grade 2 and 3 land is in the east of the county, and on balance Stevenage offered a better strategic option than scattered peripheral development, particularly in the east. Also, a large development that would affect fewer farms.”

8.6 This view was accepted by the EIP [CD/DP1b paragraph.5.82] in the following terms:

“There are few areas of the county where good quality agricultural land can be avoided, and a large development here could be less damaging in terms of fragmentation of farms than peripheral development in a number of locations.”

8.7 Circumstances have not since changed and there is no reason for a different conclusion

to be reached now in respect of the impact on productive farmland. Seen in the context

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 22

of the County as a whole, it is submitted that Stevenage West accords with PPG7 advice [WSC/PRO/8(i)A appendix 2] and it is significant that DEFRA does not suggest otherwise. The emerging PPS7 advises that the presence of best and most versatile agricultural land should be taken into account along with other considerations in determining planning applications. Evidence on the subject has not been proffered by other Inquiry participants and there is thus nothing to suggest that the impact of the proposed development on agricultural land would be unacceptable.

8.8 In terms of the effect on existing farm enterprises, five farms would lose land as a result

of the development [CD/PA3/11 and CD/PA5/11 drawing 12.0/1]. Three of these are owned freehold and therefore each would realise capital from the development for reinvestment elsewhere. One occupies land within the applications site on a non-secured tenancy. This land therefore cannot be regarded as an integral or long-term element of that farming business and all of the five farms would remain operational [CD/PA3/12h and CD/PA5/12h, paragraphs 4.12 – 4.28 and table 12.0/5 on page 19]. Only on farm would be extinguished altogether. That is a “hobby farm” of about 6.7 ha straddling Todd’s Green Road [CD/PA3/12h and CD/PA5/12h, paragraphs 4.29 – 4.30 and table 12.0/5 on page 19]. The effect of the proposed development on existing agricultural enterprises would not therefore be significant.

8.9 The development would proceed in phases [CD/PA3/9 and CD/PA5/9 figure 28 on page

90] thereby facilitating continued agricultural use of land until such time as development takes place as requested by DEFRA. Furthermore, the linear park would provide an effective transitional area between the edge of the proposed development and the agricultural land beyond, also as requested by DEFRA.

8.10 Soil quality is different from agricultural land quality. A soil management strategy has

been devised, which would enable most soil to be conserved for beneficial use within the applications site [CD/WSC/PRO/8(i), appendix 3].

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council 8.11 The agricultural land lost would be predominantly from within Grades 3a and 3b, with a

small proportion of Grade 2 totalling in all some 172.8 ha. The extent of this loss must be considered in the context of the availability of best and most versatile agricultural land in the County as a whole. That wider perspective led MAFF to accept the location as a strategic housing site [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 6.9.4]. SBC agrees that it is the need for development that justifies development in the countryside.

9. Archaeology and the Historic Environment

Policies

9.1 In line with extant and emerging Regional Guidance [CD/RPG/1b and CD/RPG/6], SP1998 policy 38 seeks to protect the County’s important environment assets. These include Parks and Gardens of Special Historical Interest whether included in the English Heritage Register or not, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other archaeological remains of both National and Local importance together with their settings. Also included are Listed Buildings and their settings and other buildings of architectural, archaeological or historic merit, Conservation Areas and other sites with historic associations. Policy 41 supports proposals that would result in improved management of

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 23

existing tree and hedge cover and militates against those that would result in a net loss of cover.

9.2 Policies 38 and 41 in SP2003 [CD/DP/2f] maintain a similar policy thrust, but the latter has been expanded to reflect the introduction of the Hedgerow Regulations [CD/GOV/5] and to place greater emphasis on long term management considerations.

9.3 SDP1994 [CD/DP/8a] and NHDLP1996 [CD/DP/6] likewise contain a range of policies formulated to protect Ancient Monuments and their settings, areas of archaeological significance, Listed Buildings, Historic Parks and Gardens and Conservation Areas. The SDP1994 policies are repeated largely without significant proposed modification in SDP2004 policies EN1, EN2, EN5, EN7, EN9, EN10, EN13 and EN16 [CD/DP/9d and CD/DP/9h, volume 2]. In the Stevenage West Chapter of SDP2004 policy SW3 requires, among other things, that the development proposals protect and provide management guidelines for features of archaeological interest on or adjacent to the site. Policy SW11requires that archaeological remains be retained, enhanced and integrated into the new development as far as possible.

9.4 In the Master Planning Principles Document [CD/SPG/1(i)-(iii)], MP38 says that features and remains of the historic environment will be assessed and, where appropriate, retained and/or enhanced according to their significance.

Common Ground and other relevant background

9.5 There are no Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Historic Parks, Gardens or Battlefields or Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the site. The site does, however, contain some noteworthy historic artefacts and there is a number of Listed Buildings close by, including Dyes Farmhouse, Almshoebury Farmhouse and a thatched cottage at Todds Green [CD/WSC/PRO/2A, plan CPM/H1]. Both NHDC and SBC, as the Local Planning Authorities, are content that potential archaeological impacts have been identified as far as is reasonable and their significance suitably defined [CD/PA3/12f, CD/PA3/22f, CD/PA5/12f, CD/PA5/22f], subject to more detailed definition at reserved matters stage. English Heritage has also confirmed that it has no comments to make on the subject [CD/WSC/PRO/2A, appendix 1].

Main points of the case for the West of Stevenage Consortium

9.6 An archaeological study was carried out and presented to the SP1998 EIP in 1997, when the EIP concluded that there was no archaeological constraint on the proposed developments [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 5.86]. Trial trenching in those parts of site considered most likely to be of archaeological interest was undertaken in 2001 and 2002 [CD/WSC/PRO/2A, plans CPM/H2 and H3]. Only the Roman Quarry [area A in plan CPM/H2] itself could be regarded as remains of national importance. Vestiges of activity beyond the edge of the quarry do not survive in good condition and are considered to be of local importance only. Other finds included a ditch and circular ring [area B in plan CPM/H2], the remains of an agricultural settlement [area C in plan CPM/H2], some medieval remains [area D in plan CPM3] and a section of Roman road [marked in yellow on plans CPM/H2 and H3]. These are variously of regional or local importance. All could be retained in situ, and it is considered that there is an extremely low likelihood that further nationally important remains would be found. The remains are sub-surface so there is no issue with regard to protection of their setting. In effect, the quarry would be preserved under an area of open space, and the majority of the Roman road would be incorporated within a green link and open space or as a road

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 24

within the development [CD/PA3/16b and CD/PA5/16b]. Other minor features would simply be recorded after archaeological excavation. Precise arrangements for this, and for monitoring during the construction phase, would be dealt with by planning conditions.

9.7 The location of the Listed Buildings in the vicinity of the site and the proposed landscaping would mean that the impact on views from these properties and their settings would be negligible and at worst transient until such time as proposed landscaping has matured.

9.8 The site contains a number of hedgerows [CD/WSC/PRO/2A, plan CPM/H1], some of which would qualify for protection under the provisions of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 [CD/GOV/5]. For the most part these would be retained. Some gappy sections would be lost but other parts would be replanted or have gaps filled and a proper regime of maintenance would be introduced as part of the landscaping details to be submitted. Some existing historic routes would also be lost but the majority would be retained. Only one (Shepherds Lane) has protection, under SDP1994 policy EN17 and SDP2004 policy EN16. It would be preserved on its present alignment, albeit this is different from it historic route [CD/WSC/PRO/2A, plan CPM/H1].

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council

9.9 SBC endorses the submissions made by WSC on this subject and notes that there has been no expert evidence submitted by any party to contradict it. SBC believes that the proposed development, with suitable conditions, would relate well to the advice and guidance in PPG15 [CD/PPG/11] and PPG16 [CD/PPG/12] both in relation to Listed Buildings and their settings, and to archaeology.

Main points of the case for Hertfordshire County Council

9.10 Although there is an element of disagreement between WSC and the HCC Archaeologist over the precise status of certain of the archaeological remains (whether of regional or local importance) no evidence was called by HCC to substantiate the County’s view.

10. Community services and other community facilities Policies 10.1 RPG9 includes policy to require that health, education and other social considerations

are fully taken into account in development planning [CD/RPG/1b policy Q6]. Draft RPG14 [CD/RPG/6] says that Local Development Documents will make provision for the land use need of health, education and social services providers in co-ordination with development [policy SS12]

10.2 SP2003 would introduce policy requiring that new health facilities be developed in

locations that further the aims of reducing travel need and encourage accessibility by public transport, walking and cycling [CD/DP2f, new policy on page 45].

10.3 SDP1994 policy SC5 requires that new developments in excess of 10 ha include

provision of social and community facilities commensurate with the scale of development [CD/DP/8a]. In major new developments where new neighbourhood centres are proposed, the provision of purpose built accommodation for doctors’ and dentists’ surgeries is required [policy SC13].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 25

• • • • • • • • • •

•

• •

10.4 As in policy SC5 of SDP1994, major new developments are required in SDP2004 to

provide social and community facilities of commensurate scale [CD/DP/9d policy SC5 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2]. Doctors’ and Dentists’ surgeries are also required in connection with major residential developments [policy SC13]. In the Stevenage West Chapter of SDP2004 Policies SW19 and SW20 detail the requirements for social and community facilities, policy SW21 for surgeries and clinics and accommodation for other health professionals, and policy SW22 for emergency services.

10.5 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)] MP24 requires

provision of a health centre of appropriate scale in the main centre. MP25 includes a similar requirement for a community centre (which, among other things, is to include a library facility) together with additional multi-purpose community centre provision in association with the local centres. MP22 requires a fire service facility close to the main centre with direct access to the Central Transport Spine road, that the community centre be designed to enable shared facilities with the police, and that the health centre be capable of shared use with ambulance services. Under MP26 separate childcare and youth facilities are to be provided adjacent to the community centres.

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 10.6 A topic infrastructure group was set up in April 1999, which incorporated a number of

sub-groups concerned with advancing specific infrastructure issues. Membership included the various Councils and representatives of other bodies including the police, the Health Authority and Churches Together in Stevenage. A comprehensive range of community facilities would be provided. These would include [CD/WSC/PRO/3, page 25 paragraph 3.3.3]:

A main Community Centre and two secondary community centres. A police and multi-agency room for Social Services. A youth facility. A financial contribution towards library provision. An ambulance stand-by point and rest room. A fire station facility. A contribution towards police station provision. Closed Circuit television security cameras. A multi-use games area. A sports Hall incorporating a health and fitness centre, a four court sports hall and changing facilities. Open space provision in the form of seven full-size football pitches, an all-weather floodlit full size football pitch, an all-weather floodlit club size hockey pitch, a cricket pitch/athletics track and associated sports pavilions, equipped play areas in the form of 5 NEAPs, 16 LEAPs and up to 50 LAPs and two areas of allotments [open space is the subject of section 27 of this report, below]. A cemetery and ancillary building. Sites for a health centre, a religious facility and a day nursery.

10.7 Although there is dispute as to the precise quantum and mechanism for provision of

some of these facilities [CD/NHDC/PRO/1(2)], there is no issue over the principle of provision.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 26

10.8 In particular, the main community centre (which may include facilities for the police and

other agencies) would be provided by the time of occupation of the 1000th dwelling, the second community centre by occupation of the 2000th dwelling, and the third centre by the 3000th dwelling. Temporary provision would be made in the interim. All could be two or three storeys, with residential or offices above, mainly for townscape reasons. The respective Local Planning Authorities have agreed the sizes of the community halls.

10.9 A Neighbourhood Trust would be set up to foster a sense of community and would

exercise much the same functions as a Parish or Town Council (but without formal status, for constitutional reasons). Alongside the Neighbourhood Trust would be a Management Company (as set out in the S106 planning Obligation) and each of the three “villages” would be likely also to have its own locally elected Village Management Board, from which the Neighbourhood Trust would draw representatives. WSC would also establish and fund a neighbourhood web site to provide community information.

10.10 The proposed youth facility (for 11-19 year olds) would be provided either as part of the

main Community Centre or in a separate building. This would be for use primarily after school and during school holidays. Although NHDC originally wanted external space to be associated with this facility, the requirement has since been dropped.

10.11 In addition to police and social services space being included in the main community

building, WSC would also make a financial contribution towards custody facilities at Stevenage and/or Hitchin Police Stations. With regard to provision for fire safety, the distribution of fire hydrants has been agreed but dispute remains over the need for a fire station on site. HCC’s requirement for a building of about 5,000 sq m derives from recently built fire stations at Boreham Wood and St Albans. The first of these is, however, a combined fire and ambulance station and the latter is for 6 fire appliances. The formula proposed in the S106 planning Obligation would provide for an independent expert to advise on fire service needs for Stevenage West. If the advice is that a new on-site facility would be needed, then WSC would provide one (land and building). This would be on a site of 0.28 ha and in a location and of a size sufficient to meet the needs of any part of the site that would otherwise be deficient in fire cover. Preliminary drawings included in the planning Obligation show a proposed building having an internal floor area of about 1,000 sq m. This would be sufficient to house 2 fire appliances.

Library provision 10.12 Provision for library facilities remains a significant area of disagreement with HCC,

potentially involving significant sums of money. HCC has a statutory duty under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 [CD/LIB/7] to provide an efficient library service throughout the County and that the Local Government Act 1999 adds best value requirements to that duty. In effect, the County Library Service is funded to the extent of some 60% by Government through the Standard Spending Assessment regime, and 40% by Council Tax. Against that background, the offer made by WSC to contribute £255,000 towards library provision (for the PA5 scheme, reduced pro-rata for PA3) is a generous one, and would be in addition to school library provision as part of the education contribution and other facilities for children within the community centres. It amounts to about £51 per dwelling (£20 per person) and is intended to cover:

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 27

•

•

•

provision of and equipping a resources room within the main community centre building;

provision of 3 hardstandings with electricity points enabling the HCC mobile library service to serve the main centre and the two local centres;

with any remaining balance being available for the mobile library or other library related purposes (CD/LIB/20).

10.13 Stevenage Central Library is well within 2 miles of at least part of the proposed

development. HCC does not require a new branch library at Stevenage West and would be content with the extension of the existing mobile provision to the site as proposed [CD/LIB/11]. HCC’s own appraisal of best value indicators for its library service (CD/HCC/8) states that Stevenage library falls into category B, meaning that it is “not completely” suitable (too small) and cannot be improved. This contrasts with category A libraries that are regarded as unsuitable, without qualification. Further appraisal in HCC’s Annual Library Plan encourages improvement of the mobile library service [CD/LIB/4], page 15, paragraph 3.1.5) and indicates that HCC performs well on the adequacy of investment in books [page 41, paragraph 3.8.7]. It says that there is currently about 18 sq m of library space per 1,000 people across the County as a whole and 1.7 library books per person [table 4.1 on page 43] adding that book stock is higher than in comparable Authorities [page 51, paragraph 4.2.1].

10.14 While HCC refers to library contributions negotiated elsewhere in the County

[CD/LIB15] and seeks 35 sq m of library space per 1,000 people, the approach taken in Wokingham District is different [CD/LIB/8]. The Wokingham approach would provide £20 per person if a new library is not required, rising to £105 per person if a new library building is required, the latter figure being based upon 28sq m of library per '000 population. In the context of Circular 1/97 advice, however, the amount of contribution must be based on the actual cost of provision for a particular scheme and not on a standard tariff of typical costs. This is evident from paragraph B9(i) of Annex B to Circular 1/97[CD/GOV/1].

10.15 Although redevelopment proposals for Stevenage Town Centre are promoted in the

emerging Local Plan [CD/DP/9d, Section 6, paragraph 6.3.4 and Proposals Map], it would be difficult to extend Stevenage Central Library because of insufficiency of space within the site. Reference is made to its possible relocation to Lytton Way in Supplementary Planning Guidance for the town centre [CD/SPG/2, page 19, area TR2(iii)] but there are no firm proposals. It would, in either event, plainly be inappropriate for HCC to require WSC to contribute towards remedying any deficiency in the existing level of library service provision. Indeed, it would seem that the main purpose for relocating the library would be to facilitate a commercially driven regeneration scheme for the town centre by releasing an HCC site for redevelopment [CD/LIB/4 appendix A, page (vii) – mixed use residential quarter]. To the extent that HCC may choose between extension of the existing library or redeveloping on a new site, WSC should at most be required to contribute only to the cheaper option. However, on the Wokingham approach (which HCC accepted to be reasonable), if the Stevenage Central Library were to be redeveloped before Stevenage West is built, WSC should be expected to contribute only towards additional books, not for the library building itself.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 28

10.16 In this latter respect, contributions towards library books fell to be considered in the Secretary of State’s Napsbury decision [CD/LIB/16]. The Inspector initially raised the point there [paragraph 11.7.26, page 62], but did not suggest that contributions for either books or accommodation could properly be sought in accordance with Circular 1/97 advice. He simply recorded that a contribution for books had been offered [paragraph 11.7.27] and that the developer did not accept a contribution should be made for accommodation. He concluded that the provision of library accommodation may be a planning issue if library facilities became overloaded as a result of development [paragraph 18.5.17] but would not accord with Circular 1/97 in that particular case [paragraph 18.5.18]. The offer by the developer there to pay for books was subsequently withdrawn in response to the Secretary of State’s interim decision letter [paragraph 45] and final decision letter [paragraph 21], the matter thus having been resolved in its totality against the stance of HCC. The decision was not challenged by HCC or any other party and no credible reasons have been produced to show why a different approach should be taken at Stevenage West. Nonetheless, in proffering a library contribution for Stevenage West, WSC has accepted that provision of a library facility would meet the needs of a new community, rather than being a private agreement of the type involved at Napsbury.

10.17 WSC does not however accept responsibility to pay for books, and in any case regards

the cost suggested by HCC for supplying books to be excessive. HCC figures for the average cost of books (£14.65 per volume) date from 1995 [CD/PRO2A, appendix 8]. However, according to figures provided by the Library and Information statistics unit at Loughborough University [CD/LIB/19] typical library book prices have since gone down to £9.42 per head of population [£8.07 per volume]. This is largely because of an increasing reliance on paperbacks.

10.18 WSC has adopted an innovative approach to community service provision as required by

HCC from the outset. It must also be recognised that library services are increasingly being delivered by alternative systems, including via the Internet. An equipped resources room is to be provided in the main community centre [CD/LIB/20] and each house on the development would be provided with an Internet connection point. If HCC requires a larger resources centre, there is scope to increase it from 17 sq m to, say, 127 sq m within the £255,000 contribution on offer, but it has never been intended as a static library alternative to mobile library provision for Stevenage West. There is also scope to enhance the efficiency of the existing Central Library by removing non-library facilities from within it, and by greater use new technology, such as computerised ordering systems linked to the mobile library service.

Main points of the case for Hertfordshire County Council Youth facilities 10.19 Three youth facilities are needed to satisfy the Master Planning Principles

[CD/SPG/1(ii), policy MP26] but only one is proposed. HCC would be content if it would be about 370 sq m in area rather than the 110 sq m originally advanced by WSC.

Library facilities 10.20 A community’s library needs are clearly capable of satisfying the Circular 1/97 tests

[CD/GOV/1]. A requirement for the development to include sufficient library facilities

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 29

has been manifest from the earliest formative stages of the proposal (CD/DP1d, page 55, policy 8, and paragraphs 176 and 17, CD/PA5/10 page 30, paragraph 6.6 and Appendix 6 list, page 33 paragraph 6.32, page 37 page 6.58 and page 41 paragraph 6.84, CD/SPG/1 pages 58 and 207 policy MP2, CD/SPG/1a page 29). It is a policy requirement of the emerging Stevenage Local Plan (CD/DP/9b, page 197 policy SC1, page 223, paragraph 12.1.5 and page 245 paragraph 12.14.1 and policy SW19) and is confirmed in the Local Plan Inspector’s report (CD/DP/9e, volume 2, page 627 paragraph 12.285) where the only reservation is that there should be flexibility over location. There has never been any dispute raised by WSC that a contribution should be made towards library facilities, that the need for library provision is anything other than a material consideration, or that any such requirement would not fall within the ambit of Circular 1/97. The only area of dispute has been the quantum of contribution that should be made.

10.21 In that regard, HCC has since about 1997 sought £150 per dwelling as a contribution

towards library provision from new developments generally, and seeks to apply the same sum here. This figure includes both the initial cost of stocking a library and the cost of constructing suitable library accommodation deriving from the increased demand generated by residents in the proposed development. The basis of the £150 per dwelling figure is drawn from a range of published sources [CD/LIB/7,/9 and /10] and is calculated as follows [CD/LIB/17]:

Accommodation for books: 147 sq m for 10,000 population

Accommodation for newspapers/periodicals 15 sq m for 10,000 population

Areas for children 100 sq m for 10,000 population

Sub-Total 262 sq m for 10,000 population

Plus 20% staff accommodation 52 sq m

Plus circulation space 36 sq m (10% of public area and 20% of staff area)

Sub-total 350 sq m

Adjust for 12,000 population (5,000 dwellings) 420 sq m

Building cost based on £527 per sq m £314,000 +1.47% pa for building cost inflation [CD/HCC/PRO/2A appendix 8, pages 23 and 27]

Books (based on 24,000 books @£14.56 each) £419.328 + inflation @1.2% Total cost £733,000 (Or £147 per dwelling, for 5000 dwellings).

A similar calculation gives the total cost for PA3 as £540,000 (Or £150 per dwelling)

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 30

10.22 HCC acknowledges that the figure of £150 per dwelling has not always been achieved in

full on other developments [CD/LIB15]. This is because HCC is a consultee on planning applications rather than the determining authority, and individual District Councils have to take account of a range of matters when judging the merits of development, other than the provision of library services.

10.23 HCC does not accept that the methodology used in Wokingham for assessing the

quantum of provision for library services is appropriate to Hertfordshire [CD/LIB/8]. This is not least because HCC does not favour new free-standing libraries for populations as low as 7,000 people and would look instead to a catchment of about 12,000 people. In any event, the specific scheme cited in Wokingham is within 3.2 km (2 miles) of an existing library, so Wokingham excluded the cost of a library building and sought only the cost of additional books. If a new building is required, the build cost is about £3,700 per sq m in Wokingham or £1,200 per sq m in Kent [CD/LIB/8] the difference in all likelihood being accounted for by reason of the former figure being for a fully equipped library and the latter simply for a building shell. Even if the Wokingham approach were to be adopted, the cost of library provision would amount to some £252 per dwelling, which is greater than that sought by HCC from WSC.

10.24 HCC also does not regard the Secretary of State’s decision on the Napsbury case

[CD/LIB/16] to be conclusive on the approach to be taken to library provision. The only point in contention there which fell to be considered by the Secretary of State was the cost of accommodating library books, since there had not been any dispute over contributions towards new book provision in itself. The Secretary of State, erroneously in HCC view, regarded library provision as being a matter for revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure. It is the HCC position that the initial building and stocking costs are capital expenditure items and that only re-stocking and building maintenance thereafter would be revenue items. The latter would be covered by the community charge, which would be inflated by the increased number of residents and thus not a disproportionate burden on existing residents. However, this does not apply to the former. HCC considered challenging the Secretary of State’s decision in this respect, but chose not to do so because it did not wish to compromise progress on a scheme that would fulfil other important planning objectives. The mobile library alone would need to be stocked with 8,688 new books in addition to the initial capital cost of £100,000 for providing the service [CD/LIB/13]. HCC suggests a total provision of 2 books per person, while the figure to be drawn from Government advice [CD/LIB/7, PLS 18 on page 15] is 1,836 books per '000 population (based upon 8.5 years re-stocking at 216 additions to stock per annum).

10.25 A further point of negotiation is the need for flexibility. The existing Stevenage Central

Library is close enough to the site to represent the main library resource for the proposed development. That library is already under considerable pressure, and there is little opportunity to expand it. Consideration is currently being given to its relocation or redevelopment and to a range of ways in which that could be funded. HCC is aware that WSC cannot, within the terms of Circular 1/97, be required to contribute towards remedying existing deficiencies. However, there can be no doubt that a library required to serve the town’s existing population of 80,000 would need to be significantly enlarged to serve an increased population of 10,000 on the Stevenage West site. It is likely to be more efficient to provide these enhanced library facilities in the existing town centre. The practicality of that is, however, dependent upon viability and programming of town

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 31

centre redevelopment. Whatever the case may be, HCC is agreeable to a clause in the S106 planning Obligation that would ensure that a financial contribution from WSC would be spent only in providing for the needs of the Stevenage West development and, if not spent, would be returned to the developer within a given period. S106 Planning Obligations do not have to be tied to a particular scheme, because paragraph B7 of annex B to Circular 1/97 provides for contributions towards a range of necessary community facilities. WSC has acknowledged this by offering £20 per person as its library contribution without it being tied, for example, to a particular size of resources room in the proposed main community centre.

10.26 In sum, the £255,000 on offer from WSC is a derisory amount that reflects the

minimalist approach that WSC is taking to the provision of necessary social infrastructure to support the proposed development. It amounts to only about a third of the sum of £750,000 that HCC considers necessary to respond satisfactorily to the high importance attached by Government to the library service [CD/LIB/5 pages 5 and 6 and Executive Summary at page 6, paragraph 2]. WSC had originally put forward its sum as additional to that required to provide for the hardstandings, new mobile unit and equipped resource centre, but WSC has since intimated that it is an inclusive figure. WSC has not indicated how frequently the mobile library service would visit the site, and a resources room in the main community centre of only about 17 sq m would not represent an adequate on-site library. If its floor area were to be increased, this would be at the expense of floorspace available within the main community centre for other purposes, because it is HCC understanding that the library contribution was for equipping the resources room, not for building it as well. WSC has not produced any figures that disclose the difference in value between the existing agricultural land and its value when developed by 5,000 houses, so it cannot be asserted that HCC requirements for the library contribution are unreasonable or disproportionate in the context of Circular 1/97 advice. With a shortfall of some £½m below what HCC considers to be necessary, the proposed contribution would fail to secure the exemplary standards of community provision that the Stevenage West development has always been intended to represent.

Fire service provision 10.27 There is a requirement for a community fire station and fire hydrants [CD/SPG/1(ii)

policy MP22]. The S106 planning Obligation currently on offer does not make adequate provision [CD/FIRE/6].

11. Education Policies 11.1 In SP1998 new land allocations for education and training purposes are to be considered

where future needs can reasonably be expected. Conversely, surplus education land may be considered in Local Plans as potentially available for other uses. Wherever possible, new education facilities will be located with particular regard to the aims of reducing travel need and car usage, while encouraging walking, cycling and use of public transport [CD/DP/1d, policy 13]. A similar policy thrust is maintained in SP2003 [CD/DP/2f, policy 13].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 32

11.2 SDP1994 policy C8 requires education provision commensurate with the scale of development in any major new residential schemes [CD/DP/8a]. Policy SC10 welcomes dual use of school buildings by the local community. In SDP2004, redundant school buildings that are used for community activities are to be retained for community uses [CD/DP/9d, policy and CD/DP/9h, volume 2, which modifies the policy to apply only where a community need is demonstrated].

11.3 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)], MP19 requires

school places in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of new residents at each stage in development of Stevenage West. The secondary school is to be close to the main centre and the primary schools within walking distance of the residential areas they serve. MP20 states that the schools be designed for shared community use and MP21 further requires the schools or community centres to provide for life long learning facilities, with links to new technology being promoted.

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 11.4 It would not be practicable to accommodate the likely influx of pupils [CD/PA3/20 and

CD/PA5/20 paragraph 6.15] within existing Stevenage schools [CD/WSC/PRO/16A, appendix 1a and CD/PA3/26 and CD/PA5/26]. The principle of provision of appropriate educational facilities as part of the development has never therefore been at issue. Given that the applications are in outline, the question to be considered at this stage is whether adequate means are available to meet additional educational demand, rather than whether the detailed design of the schools is acceptable. The proposals for school provision, location, site sizes, phasing, facilities, standards of provision and community access would all, however, be incorporated into the proposed S106 planning Obligation.

11.5 As a result of Regulations and Guidance issued by DfES after the Environmental

Statement had been produced and revised, some subsequent changes are proposed to the Master Plan. These include removal of the proposed “greenway” between the primary and secondary schools on the central site (to make these two schools capable of being considered as a single site for school planning purposes). This would facilitate enlargement of the central primary school to accommodate the peak number of children in the younger age group that can be expected to precede the peak in children of secondary school age in the early years of the proposed development.

11.6 The agreed forecast for primary school pupils [CD/WSC/PRO/16A, appendix 1],

assuming a first dwelling occupation in July 2006, shows for PA5 a rise from 1 form of entry (fe) to a peak of 9fe for the single year of 2017, falling to 5fe from 2026 onwards [CD/WSC/PRO/16A/REB appendix 10]. For secondary aged pupils, the rise would be from 1fe to 8fe by 2025, falling to 6fe from 2032 [CD/WSC/PRO/16, graph at appendix 7]. For PA3, the anticipated pattern would be similar but with a cut-off at 72% of peak numbers. Primary age pupils would thus peak at 6fe in 2014 and fall to 4fe by 2030. Secondary age pupils would peak at 5fe by 2017, falling to 4 fe in 2030. In effect, there would be only one year in the 30 year forecast period when peak numbers of primary and secondary aged pupils would coincide.

11.7 WSC accordingly proposes to provide both land and buildings for four schools within

the site. These are identified on the Master Plan as the Central Primary/Secondary school, the Northern Primary School and the Southern Primary School, each of which would be related to the main centres of development [CD/PA3/16b and CD/PA5/16b].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 33

As proposed, provision would be sufficient to accommodate about 93% of school age pupils generated by the proposed development. The remaining 7% would be anticipated to attend existing denominational, independent, special needs or other schools locally

11.8 Phasing of school building construction would be arranged so that from the outset of

development teaching would take place on site, this being considered important to creating a local sense of community. For the first 12 months (September 2006-July 2007), a temporary school would be provided on the Central Secondary School site, to accommodate about 124 primary aged pupils and 57 secondary aged pupils in accordance with the agreed forecasts of pupil numbers [CD/WSC/PRO/16A, appendix 1]. This would be in one class for 4-7 year olds and two classes for 8-10 year olds, together with 2 classrooms for Key Stage 3 secondary pupils, 2 classrooms for Key Stage 4 pupils and a single classroom split into two for sixth form pupils. There would be additional space for library, music, science, art and design technology, for the Head of Administration, a double classroom (or similar) to serve as a hall/dining room and indoor PE space, and a standard moveable kitchen module. The Central Primary school would be constructed concurrently as a 2fe building and come into use a year later. The first phase of the secondary school would commence construction immediately after, with the temporary school remaining in place for secondary school pupils until this first phase is ready for occupation. Pupil numbers would be expected to have grown sufficiently for the Northern Primary School to open with 1fe in 2009 and the South Primary with 1fe in 2012. The Southern Primary would have 2fe by 2014 [CD/WSC/PRO/16A, appendix 10]. Regular reviews would, however, be undertaken so that the pace of provision could be changed if needed, not least because provision, once made, has to be generally available to pupils from elsewhere [R-v-Greenwich LB, ex parte John Ball Primary School (1989) 88 LGR 589 (1990)]. There may thus, for example, be some two-way flow of pupils between schools in Stevenage and those in Stevenage West, the precise extent of which cannot be anticipated.

11.9 Following lengthy negotiations both before and during the Inquiry, WSC understands

that HCC is content with the location of the proposed schools relative to their respective catchments and to the main and the local centres. They would be within easy walking distance of all parts of the proposed development or easily accessible by cycling or by bus routes using the CTS. There are no matters in dispute relating to the Northern Primary School and any outstanding matters relating to the Southern Primary School can be dealt with in the context of proposed conditions. The schools would meet the appropriate floorspace standards [CD/ED/16b] and the arrangements for shared community use have been accepted by HCC.

11.10 Only few areas of dispute remained unresolved at the close of the Inquiry, as follows: Acceptability of a “through school”. 11.11 In order to ensure sufficient flexibility to accommodate the variations in need as

development progresses and beyond, WSC proposes that the land and buildings on the central secondary and primary school sites be capable of interchangeability.

11.12 This could be achieved by provision of an “all through school”, of a type based on the

Chafford Hundred Learning Campus in Thurrock [CD/WSC/PRO/16A, appendix 2)]. There are at present few other examples of such schools in England, but one is being planned in Darlington (Darlington Education Village). Another, the Northamptonshire

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 34

4-19 school at Wooton, secured the backing of the Schools Adjudicator in January 2003 [CD/WSC/PRO/16A, appendix 3], while the Hackney All-Age Academy was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister as part of a package of secondary school reforms for London on 13 November 2003. This type of school is seen by DfES as a way forward for the 21st Century, not least because they offer educational, social, community and sustainability advantages [CD/WSC/PRO/16A, appendix 5]. While it is recognised that small schools are generally preferred by parents because of perceived educational advantages in terms of more individual attention, a through school would offer a much wider range of educational and social opportunities and better facilities for adult education and other community usage. The latter would particularly be the case with regard to sports provision.

11.13 Initially, it is envisaged that this “through school” would provide for all children within

the 4-19 age range until children of secondary school age reach 600 in number in about 2015. It is considered unlikely that demand for 6th form places would be significant until 2020 or later, but the school would be designed with capacity for 6th form provision as required. Because of the relatively small numbers involved, there may also be scope for 6th form pupils to attend other Stevenage schools for particular subjects, or to be taught concurrently with pupils at these other schools through the growing use of shared video-conferencing facilities and similar new technologies. This would be for the School Organisation Committee and the School Governors to consider at the time, as would be the decision as to whether the “through school” should continue once pupil numbers have stabilised, or revert to a traditional primary and secondary school format.

11.14 While a through school is thus WSC’s preference, other forms of school organisation

would not be precluded. Rather, organisation variously falls under the control of the Local Education Authority (HCC), the School Organisation Committee, the promoter of the schools concerned and DfES National Regulations. In effect, HCC would propose the need for the schools to the School Organisation Committee and would invite promoters including WSC and the Neighbourhood Trust to express an interest [CD/WSC/PRO/16A, appendix 6].

11.15 Even with only the PA3 scheme, secondary school provision for 4 fe would not be

impractical. Indeed, in January 2003 there were 568 secondary schools in England with 4 fe or less, representing some 25% of all secondary school places in England. There can thus be no doubt that appropriate education provision for Stevenage West can be made on site, and the detail of such provision essentially falls to be considered at a later stage rather than at the present outline applications stage.

The Secondary School playing fields 11.16 Provision of a suitably grassy and stone-free playing surface for the secondary school

pitches is unlikely to be problematic. The underlying soil is between types 1 and 4 and these types are generally well drained and relatively stone free [CD/WSC/PRO/8(i)A, appendix 4]. It is normal practice for land for playing fields to be cleared of stones by riddling of the top 150mm. The proposed soil management strategy [CD/WSC/PRO/8(i)A, appendix 3] is for consideration at the detailed stage of the planning process and would deal with such matters.

11.17 Bunding between the school buildings and the playing fields [CD/PA3/16b and

CD/PA5/16b and larger scale plans attached to CD/LET/42] would be a potential

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 35

educational resource, particularly during the period when flora and fauna is becoming established, but it could equally be planted with ground cover and fenced off if desired. Separation of schools from their playing fields in this way can work [CD/ED/33] both to prevent encroachment by pupils onto playing surfaces during break-times and as a means to provide sloping areas for spectators. Much the same applies to the banks around the proposed all-weather pitch, which would be set into the ground as a means of reducing its visual impact and that of any associated lighting. The revised Master Plans now indicate the position of proposed changing facilities, a pitch layout amended to meet HCC preference and a cricket pitch within the proposed athletics track, also as requested by HCC [CD/PA3/16b and CD/PA5/16b and larger scale plans attached to CD/LET/42]. All of HCC’s criticisms have therefore been met.

Adequacy of the Central Primary School site 11.18 The precise boundary between the secondary and primary schools would be flexible, to

allow for expansion by encroachment of one onto the other as demand dictates [shown illustratively in plans attached to CD/LET/42]. An alternative may be to provide two primary schools on the central school site during the period of peak demand. HCC have not commented on these options but in any event there is no reason to hold that suitable education provision cannot be made on the land reserved, and the precise details are for decision after the outline permission stage.

Adequacy of the Southern Primary School site 11.19 While HCC raised concern about the adequacy of the southern site in terms of size, it

accepts that the school could be on two floors provided the upper floor was only used by juniors. This would not be an unusual arrangement and a lift would be provided as required by DDA standards. Conversely, if excessive land is provided there would be an unnecessary drain on school funds for maintenance [CD/ED/16a preface page (v) third paragraph]. Although limitations on building height included for landscape reasons in the proffered planning S106 planning Obligation would then mean that this school must be designed with a flat roof, properly constructed flat roofs need not be an undue future maintenance burden and need not be unattractive. With a two storey building providing the proposed 2fe primary school there would be sufficient space for grassed playing areas. However, should there be a need to expand beyond 2.5 fe (which is unlikely other than in the single “bulge year” of 2017), an all weather pitch would be required to accommodate more intensive use. Such surfaces have a life expectancy of some 20-25 years with a polymeric surface and require no intervening maintenance provided they are not also used for car parking. In comparison, grass playing surfaces need to be mown and line marked every week during the summer and more frequently in hot weather. As much as half the cost of maintenance can be on line marking alone. Again, it is clear that there is no insurmountable obstacle to agreeing suitable provision at detailed stage with the site size as currently proposed.

Provision of school furniture 11.20 DfES guidance on S106 planning Obligations advises that while developers may, in

certain circumstances, be expected to provide school sites of adequate size and new buildings both free of charge, this would “probably exclude furniture, fittings and equipment” [CD/ED/12 page 6 paragraph 1.4 (a)]. Given that WSC would be providing the land and buildings free of charge at Stevenage West, the furnishing and fitting of the

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 36

schools should be met out of educational funds, a substantial contribution to which would be made through Council Tax paid by the new residents [CD/WSC/PRO/16A/REB appendix 9]. HCC has advanced no technical or financial justification to take a different approach here, and WSC contends that the requirement to pay for furniture and fittings is unreasonable and not in accord with Circular 1/97 [CD/GOV/1].

Provision for child care 11.21 There is no dispute over provision of nursery school provision but WSC recognises that

there may, in addition, be a need to make provision for pre-school age child care (0-4 year olds). HCC as Education Authority is under no obligation to provide pre-school child care facilities and provision is normally a matter for the private sector [CD/WSC/PRO/16A, appendix 13] now with specific Government funding support. Nonetheless, each of the three school sites would be of sufficient size to accommodate childcare facilities and it would be for HCC or the private sector to decide whether a single facility at one of the schools or three smaller facilities, one at each of the schools, would be the most appropriate. If HCC is able to show sufficient revenue funding to operate the facilities for at least one year, then the S106 planning Obligation would provide for WSC to contribute a sum of £300,000 to HCC for childcare. In the absence of any specific evidence of likely need or demand for childcare places, this represents an entirely reasonable and proportionate offer.

Main points of the case for Hertfordshire County Council 11.22 HCC is the Local Education Authority for the area and is charged under the Education

Act 1944 with, among other things, securing sufficient school places for children of statutory school age within its area [CD/ED/17]. Planning for education in Hertfordshire is undertaken within the framework of the Hertfordshire School Organisation Plan, which is approved annually by the independent Hertfordshire School Organisation Committee. Moreover, the majority of nursery education in Hertfordshire is provided by HCC. HCC also has responsibilities for child care, likewise arising from the Education Act 1944.

11.23 HCC views as Local Education Authority were not sought before the Master Plan was

prepared, in consequence of which the locations and sizes of the education sites now on offer were established by the developer before the building floorspace requirements had been established and before even WSC’s own educational consultant had become involved. While the attempts made by WSC to address HCC concerns are welcomed, there has never been a fundamental review of the sites chosen for education provision, nor the type of discussions sought by HCC in November 2002 [CD/LET/31].

11.24 The number of school places required arising from the Stevenage West development,

based on “Demographic Modelling and the Demand for School Places” has been agreed with WSC, and equates to 9 forms of entry (fe) for primary schools and 8fe for secondary schools [CD/ED/19]. The schools themselves must nevertheless be built to standards required by the body taking responsibility for their operation, not those preferred by WSC. This is likely to be HCC, but it is not apparent that the design of the proposed schools would be to HCC requirements. The cost of providing for fully equipped schools ready for occupation and use is required, not just land and buildings. In terms of both land and funding, the proposals would therefore be insufficient to enable HCC to fulfil its statutory duty in relation to school places.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 37

11.25 Discussions have continued between HCC and WSC after evidence on education matters

was given at the Inquiry and HCC is now able to confirm that the sites for the Northern and Southern Primary Schools are adequate (but only just so) to each accommodate 2fe schools (as now proposed) together with nursery and childcare provision [CD/HCC/Close, paragraph 172]. The following matters, however, remain unresolved.

Primary school provision 11.26 HCC would prefer three 2feE schools expanding to 3fe to meet peak population rather

than a fourth temporary school. Nevertheless, HCC is prepared to consider the latter as a potential solution. If PA3 is permitted, and not PA5, then the lesser number of pupils would mean that only two rather than three primary schools would be required.

11.27 In either event, to meet floorspace requirements within the limited sites provided, it is

likely that the buildings would need to be two storeys high, which would limit use of the upper floor to junior age children only. Lifts would be necessary to provide access for those with mobility difficulties. This would give rise to additional long term maintenance costs that would need to be borne by the Education Authority, as would the additional maintenance costs of flat roofs (which would be necessary to meet the building height restrictions imposed by landscape impact constraints). The limited size of the sites would also require reliance on all-weather playing surfaces because they can accommodate more intensive use. However, these have long term maintenance costs greater than traditional surfaces.

11.28 The topography for the Central Primary School site is unsuitable and poorly oriented

relative to the contours. In practice, there would be an internal change in levels of more than 2.5 m over the length of the building. The resulting difficulties for those with disabilities would require retaining walls externally, which would be a potential source of danger. There are also swallow holes nearby, which may give rise to ground stability problems.

11.29 Soil quality and ground stability problems may also occur on the Northern and Southern

Primary School sites.

Secondary school provision 11.30 It is hard to credit that within a total Stevenage West site area of some 281 ha this part of

the Stevenage West site was selected with any thought being given to its suitability for school provision [CD/HCC/PRO/2A, appendix 2]. WSC has not challenged the alternative school site locations that HCC would prefer [HCC/PRO/2A appendix 3]. As proposed, the secondary school site would be too cramped, making it impossible to meet playing field standards on the site itself. It would also be plainly too small to cater for Stevenage West should expansion to 10,000 dwellings take place in the future. In any case, there would be a need to rely on cricket pitch and athletics track provision so far distant as to be effectively off-site [plans attached to CD/LET/42]. The existing contours are also such that there would be a need for significant engineering works resulting in terraced playing pitches on plateaux separated physically and visually from the school building itself by a 3m high bund running through the centre of the site. No DfES publication advocates provision being made in such a manner.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 38

11.31 The site chosen by WSC for the proposed secondary school also lies on poor quality soil classified as between types 1 and 4 [CD/WSC/PRO/8(i)A, appendix 4] . Since the playing fields would be cut and graded there would be difficulties in ensuring a suitably grassy and stone free surface. This, however, is a matter that should be addressed by soil management strategy, or S106 planning Obligation requiring importation of fresh topsoil.

11.32 The proposal to establish a trust to manage the schools as a single foundation body is

unacceptable as Regulations covering foundation schools in these circumstances do not yet exist. The fall back is that sites and funding must be provided for the Education Authority. In PA3 the secondary school would settle to a 4fe school which is too small to deliver the curriculum effectively. It should also be recognised that schools would have to be provided from the outset of development and that these would be costly to operate when only part full (specialist teachers would still have to be recruited, for example). It is in any event educationally undesirable to have small numbers of pupils in secondary schools.

Provision of school furniture 11.33 The schools should be provided ready for occupation (ie. including furniture and

equipment). It is clear from recent DfES correspondence that this ought to be a requirement, as it is capital rather than revenue expenditure in the first instance [CD/WSC/PRO/16A/REB appendix 9].

11.34 In short, WSC’s proposals concerning education provision are at the very least sub-

optimal and, in relation to the Central Education Site, are very seriously deficient. The lack of any adequate feasibility study into the deliverability of the facilities proposed for the Central education site should be taken very seriously.

Provision for childcare 11.35 The financial contribution offered by WSC amounts to less than 20% of what is required

for a suitable amount of provision and this is considered wholly inadequate. Main points of the case for the Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion 11.36 PA3 cannot be divorced from PA5, because the only difference between them is that in

the latter the low density development areas have been blanked out. Otherwise the schemes are identical. There would be implications for the size and location of school provision for the PA3 scheme if PA5 was rejected.

12. Employment Policies 12.1 RPG9 urges support for the Regional Economy of the South East and further

development to ensure full contribution to sustainable national growth [CD/RPG/1b, policy RE1].

12.2 In draft RSS/RPG14, the Regional economy would be supported and developed in line

with the Regional Economic Strategy with the aim of achieving top 20 regional status in

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 39

Europe but to an extended timescale of 2021 rather than 2010 [CD/RPG6, policy SS10 and paragraphs 4.51-4.52]. Policies to secure job growth of 2% in the Stansted/M11 sub region and 13% elsewhere in Hertfordshire would be promoted [policy E2] to facilitate among other things urban renaissance and economic regeneration. Land in existing employment use would not normally to be released for alternative uses [policy E3] on the basis that an adequate supply of land, in both quantitative and qualitative terms, is critical to ensuring success and attracting inward investment [paragraph 6.13]. Support would be lent to locally important clusters of economic development [policy E7] with Stevenage cited as an example [paragraph 6.23].

12.3 SP1998 includes a “Bright Green” Industrial Strategy aimed at restructuring the

traditional outworn industrial base of the County and fostering knowledge-, innovation- and skills-based service employment [CD/DP/1d, paragraphs 223-226]. Particular priority is to be given to identifying suitable opportunities to provide more dwellings on land surplus to employment needs as part of planned regeneration [paragraph 249]. In essence policy adopts a criteria-based approach, formulated to allow for loss of surplus sites to other uses while retaining and, if necessary, expanding the supply of good quality and well located employment land [policy 14].

12.4 Much the same approach is adopted in SP2003 but with less expectation of the need to

release employment land for other uses. Rather, replacement wording is inserted stating that during the period 2001 to at least 2016 there should be growth in the overall quantity of floorspace available to meet the changing needs of business commensurate with growth in available labour [CD/DP/2f, policy14]. The expansion of existing business clusters is also promoted, with the explanatory memorandum recording that there is one such cluster at Stevenage based on advanced engineering [new policy on page 50 and paragraph 183].

12.5 NHDLP1996 adopts a generally welcoming stance to employment development in

suitable locations [CDDP/6, policies 36 and 37]. SDP1994 is mainly concerned with consolidating employment development within designated employment areas of the town [CD/DP/8a policies E1, E2, E4, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, E12, E13 and E14], but is responsive to the need for the allocation of additional sites for employment use rather than the reverse [policies E3 and E5]. A broadly similar approach is maintained in SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d, policies E1-E9 with CD/DP/9h volume 1 modifications, which include deletion of policy E3 and its incorporation into policy E4]. Provision is, however made, subject to certain safeguards, for change from town centre offices to other uses [policy TR7 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2]. In the Stevenage West Chapter of SDP2004 policy SW10 requires equivalent replacement of any employment land lost to improvements to the existing highway network. Policy SW13 says that between 10 and 12 ha of land should be indicated on the Master Plan for employment development use in a mix of unit sizes, with between 7 and 9 ha available for development before 2011. Policy SW14 requires a managed workspace unit of about 3,000 sq m close to the main local centre.

12.6 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)], MP15 requires

proposed employment areas to be of sufficient scale to provide employment opportunities for a significant part of the working population, and located so as to reduce the need for private and commercial vehicle journeys. MP16 seeks a wide range of employment to encourage diversity and attract new businesses, especially small local

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 40

businesses. MP17 requires replacement employment space for any lost in consequence of constructing access to Stevenage West.

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium

12.7 It is clear from projections produced for EEDA and the East of England Regional Assembly that substantial increases in employment and population are likely in Hertfordshire [CD/WSC/PRO/11, tables 2.1 and 2.2]. If anything, the figures relied upon by those bodies represent a significant underestimate when other factors are taken into account such as macro-economic indicators, changes in labour supply and empirical data on employment trends [tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4]. For example, the most recent employment projections were produced in April 2003 by Bone Wells Associates [CD/EMP/2, and further background in CD/WSC/PRO/10A, appendix 13, paragraphs 3.31-3.37]. These include a range of scenarios, among which are the “Business as Usual” and various “enhanced growth” scenarios known generically as EG scenarios [CD/WSC/PRO/11, paragraph 2.5 and CD/EMP/2, figure 2-3 on page 11 and figure 2.4 on page 12].

12.8 Development of the appeal site would contribute directly to the achievement of EEDA’s headline target, to bring the region within the top 20 of Europe by year 2010 measured by GVA per head, which is the baseline EG scenario [CD/RPG/6, page 93]. EEDA acknowledges however that it would be more realistic to achieve this target by 2021. Moreover, much of the forecast growth would be expected to be concentrated where the Region’s key economic sectors and clusters already exist, including Hertfordshire. This needs to be factored into the distribution of employment creation, leading to the “EG2021 plus” policy-led approach that the Regional Assembly has included in its recently submitted draft Regional Planning Guidance [CD/RPG/6]. In that document, the projected growth target for the County that Local Development Documents are to be required to provide for is now 64,700 jobs [CD/RPG/6, page 95, policy E2 – 8,900+55,800].

12.9 Moreover, existing projections are supply-led inasmuch as labour supply is regarded as a constraint on growth. However, if demand for employment arising from consumer expenditure and the input-output linkages between the industrial sectors of the economy are taken into account, for example, the projections would be less flat than shown in the EG(03), EG2015 and EG2021 growth scenarios [CD/EMP/2, figure 2-4, page 12]. Indeed, if based on underlying trends, rates of growth would be much faster [CD/WSC/PRO/11, table 2.1] and there would be higher levels of labour demand and higher levels of labour supply. New projections based on the Local Economy Forecasting Model [CD/WSC/PRO/11A, appendix 1] and the Cambridge Econometrics multi-sectoral macro-economic model (both of which are leading edge and widely respected) illustrate this [CD/WSC/PRO/11, figure 1 on page 12]. It is clear from all of these projections that substantial increases in both employment and population are likely in Hertfordshire, well beyond the supply-led forecasts. Indeed, some suggest that even the forecasts now used by EEDA and the East of England Assembly may well have underestimated the likely pace of change.

12.10 The importance of Stevenage to the County’s economy is recognised both through its existing “business cluster” [CD/RPG/6, paragraphs 6.22 and 6.23 and CD/DP/22f page 49, paragraphs 178-183] and its location within the London-Stansted-Cambridge growth area [WSC/PRO/10(1)]. Stevenage itself is, nonetheless, a relatively deprived area in the context of SE England and Eastern Regions [CD/WSC/PRO/11, table 5.1 on page 29] and the proposed development would, in itself, have a beneficial effect on

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 41

employment creation. This would derive from the manufacture of materials and other equipment to be used in construction of the development (fixed investment), direct employment during the construction phase, and permanent new jobs created within and arising from the development (such as within the proposed employment areas, schools and in other services). There would also be multiplier effects as employees’ incomes increase expenditure with other local businesses. Not all of these benefits would be retained within Stevenage, since some may “leak” to surrounding areas. Nonetheless, the collective impact of both the direct job creation and the fixed building investment is likely to result in an additional 2,500 jobs, although 700-800 of these would be related to construction activity and thus temporary. Even so, by 2016, after construction would have ceased, it is estimated that the development would have generated 3,000 permanent jobs in the area, 2,000 of which would be direct employment and 1,000 attributable to multiplier effects. The total injection into the local economy at that point is estimated at just over £60m per annum at 1995 prices [CD/WSC/PRO/11, tables 4.1-4.3, pages 18-22].

12.11 It is difficult to estimate how many of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings would enter the local labour market, particularly given established commuting patterns to London and other centres of employment. Nonetheless, it can reasonably be expected that the local labour force would increase by some 5,000 or more. If Stevenage Town Centre is regenerated as proposed, and this regeneration is contributed to by the proposed development in the ways outlined, there is every likelihood that out-commuting from Stevenage would reduce. This would reduce existing recruitment difficulties among key worker groups [CD/HCC/17 and CD/SBC/20]. Further effects on population and labour growth may be attributable to migration [CD/DP/2B, page 22, paragraph 2.7] but is subject to wide variation in forecasts. Whatever the case may be, economic demand in the area will not simply evaporate and a continuing supply of housing, including affordable housing will be required to meet the area’s employment needs.

12.12 This would need to be coupled with the provision of a range of sites to meet both

qualitative and quantitative requirements, a point recognised in Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England [CD/RPG/6]. Such an approach at Regional level marks a distinct change from that in SP2003 which supported the release of employment land for other purposes including housing [CD/DP/2f, paragraphs 171-174]. This was, itself based on work that included release of 17ha of employment land in North Hertfordshire [CD/DP/2h, paragraphs 1.14-1.18 and table 4.2]. Indeed, EEDA lodged objection to SP2003 policy 14 for that very reason [CD/EMP/4]. Use of brownfield land for housing rather than employment would deplete the stock available for employment use and thus harm growth ambitions for the area. Dissipation of housing over the County as a whole, rather than concentrating it at Stevenage West, would also reduce the critical mass necessary to stimulate regeneration growth in the town.

12.13 Dispute with SBC on construction skills training was resolved during the Inquiry. A

Local Labour Manager would now be funded by WSC and a training scheme for local labour would also be set up and maintained. This is a matter dealt with in the S106 planning Obligation.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 42

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council 12.14 Stevenage Borough Council note that the proposals would result in the potential for

about 700 new jobs during the construction phase, between 50% and 75% of which can be expected to come from within Hertfordshire. A proportion but not all of these can be expected to come from Stevenage, and the provision of suitable local training opportunities in association with the development would help to maximise this.

Main points of the case for the Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion 12.15 Additional employment would be necessary if PA3 or PA5 are permitted. Moreover, if

PA5 is rejected, the majority of the more affluent homes would be lost, affecting socio-economic mix. The effects of this on the viability of employment provision should be considered. Moreover, there would be increased in-commuting if employment land is provided at the level required for PA5 but the number of dwellings is limited to 3,600 in accordance with PA3.

13. Footpaths and Rights of Way Policies 13.1 RPG9 contains no policies aimed directly at the footpath network, but does make

specific reference to the “urban fringe” which it proposes should be enhanced, effectively managed and appropriately used [CD/RPG/1b, policy Q4].

13.2 In SP1998, development is required to take full account of the need to protect and

enhance the public rights of way network [CD/DP/1d, policy 48]. SP2003 includes a similar requirement, but includes it in policy for guiding local plan preparation [CD/DP/2f, policy 48]. Development is also required in SP1998 to take full account of strategic footpaths, bridleways and leisure cycling routes and links to the wider network of movement [CD/DP/1d, policy 49]. This would be replaced in SP2003 with policy to increase and improve non-motorised public access to the countryside in general [CD/DP/2f, policy 49].

13.3 SDP1994 includes policies formulated to protect Stevenage’s network of cycleways,

footpaths and bridleways, to welcome schemes that improve and extend access into the countryside and to avoid any reduction to an existing and proposed horse and pony route as shown on the Proposals Map [CD/DP/8a, policies L20, L21 and L22 and CD/PA3/12e, 4 of 4, plan 9.0/2a and CD/PA5/12e, 4 of 4, plan 9.0/2a]. Policy T12 requires new development to provide segregated cycleways and policy T13 extends a similar requirement to footway provision.

13.4 In SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d and CD/DP/9h, volume 2] policy L22 requires developments

on the periphery of Stevenage to make provision for the improvement to and extension of the footpath, cycleway and bridleway network both through the site and into the countryside. Policy 23 resists proposals that would reduce the existing and proposed horse and pony route referred to in SP1994.

13.5 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)] MP43 says that the

existing rights of way system will be maintained where appropriate and enhanced, with

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 43

any facilities that are lost being replaced. MP12 seeks to avoid unacceptable impact on the highway network, including by preventing vehicular access to the B656.

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 13.6 There is a total of 10.8 km of rights of way network currently within the boundaries of

the site [CD/PA3/11 and CD/PA5/11 drawing 8.0/1 and CD/WSC/PRO/8/2a]. Several circular walks are also promoted in local literature [CD/PA5/12d chapter 4 of appendix to chapter 8 and WSC/PRO/8A plan CPM2], together with a permissive riding route (known as the “Stevenage Horse and Pony Riding Route”) [CD/PROW/1]. The latter was created in the 1970s but is now blocked at the entrance to the Knebworth Estate. The network is generally well maintained and well marked.

13.7 A survey of the network was conducted by WSC on Sunday 16 and Monday 17 June

2002 and it was found not to be intensively used [CD/WSC/PRO/8A appendix 1 with addendum in WSC/PRO/8(4)]. Although the choice of survey dates is criticised by CASE for clashing with the World Cup football tournament, the matches screened on those two days were shown at 07.30 hrs and were Group F and G matches involving nations with no great footballing pedigree. The number of walkers recorded would not, therefore, have been significantly diminished. Only light usage is also confirmed by the absence of physical evidence of the paths suffering from erosion, trampling or side-spreading as well as by the results of a Public Rights of Way Enhancement Study undertaken by Catherine Bickmore Associates on behalf of HCC in November 2000 [CD/PROW/15)]. This showed that Stevenage residents visiting the area generally did so by car and that the rural footpath network is perceived as too far to walk from Stevenage [WSC/PRO/8, paragraph 3.15].

13.8 Conversely, the competing survey results put forward by Ms Palmer [paragraphs 33.29-

33.36 below] are compiled from the distribution and return of questionnaires from various locations a far afield as Welwyn. The questionnaire itself does not adequately describe the proposed development or mitigation measures and the survey appears to include motorists using the B656 who have not actually used the public rights of way network [WSC/PRO/8(5)]. It is not therefore a reliable indicator of usage.

13.9 The Stevenage West proposals respond to the November 2000 Enhancement Study’s

findings [CD/PROW/15]. The proposals would incorporate 3 km of undiverted PROW, 3km incorporated into greenways and 2.1 km incorporated into linear park or public open space/green space [CD/WSC/PRO/8/2a and CD/WSC/PRO/8a, plan CPM3, with addendum WSC/PRO/8(4)]. In all on site, there would be 36ha of linear park with paths (many suitable for people with disabilities), nearly 50 ha of natural green space, and improved A1(M) crossings.

13.10 Many of the existing routes, especially bridleways, would follow new greenways on

existing alignments. These greenways would incorporate features of landscape, ecological and historic importance (such as Kitching Lane) and would be 10-20 m wide with segregated footpath and cycle ways. Horse riding would be permitted on some, in a separate 4 m strip, with the Stevenage Horse and Pony Riding Route incorporated. Where greenways cross roads, signalised junctions would be likely to be installed. New rights of way within the greenways would be dedicated as public rights of way from the outset. The linear park would provide both a buffer and transition to open countryside as well as incorporating a linear footpath spine with a number of circular links off it both

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 44

into and out of the development. The assertions by the Ramblers’ Association that the greenways would be of no recreational value and that much of the proposed footpath network would amount to no more than alleyways between houses and commercial outlets are therefore without foundation.

13.11 It is, nevertheless, acknowledged that many of the on-site rights of way would require

upgrading to footways/cycleways, and some would need to be extinguished. There would also be loss of immediate countryside access for existing Stevenage residents closest to site. The establishment of some 4.2 km of new permissive bridleways off-site in the wider Langley valley area is proposed to off-set this and would be of significant public benefit, extending the distance available for horse riders on existing bridleways and improving opportunities for circular walks and off-road cycling. There would also be monitoring and management through the proposed S106 planning Obligation [WSC/PRO/8/2b].

13.12 In particular, the proposed off-site works would include measures to mitigate potential

problems of recreational user damage of seasonally damp ground in the Knebworth Wood SSSI through trampling, churning up and waterlogging. This would take the form of fencing erected along the southern boundaries of the SSSI, separating it from the rights of way network, with byway 41 terminated at a locked gate. This is a section of permissive route through the Knebworth estate that has now been closed by the owner in any event. A stock proof fence would be erected along the south east boundary of Langley Meadow to prevent access from the rights of way network, and the exposure of Burleigh Meadow to damage by users of footpath 42 would be monitored and, if necessary, a CROW Act closure sought. All routes would be clearly way-marked, with the addition of interpretation material.

13.13 The new routes would be 5 m wide green swathes defined by post and rail fencing. They

would be permissive rather than dedicated because of the need for flexibility to provide for the future phase of development for another 5,000 dwellings (10,000 in all) as referred to in SP1998 policy 8. Operation and control of these permissive routes would be little different from dedicated routes [CD/WSC/RPRO/8A appendix CPM3]. They would become dedicated after a period of 25 years, or earlier if details of the additional 5,000 dwellings are agreed sooner, and HCC is now understood to be content with this. Being permissive rather than dedicated would not in any way therefore diminish their utility.

13.14 WSC has no proposals for vehicular access from Stevenage West to the B656, but there

is currently an application lodged with HCC to have Dyes Lane recorded as a byway [see also addendum WSC/PRO/8(4)]. If the byway is confirmed, it would improve the network linkage for the benefit of all rights of way. Equally, however, should use of this route by vehicles and motorcycles become unacceptable, HCC could preclude such use by promoting a traffic regulation order. This could be physically enforced by barrier controls, such as “horse hops”. Prevention of vehicular access to the B656 in this way would accord with the Master Planning Principles [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii) policy MP12], so should be supported by HCC .

13.15 All three LPAs want the proposed Access Management Strategy [CD/WSC/PRO/8A

appendix 4] to include details of how an appropriate rights of way network can be maintained during the construction period. This is a matter for detailed planning stage, not outline, when the detailed design of individual phases will be formulated and

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 45

appropriate diversion applications made. WSC foresees no problem in maintaining an adequate network throughout.

13.16 It is an inevitable consequence of development on the scale proposed that there would be

change to the public rights of way network within the site. The question is whether the extent of that change would be acceptable and in WSC view, it would be.

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council 13.17 There are twelve footpaths, eight bridleways and one byway crossing the applications

site. Of these, four footpaths, two bridleways and the byway would be retained in their present form. These are the “ancient lanes” that cross the site. The others would be diverted, but this would increase the total length of footpaths from 5,184 m to 5,236 m and bridleway from 5,035 m to 5,681 m. The incorporation of some of the retained routes as “greenways” would maintain some of the present rural character as well as fostering wildlife and creating areas for informal recreation. Off-site links would also be provided. A condition would need to be imposed or S106 planning Obligation in place to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with a suitable “Access Management Strategy” to be submitted with, or in advance of, other reserved matters. There would also need to be provision to ensure maintenance of an adequate rights of way network while development is in progress. A separate agreement would be needed under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 to establish the new routes outside the applications site. While the proposals would inevitably have significant impact on the present mainly rural character of the network, and subject to any necessary conditions and S106 planning Obligation, SBC considers the proposals to be acceptable in policy terms.

Main points of the case for Hertfordshire County Council 13.18 The proposals would have a significant impact on the rights of way network within the

site and in surrounding area, a factor acknowledged by the SP1998 EIP Panel [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 5.84]. There are 12.5 km of rights of way within the applications site [see plan 8.0/4 in the EA further Information appendix to Chapter 8]. Some would have to be extinguished, others diverted, and many resurfaced. The network would thus be changed from one of mostly rural character as now to one mostly embedded within an urbanised environment.

13.19 HCC requirements are that WSC must ensure no net loss to the rights of way network for

the area, whether by downgrading or, for example, loss of amenity or convenience, or conversion of footpaths to cycleways, or footpaths and bridleways to footways. That is not to say that every right of way should be preserved as it is, but losses should be compensated by corresponding replacements or improvements elsewhere on the site or in the wider area.

13.20 Conversion of Footpath 42 and Bridleway 35 to follow at least in part the line of new

roads proposed for adoption would, for example, effectively extinguish the right of way and require removal from the definitive map. Others to be incorporated into “greenways” may not be extinguished but would have to be the subject of diversion orders unless on precisely the same alignment. These would have to be 2 m wide for footpaths and 4 m wide for bridleways. Use of BOATS (byways open to all traffic), such as BOAT 38 (Kitching Lane) by motorised traffic would be likely to escalate with

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 46

development, and there would be a need for crossing points too where roads serving the cemetery, allotments and housing areas would intersect. These crossing points would themselves provide increased access for vehicles to the BOAT network. Traffic on these routes can only be restricted by downgrading the BOATS to bridleways or footways, not simply by a combination of barriers and access controls as WSC has suggested. Even after downgrading, the placement of such barriers would be subject to prior authorisation.

13.21 New paths are proposed [shown on Plan 8.0/4, DPDG Addendum Plans 8059-38G and

8059-25L and Plan 8.0/3 in the Appendix to Chapter 8 of CD/PA3/12d and CD/PA5/12d] but these would be mostly outside applications site and are advanced as a compensatory measure. These would, however, be only “permissive” routes and not dedicated Public Rights of Way. That would be unacceptable because the Highway Authority would have no statutory control over them to ensure that they are maintained and kept unobstructed. While there may be a possible future need to divert them to make way for a further 5,000 dwellings, that is not a good reason for failing to dedicate them now.

13.22 Permission of the Secretary of State would be required to gate the southern end of BOAT

41 (to limit impact on the Knebworth Woods group of SSSIs) as any gate would be on Common Land. The proposal would also affect an area of Common Land to south of site, namely Norton Green (CL261). Two BOATS run through this and part is also designated as Knebworth Woods SSSI. Any fencing erected or planting of a thicket buffer alongside would require the consent of the Secretary of State.

Main points of the case for the Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion 13.23 The type of experience one has using the footpaths and bridleways now on the site would

in no way whatsoever be replicated. WSC is incorrect in saying that the existing rights of way across the applications site are lightly used at present. The only formal user surveys undertaken by WSC were on 16th and 17th June 2002 – a mere 2 days. That was during the Football World Cup. More weight should be given to the evidence of local people who regularly use the network and have given a much more year-round indication of true use. WSC has, however, accepted that the network is well-linked to Stevenage and that there is regular use of it by horse riders [CD/WSC/PRO/8i].

13.24 Footpaths that would become footways (totalling some 3.3km in length) should be

regarded as losses to the network and some rights of way that WSC describes as being diverted would, in fact, be extinguished.

13.25 WSC’s hope that landowners outside the applications site boundaries would provide

compensatory additions to the network voluntarily is ill-founded. The burdens on a landowner of providing a permissive “bridleway” are fairly onerous. If they are provided and are then blocked or closed off by the landowner, the likelihood of HCC successfully obtaining an injunction to secure compliance with an S106 planning Obligation in the form of a unilateral undertaking would be highly dubious. HCC would have none of the usual powers under rights of way legislation to serve removal notices or take other statutory action. For this reason, it is submitted that it would not be prudent to put any weight on the provision of these permissive “bridleways” as compensatory measures. Alternatively, it would be open to the Secretary of State to direct that they be dedicated as bridleways now. The reason for WSC not proffering this is said to be that

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 47

to do so might conflict with development of a further 5,000 dwellings. That, however, contrasts with WSC’s case on other issues where it has repeatedly been stated that any such application would be considered on its own merits at that future time.

13.26 The adopted Structure Plan indicates that it values retention of public rights of way and

points to a need to enhance them [CD/DP/1d policy 48]. Reading that policy as a whole, its aim is to discourage proposals that would radically change the extent and enjoyment of rights of way over land, as Stevenage West would. There would therefore plainly be conflict with SP1998 policy 48.

13.27 Similarly in SDP2004, policy L21 expects improvements and extensions to the rights of

way network. Again, Stevenage West and the proposed public rights of way within it would not improve or extend the existing right of way network.

14. Green Belt Policies 14.1 RPG9 notes that the South East Region has extensive Green Belt coverage and states the

Government’s belief that that the Metropolitan Green Belt continues to be important in preventing urban sprawl, in preventing the coalescence of settlements and in protecting the countryside as well as in assisting urban renaissance strategies. It adds that “the Government does not believe that there is a regional case for reviewing the existing Green Belt boundaries, although it is recognised that where settlements are tightly constrained by the Green Belt, local circumstances may suggest the need for a review after urban capacity studies have been undertaken and the Local Authorities have considered all other alternative locations for development within their area” [CDRPG/1b, paragraph 6.5 and policy E3].

14.2 Draft RSS/RPG14 affirms that the broad extent of Green Belts in the East of England is

considered to be appropriate, and will be maintained. It acknowledges, however, that reviews of boundaries around some urban areas are needed as part of an appraisal to identify the most sustainable locations for new development in line with the Sub-Regional Strategies and to respond to the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan. A joint approach is expected where the reviews cover more than one Local Authority area and the reviews are to propose compensating additions to the Green Belts, which will be brought forward in Local Development Documents or future RPG reviews [CD/RPG/6, policy SS7].

14.3 SP1998 states that the general extent of the Green Belts within the County will be

maintained but acknowledges that precise boundaries will require modification for a number of reasons. Among these is the need to accommodate strategic locations for supplementary housing development, including to the west of A1(M) at Stevenage where the review is to take account of the long term possibility of a total development of 10,000 dwellings. The limits for exclusion here are to be set north of Langley and Newton Wood, east of the B656 and south of St Ippolyts, and are to be defined so as to preclude coalescence with nearby settlements. Green Belt extension is also proposed, to contain development west of A1(M) at Stevenage and the limits for this are set by the Metropolitan Green Belt to the south, the Luton Green Belt to the west and the A505 route to the north [CD/DP/1, policy 5].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 48

14.4 In SP2003, it is similarly proposed to maintain the general extent of the Green Belts in Hertfordshire. However, the Green Belt notation on the Key Diagram is washed across the whole of the applications site, and both policy and the Key Diagram affirm that the area of the Green Belt also includes the Green Belt extensions in SP1998. Provision is made for boundary reviews at specified settlements, including Stevenage. However, it is made clear that this is only for the purposes of limited peripheral development and for minor adjustments to secure a more sustainable pattern of development and activities within these settlements [CD/DP/2f, policy 5].

14.5 In NHDLP1996, the open character of the Green Belt is to be maintained [CD/DP6,

policy 2]. Of relevance to the process of Green Belt designation (rather than to Stevenage West itself), the Proposals Map identifies “a detailed area that is to be excluded from the Green Belt” in order to admit development of a new neighbourhood to the north east of Stevenage [policy 4]. SDP1994 also makes reference to the process of Green Belt “adjustments” but otherwise seeks to maintain the integrity of the Green Belt [CD/DP/8a, paragraphs 2.6.8-2.6.13].

14.6 In SDP2004 explanatory text and the Proposals Map include adjustment of the Green

Belt boundary around Stevenage specifically to accommodate the part of Stevenage West that lies within the Borough Council’s jurisdiction [CD/DP/9d, paragraphs 2.6.7 – 2.6.9]. The Inspector’s report accepts this proposed adjustment [CD/DP/9e volume 1 paragraph 2.134 and recommendation at paragraph 2.141] noting that readjustment (back to its former alignment) would be necessary if the development of Stevenage West is not supported following strategic review of the allocation that he also recommends [paragraph 3.60]. SBC accepts this recommendation for strategic review and accordingly proposes no modification to the boundary adjustment in SDP2004 to exclude Stevenage West from the Green Belt [CD/DP/9h, volume 1 pages 29 and 30 of 36].

14.7 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)] MP3 says that

coalescence will be avoided with nearby settlements, namely Todd’s Green, Norton Green, Titmore Green and Little Almshoe.

Common Ground and other relevant background 14.8 Advice on the designation of Green Belts and the definition of their boundaries is

contained in paragraphs 2.1-2.11 of PPG2 [CD/PPG/2]. This effectively indicates that the general extent of Green Belts “has been fixed” through the approval of Structure Plans [paragraph 2.3 of PPG2] while it is for Local Plans to define detailed boundaries. SP1998 policies 5 and 8 [CD/DP/1d] convey intended redefinition of the Green Belt around Stevenage to allow for Stevenage West and compensatory addition to the extent of the Green Belt further to the west.

14.9 Ambiguity in the wording of the SP1998 policies led to submissions relating to whether

or not the Green Belt boundary had, in fact, already been adjusted to provide for Stevenage West. There was no substantive dispute between the parties over the implications of Green Belt policy should it be held to apply, since such policy is clear from PPG2.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 49

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 14.10 Before SP1998, the whole of the land west of A1(M) was defined with detailed

boundaries as part of the Metropolitan Green Belt in SP1991, SDP1994 and NHDLP1996 [CD/DP/6 Proposals Map, sheet 17 in particular]. The deposit version of SP1998 proposed exclusion of Stevenage West from the Green Belt [policies 4 and 7 and the Key Diagram] and that formed the basis for EIP consideration in the light of a Master Plan showing development for 10,000 dwellings. The EIP Panel correctly directed itself at the test for exceptional circumstances [PPG2 paragraph 2.6 and CD/DP1b, paragraph 4.61]. HCC averred that in terms of the 5 purposes of Green Belts, this would be one of the least damaging development locations [CD/DP/1b, paragraphs 5.61 and 5.62], and GO East also supported the exceptional circumstances test [paragraph 5.65]. The EIP Panel concluded that the need to release land for strategic development amounted to exceptional circumstances and considered the extent of the proposed release to be appropriate [paragraphs 5.66-5.68]. A similar approach was taken to the proposed extension of the Green Belt [paragraphs 9.31 and 9.36-9.40].

14.11 It would appear, however, that matters went somewhat awry in transposing proposed

modifications following consideration of the EIP Panel’s report onto the SP1998 Key Diagram. In this respect, Modification KD4 [CD/DP/1n] indicates that the size of the area to be excluded from the then Green Belt is larger than might be understood from the deposit draft version of the Key Diagram. However, the SP1998 Key Diagram (as modified) shows no schematic area at all for exclusion and simply shows the notation for a strategic housing area overlying Green Belt notation. That is different from the approach taken at Hemel Hempstead on the Key Diagram, where the strategic housing notation is in contrast planted within the existing built up area. The Development Plan as defined under the 1990 Act comprises the policies and Key Diagram but, bearing in mind these particular circumstances, it would be wrong to place any significant weight on the absence of any “white area” excluding Stevenage West from the Green Belt.

14.12 In response to the proposed modifications, GOEast confirmed the alteration to the

general extent of the Green Belt [CD/WSC/PRO/10(9), paragraphs 6 and 7]. Similarly, the statement of reasons and decisions in response to objections to the proposed modifications confirm that HCC regarded the effect of the policy as itself altering the general extent of the Green Belt [CD/DP/1c, pages 8,10 and 23]. This is reflected in SP1998 itself [CD/DP/1d, paragraphs 110, 111, 113, and 114 and particularly in the first paragraph of policy 5 “…The precise boundaries of the Green Belt, as modified in accordance with the following provisions of this policy…”]. In that context, the part of policy 5 dealing with boundary reviews linked to policy 8, requires that boundaries will be reviewed and sets the limits for exclusion. This is to be construed in a mandatory sense as in the part of the policy dealing with Green Belt extensions, where there is no suggestion that “will be extended” is dependent upon definition of detailed boundaries in the Local Plan. The Myton approach (Myton Ltd. v. Minister of Housing and Local Government and Another, 16 P&CR QBD 25 July 1965) provides any necessary flexibility in this respect. In the context of policy 8 the strategic housing allocation is again described as “excluded from the Green Belt” thus giving further effect to policy 5.

14.13 Comparison with the approach taken in the Dacorum Local Plan Inspector’s report is

inappropriate since that was concerned only with detailed boundary definition and not alteration to the general extent of the Green Belt [CD/HCC/PRO5(2), appendix 1]. Of greater relevance is the Rossington Hall decision of the Court of Appeal

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 50

[CD/WSC/PRO10/GB4]. In that case the Inspector’s conclusion,, that even though Green Belt boundaries had not been fixed the Structure Plan policy itself conferred Green Belt status on the land, was upheld as correct. A similar approach was adopted in the Section 78 appeal decision concerning land at Luton Road, Great Offley in North Hertfordshire District [CD/NHDCPRO/1A/REB/27, paragraphs 3 and 4].

14.14 There is no suggestion and nor could there be that it is for Local Plans to determine the

general extent of the Green Belt west of Stevenage. Indeed, the now withdrawn NHDLP2000 correctly acknowledged that “with the adoption of SP1998, the Green Belt in North Hertfordshire has been reduced to take account of the proposed development west of the A1(M) at Stevenage and has been extended to include the area from west of the A1(M) in the east to the Metropolitan Green belt to the south, the Luton Green Belt to the west and the A505 to the north” [CD/DP/7, paragraph 3.1.7]. It further noted that detailed boundaries were for Local Plans to determine [paragraph 3.1.8]. Similarly, in response to SP2003 [CD/DP/2f] (which proposes that the general extent of the Green Belt include Stevenage West), NHDC’s objection describes the effect of the new proposed policy as “reinstatement of the Green Belt” [CD/WSC/PRO/10/GB2].

14.15 Little significance attaches to the National Statistics publication of 29 March 2004

[NHDC/PRO/1A/REB/26], which simply records statistics on the basis it describes, namely using boundaries shown in adopted Local Plans. It does not capture areas where the general extent of the Green Belt has been redefined in Structure Plans. Of more direct bearing is the Ministerial reply given on 26 March 2003, which specifically refers to an additional 3,600 ha added to the North Hertfordshire Green Belt since 1997 [CD/WSC/PRO/10/GB1].

14.16 In SDP2004, boundaries have been defined so as to exclude Stevenage West from the

Green Belt and have been accepted to be in general conformity with SP1998 [CD/DP/9d with CD/DP/9h proposed modifications and CD/DP/9j]. The Local Plan Inspector considered whether the Green Belt boundary should be adjusted to allow for Stevenage West and accepted that it should be [CD/DP/9e, volume 1 of 2, page 46, paragraphs 2.117 – 2.120]. Given the advanced stage of SDP2004, considerable weight can be placed on its definition of boundaries.

14.17 NHDC commissioned it own landscape study for Stevenage West in 1999 [CD/LAN/9],

which included an appraisal of Green Belt boundaries to inform the appropriate response to SP1998 policy 5. The Green Belt boundary then proposed ran along B656 and thus was consistent with policy 5 and included the Stevenage West site. In NHDLP2000 [CD/DP/7, Proposals Map sheet 13] the Green Belt boundary was proposed to be drawn further eastwards to include only the PA3 and PA5 sites, thus making no provision for 10,000 dwellings as required by SP1998 policy 5. Whatever the validity of that approach, the Green Belt boundary in all of these plans would accommodate the present development proposals and no specific or actual prejudice to emerging strategy has been suggested.

14.18 In all the circumstances, there can be no objection in Green Belt policy terms to the

proposed development.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 51

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council 14.19 The primary submission of SBC is that the applications site is obviously not within the

Green Belt. As PPG2 makes plain, it is the function of the Structure Plan to indicate the general extent of the Green Belt, an approach that also accords with the Rossington decision [CD/WSC/PRO/10/GB/4]. SP1998 shows the general extent of the Green Belt, and the explanatory memorandum makes clear that the subject of its general extent is not intended to be revisited at Local Plan stage [CD/DP/1d, paragraph 174]. It is for the Local Plans to define only the detailed boundaries of the area that has, in effect, already been removed from the Green Belt by SP1998.

14.20 The vast majority of the applications site (particularly for PA3) would be unaffected by

any issue concerning detailed boundaries. The remaining areas (mostly relating to PA5) are those where NHDC objects to Stevenage West in landscape impact terms, rather than to development in principle. It follows that Green Belt boundaries would not affect those areas. To that extent it would seem that NHDC has confused Green Belt issues with landscape quality issues.

14.21 CASE likewise appears to accept that the applications site would not be affected by

detailed boundary issues [CD/CASE/PRO/1/SUPP(1)]. 14.22 Issues of appropriateness within the Green Belt do not therefore arise, but even were

they to do so, the SP1998 allocation of Stevenage West must constitute a very special circumstance justifying permission.

Main points of the case for Hertfordshire County Council 14.23 HCC relies upon the case presented by NHDC concerning the Green Belt arguments,

which largely reflects that in written response to Inspector questions [CD/HCC/PRO/5(2)]. In essence, HCC firmly holds the view that neither the wording of SP1998 nor the key diagram have removed Stevenage West from the Green Belt. The site also clearly lies within the Green Belt as defined in both NHDLP1996 and SDP1994. While the situation with regard to the latter may change upon adoption of SDP2004, the support for Stevenage West in SDP2004 is, in consequence of the Local Plan Inspector’s recommendation (that SBC is minded to accept), contingent upon strategic review of the housing allocation [CD/DP/9d policy H2, CD/DP/9e volume 1 of 2, paragraphs 3.51-3.67 and recommendation on page 90 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1]. In any event, the larger part of the site is within North Hertfordshire District, where Green Belt boundaries would remain unaltered in NHDLP1996. Thus, under Section 46(10) of the 1990 Act (as amended), even if it was to be held that SP1998 removes Stevenage West from the Green Belt, the conflicting provisions of the Local Plans in which the site is within the Green Belt, would prevail [CD/HCC/PRO/5(2)]. There is no “interim” policy for development control in SP1998 pending Local Plan boundary review because no such policy is needed given that the land is already Green Belt and thus suitably covered by a well established policy regime.

14.24 With regard to the subject of the Green Belt extension, SP1998 states that the proposed

extension within the area bounded by the Metropolitan Green Belt to the south, the Luton Green Belt to the west and the A505 to the north is designed to contain Stevenage West [CD/DP/1d, policy 5 and paragraph 113]. Whether or not the extension should take place if Stevenage West and associated Green Belt releases do not progress is a

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 52

matter for the development plan process. SP2003 retains proposals for Green Belt extension but this is on the basis that it would “assist regeneration of Luton and Dunstable and counter pressures for greenfield development at unsustainable rural settlements” [CD/DP/2f policy 5 and paragraph 73]. Again, should SP2003 progress, the decision whether or not to extend Green Belt coverage here is one that would be taken through the development plan process. If confirmed through RS/RPG14 [CD/DP/6], it would be advanced through NHDC’s proposed LDF and since it does not reach into Stevenage, precise boundaries would be a matter for NHDC only so no cross-border problems of co-ordination would arise.

14.25 HCC further put the Secretary of State on Notice that to grant permission for either PA3

or PA5 would release a huge amount of greenfield and Green Belt land for residential development. The fact that SP1998 envisages the land being released from the Green Belt may be an “other material consideration”, but for the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan clearly shows the land to be within the Green Belt. “Very special circumstances” would be needed to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and HCC does not consider that there are any such circumstances in the case of these applications.

Main points of the case for North Hertfordshire District Council 14.26 There has been some uncertainty in North Hertfordshire District over the approach to

Green Belt policy in development control decision making since approval of SP1998. No relevant decisions have been made in the area for exclusion. However, there have been 29 planning applications in the area proposed for Green Belt extension since April 1998, during which period there have been three distinct approaches.

14.27 From April 1998 until about June 2000, NHDC took the view that the area for extension

was not the subject of Green Belt policy because SP1998 policy 5 indicated that the status of the land would be determined through the Local Plan process. NHDLP2000 [CD/DP/7] was at that time in course of preparation.

14.28 In June 2000 NHDC received an appeal decision [CD/NHDC/PRO/1A/REB/27] in which

the Inspector opined “the adopted Structure Plan provides the basis for my decision on whether the site is clearly inside or clearly outside the general location of the Green Belt. While the Key Diagram is purely illustrative, the plan notation and the description in policy 5 of the Structure Plan indicate to me that the site is in the Green Belt. On balance, it is my judgement that it is appropriate to apply Green Belt policy to the site at this stage”. From June 2000 until approximately March 2003, NHDC accordingly applied Green Belt policy to the area between the Metropolitan Green Belt and the Luton Green Belt.

14.29 In July 2002 a proposal came forward to redevelop a garden centre and shop by the

erection of 7 houses. This was refused on Green Belt grounds [CD/NHDC/PRO/1A/REB/28] but in subsequent correspondence it was suggested to the Council that the application of Green Belt policy to the land was incorrect. NHDC accordingly sought the views of HCC and in-house legal advice. In the light of Section 46(10) of the 1990 Act and the letter of general conformity issued by HCC on 17 July 1998 [CD/WSC/PRO/10A appendix 7], the advice received was that the area between the Metropolitan Green Belt and the Luton Green Belt is not subject to Green Belt policy. This interpretation has been applied consistently since [CD/NHDC/PRO/1A/REB/29].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 53

14.30 That said, the area covered by the planning applications has formed part of the approved

Metropolitan Green Belt for many years, and is shown as such on the Proposals Maps of both NHDLP1996 [CD/DP/6] and SDP1994 [CD/DP/8a]. Those Plans both form part of the development plan for the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Although WSC contends that whether the applications site lies within the Green Belt is a “matter essentially of the interpretation of the strategic policy”, the position set out in the adopted Local Plan is significant in the event of any conflict between the Structure and the Local Plan policies.

14.31 SP1998 policy 5 [CD/DP/1d, page 38] is divided into a number of different parts. The

first paragraph sets out the existing position and identifies the extent of the Green Belt by reference to the Key Diagram. The Key Diagram is unambiguous, and shows the existing Green Belt boundary drawn tight up against the A1(M) covering, inter alia, the whole of Stevenage West. On that basis there is no scope to argue that SP1998 has altered the general extent of the Green Belt so as to exclude land from it that was previously included within it. The position is entirely clear, and is confirmed by the last sentence of this first paragraph of policy 5, namely that it is Local Plans which are intended to effect the proposed Green Belt changes.

14.32 The next relevant part of SP1998 policy 5 is under the heading “boundary reviews linked

to policy 8” and deals with Green Belt boundary changes at strategic locations for supplementary housing development, including at Stevenage West. The language of this part of the policy is phrased entirely within the future tense and contemplates a review that has yet to take place. It is this boundary review that will secure the exclusion of the land at Stevenage West from the approved Green Belt. Until such review has taken place the land remains part of the approved Green Belt as confirmed by the Key Diagram. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the policy, as already referred to, identifies the Local Plans as the mechanism by which the review should take place.

14.33 In the context of paragraphs 2.6-2.10 of PPG2 [CD/PPG/2] it must be borne in mind that

what is being proposed in SP1998 policy 5 is a different exercise to the situation where the Green Belt is being proposed for the first time. In that situation the Structure Plan identifies the general extent of the Green Belt and the Local Plan then defines the detailed boundaries. In this case the detailed Green Belt boundaries are already fixed and are shown on the Proposals Maps of the relevant Local Plans. The change which policy 5 of SP1998 seeks to effect can only be a prospective change, given that the Local Plan Proposals Map already defines the boundary of the Green Belt. There is no proposal in any emerging Local Plan in North Hertfordshire to change the boundary. It is meaningless to talk of a change to the extent of the Green Belt until the boundary has itself been changed; until changed it must remain where it is.

14.34 If, contrary to this submission, WSC is right in contending that SP1998 has altered the

general extent of the Green Belt such that the applications sites are no longer within it, NHDLP1996 [CD/DP/6] and (at least until adoption of SDP2004) SDP1994 [CD/DP/8a] are inconsistent with SP1998. However, that cannot be correct, because HCC has certified in accordance with Section 35C of the 1990 Act that the Local Plans are in general conformity with the Structure Plan [CD/WSC/PRO/10A, appendix 7 and CD/DP/9j]. In the case of NHDLP1996, the statement of general conformity specifically includes reference to the Green Belt. In any event, it would follow from Section 46 (10) (as amended) that “the provisions of the Local Plan prevail for all

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 54

purposes over any conflicting provisions of the Structure Plan”. The result of this is that the Proposals Map of the Local Plan gives the definitive answer as to whether the land is within the Green Belt or not.

14.35 Thus the proposal for Stevenage West constitutes inappropriate development within the

Green Belt. Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of PPG2 set out the approach to be taken and state, among other things, that such development should not be permitted except in very special circumstances.

14.36 One of the main reasons why Green Belt policy has been so successful is the rigour with

which it has been applied by successive Governments over the last 50 years. To grant planning permission now for major residential development on over 280 hectares of Green Belt land would create a clear precedent that can only serve to weaken the value of the Green Belt itself. If, contrary to NHDC’s case, this development is to proceed, it can only do so once the land has been removed from the approved Green Belt. To do otherwise would send out the wrong messages from Central Government to the general public and to the development industry. It is NHDC’s case that there is no longer any need for development of Stevenage West and it follows that very special circumstances sufficient to justify inappropriate development within the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by WSC.

Main points of the case for the Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion 14.37 SP1998 contains only one Green Belt policy [CD/DP/1d policy 5]. The first 4 lines of

that policy describe the general extent of the Green Belt as being about 12-15 miles deep around London with limited extensions along the main radial corridors and around identified towns. The policy adds that the Green Belt will also be maintained to the east of Luton as part of the South Bedfordshire Green Belt. That is the authoritative description of the general extent of the Green Belt in Hertfordshire, a point affirmed in the explanatory memorandum [CD/DP/1d paragraph 109]. In contrast, the advice in paragraph 2.3 of PPG2 [CD/PPG/2] is concerned with describing how Green Belts first come to be established for the first time. It should not be interpreted as meaning that each time a Structure Plan is reviewed it is necessarily re-fixing the general extent of the Green Belt. In CASE’s experience, if land is to be included in the Green Belt urgently, Local Planning Authorities are encouraged to promote an Interim Green Belt policy document to fill the hiatus until the Local Plan review process is completed.

14.38 SP1998 policy 5 continues by stating, in effect, that the precise and detailed boundaries

are then to be defined in Local Plans in accordance with the remainder of the policy. From that point onwards, the policy describes the areas where it is anticipated that these roll backs and increases of Green Belt policy coverage will be in the future. WSC suggests that “will be” should be taken in a mandatory sense of issuing an edict that the land has already been taken out of the Green Belt. That interpretation, however, requires some considerable distortion of the language. The key words in this respect are those of policy 5 under the heading “Boundary reviews linked to policy 8”. This proves beyond doubt that the land has not yet been taken out of the Green Belt. If SP1998 was itself taking land out of the Green Belt then it would not say “with an eye to exclusions”, since those exclusions would already have occurred.

14.39 WSC’s interpretation of the full extent of the Green Belt release [CD/WSC/PRO/10A,

appendix 15] cannot purport to show detailed boundaries. WSC plainly considered the

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 55

boundary to be consistent with that for PA5 (stopping at the edge of development) when preparing the Statement of Common Ground in November 2003 [extract at CD/CASE/PRO/1(1)], and in cross examination WSC conceded that there might be areas which could, on equally valid interpretation, be found to be either inside or outside the Green Belt [CD/CASE/PRO/1/SUPP(1)]. So WSC is plainly uncertain and such uncertainty is inevitable if WSC’s case is accepted. In reality, however, all SP1998 policy 5 is saying is that when the Green Belt is rolled back it should not be rolled back any further than the broad parameters that the policy sets [in clause (i) of policy 5 on page 39 under the heading “Boundary reviews linked to policy 8”].

14.40 The folly of treating the GB as already rolled back by SP1998 or by applying the Myton

approach [Myton, Ltd v Min of H and LG, QBD, 16 P&CR 1965] is obvious because of the uncertainty that this engenders. On CASE’s interpretation, however, the answer would be simple because of the provisions of Section 46(10) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Thus, the adopted Local Plan [CD/DP/6] shows the applications site in the Green Belt, and the SP1998 Key Diagram shows it to be within the Green Belt. The applications site is, therefore, within the Green Belt. If there were thought to be any uncertainty about SP1998, the Local Plan would prevail because there is a statement of general conformity pertaining to the relationship between SP1998 and NHDLP1996 [SC/PRO/10A appendix 7].

14.41 It is essential for there to be certainty about the Green Belt because such designation

affects the value of land, is crucial information for developers, and Local Planning Authorities must be able to respond to conveyancing enquiries accurately if they are to avoid allegations of negligence. Nobody yet knows what boundaries will be defined in NHDC’s intended LDF. The area taken out of the Green Belt could, in fact, be very small (if any at all) in the light of the strategic review of the Stevenage West allocation advanced in proposed modifications to SDP2004 [CD/DP/9h volume 1 of 2 page 27 of 111]. Whatever the case may be, any new boundary west of A1(M) could not be as clear or robust as the existing boundary provided by A1(M) itself.

14.42 The recent case of Chelmsford BC v FSS & Draper EWHC 2978 25 November 2003

[appended to CD/CASE/CLOSE] put a great deal of emphasis on the need to have an overwhelming case to meet the PPG2 test of “very special circumstances” to justify inappropriate development within Green Belts. The judgement made clear that the words of this test must be given their full force and effect. “Special” means something that exceeds or excels in some way that is unusual or uncommon. “Very special” goes even beyond that. In this context, WSC led no evidence on national housing shortage or other such matters in support of its case.

14.43 In sum, the applications site is within the Green Belt, both PA3 and PA5 represent

inappropriate development within the Green Belt, and there are no very special circumstances that would justify the grant of permission for such development in these cases.

15. Hydrology Policies 15.1 In SP1998, development is required to take full account of the need to protect aquifers,

watercourses and ground and surface water quality [CD/DP/1d, policy 39]. SP2003

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 56

adopts a more robust stance against development likely to have a harmful impact on water resources and introduces policy favouring sustainable urban drainage solutions [CD/DP/2f, policy 39]. SDP2004 policy EN32 seeks to avoid development affecting river corridors and water meadows unless satisfactory mitigation measures are incorporated and policy EN34 is formulated to prevent pollution of groundwater [CD/DP/9d and CD/DP/9h, volume 2]. In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)] MP37 requires assessment of the ecological impact of any changes to natural hydrology and drainage.

Main points of the case for the West of Stevenage Consortium 15.2 The site is underlain with chalk, which contains part of a major aquifer extending from

the Chilterns to East Anglia that is widely used for water supply. 15.3 A sustainable surface water drainage system would be provided at Stevenage West in

accordance with PPG25 advice. Due to the high permeability of soil, surface water run-off to local watercourses would occur only in periods of prolonged high intensity rainfall [CD/WSC/PRO/5A map of watercourses at appendix 3 and Langley Brook at appendix 1]. In terms of PPG9, the SSSI at Burleigh Meadows to south of site would not be affected [CD/WSC/PRO/5A appendix 4]. Other sensitive sites such as Knebworth Woods SSSI, Watery Grove, Burleigh and Langley Meadows SSSI and Almshoebury Regional Site of Geological Importance (RIG) have also been assessed [CD/WSC/PRO/5A map of SSSIs and RIG at appendix 3] and no material impact from the proposed surface water drainage strategy identified. Provision would be made in the S106 planning Obligation for monitoring and management. There is support from English Nature for the measures proposed [CD/WSC/PRO/5A, annexed to appendix 1 hydrology report].

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council 15.4 Since the site is located on a chalk ridge it is not in a flood risk area as defined by the

Environment Agency. The location above a major aquifer does, however, require care to avoid infiltration of polluted groundwater. In designing the proposed sustainable urban drainage system, WSC has undertaken detailed studies of the geology, hydrology and hydrogeology of the area and concluded that with the inclusion of oil traps and petrol interceptors there would be no loss of water quality or material impact on local watercourses. The delivery of this would be ensured by the proposed S106 planning Obligation.

16. Landscape Policies 16.1 RPG9 gives priority to protecting areas designated at international or national level

either for their intrinsic nature conservation value, their landscape quality or their cultural importance [CD/RPG/1b, policy E1].

16.2 In draft RSS/RPG14, Planning Authorities and other Agencies are urged to protect and

enhance the diversity and local distinctiveness of landscape character and to secure increased woodland cover [CD/RPG/6, policies ENV2 and ENV4].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 57

16.3 SP1998 requires development to be designed in such a manner that loss of tree and hedge cover is avoided and the healthy long term growth of new and retained cover is ensured [CD/DP/1d, policy 41]. SP2003 translates this from a development control forma into one to be recognised in Local Plan policies [CD/DP/2f, policy 41]. Pending review of local landscape designations in accordance with PPG7 advice, SP1998 says that the details of development in Landscape Conservation Areas defined in Local Plans is to be carefully considered, with a framework for action to be established for distinctive landscape regions [CD/DP/1d, policies 43 and 44]. Both would be replaced in SP2003 with a new policy seeking to foster local landscape character [CD/DP/2f, new policy on page 94].

16.4 NHDLP1996 policy 12 [CD/DP/6] shows the southern part of the site to be within a

Landscape Conservation Area [CD/PA3/12e 4 of 4, plan 9.0/2A and CD/PA5/12e 4 of 4, plan 9.0/2A], where permission will not normally be granted for proposals that do not positively enhance the landscape. For the most part, this and the remainder of the site are also shown to be within a number of “Countryside Areas” where policy 13 and reasoned justification explains the approach to balancing competing interests by careful countryside stewardship [CD/DP/6 and CD/PA3/12e 4 of 4, plan 9.0/2A and CD/PA5/12e 4 of 4, plan 9.0/2A].

16.5 A number of policies in SDP1994 seek to protect and enhance various features including

woodlands and trees [CD/DP/8a, policies EN14 and EN15], and ancient lanes and ancient hedgerows including Meadway and Shephall Lane [policy EN17] as well as the general visual amenity of the local landscape [policies EN23 and EN24]. Much the same approach to these is taken in SDP2004 [CD/DP9d, policies EN13, EN14, EN16 and EN24 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2, which would introduce a requirement for developers to plant new hedgerows and maintain and enhance the character of the landscape]. In Landscape Conservation Areas proposals that have a detrimental effect on landscape characteristics will not be permitted and proposals will be considered having regard to landscape character statements flowing from the Hertfordshire Landscape Strategy [policy 23 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2]. In the Stevenage West Chapter of SDP2004 policy SW3 requires, among other things, that the development proposals protect and provide management guidelines for features of landscape interest on or adjacent to the site, with further detailed requirements included in policy SW11.

16.6 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)], MP5 says that the

development will aim to blend with the existing landscape character rather than presenting a hard urban edge to the open countryside. MP37 requires existing natural and semi-natural features on and around the site to be retained, protected and/or enhanced where appropriate. MP40 urges that landscaping and planting is used to create a sense of identity and an attractive and sustainable environment. MP41 encourages the use of native species. MP42 promotes a network of landscaping and open space in the form of “green links” of benefit to wildlife, landscape, recreation and amenity.

Main points of the case for the West of Stevenage Consortium 16.7 A detailed landscape and visual assessment of the proposed Stevenage West site and its

surroundings was undertaken in 1996 to inform its selection as a strategic development location in the then deposit version of SP1998. This appraisal included a written statement, illustrations and photographs and was presented to the SP1998 EIP in March 1997 and concluded that the visual impact of the development would be “relatively

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 58

localised with only a few properties affected compared with a more dispersed option” [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 5.70].

16.8 The EIP report records that HCC was of the opinion that the landscape and visual impact

of the development was not “an insurmountable problem” [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 5.70]. Notwithstanding objections voiced at the EIP by CASE and others, and the Panel’s acceptance that development west of the A1(M) “would be prominent and would intrude on what is at present attractive countryside” the Panel concluded that “with careful siting of the development and appropriate landscaping the effects could be contained” [CD/DP/1b paragraphs 5.83 and 5.95]. The scheme at that time under consideration by the EIP was for 5,000 dwellings with potential for a further 5,000 dwellings and it was considered alongside competing proposals for strategic allocations, such as land at Royston [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 7.18]. The Panel also took into account the merits of any possible major alternative sites within or adjacent to Stevenage. In this regard, SBC had considered eight potential locations. Of these, land to the east of Stevenage was said by HCC to be constrained by the need to protect the Beane valley and gave rise to dangers of coalescence with Aston. To the south, coalescence with Knebworth would be difficult to avoid. To the north, the Green Belt boundary around the Wellfield Park development had only recently been confirmed and there were other landscape, ecological and other constraints on that side of the town. Whether singly or in combination, none were regarded by the Panel as suitable alternatives to a strategic allocation at Stevenage West, which was chosen as the preferred option. There can thus be no strategic level objection to the location in terms of landscape considerations.

16.9 Following adoption of HSP1998 and as part of the Garden City 21 programme of

technical and public consultation, WSC jointly with HCC, BC, NHDC and the Countryside Agency commissioned a State of the Environment Report [CD/GAR/6]. This used the “Environmental Capital” approach then being pioneered by the Countryside Agency, the Environment Agency, English Heritage and English Nature [CD/GAR/1]. The outputs from it were incorporated into the EIA process for the current Stevenage West applications.

16.10 The existing structure of vegetation within the site and the surrounding landscape

provides containment to the site [CD/WSC/PRO/19B plans CAS-3, CAS-8, CAS-9 and CAS-10] and it is therefore more able to accommodate the scale of development proposed than more open landscapes with a weaker structure of vegetation. Visibility studies demonstrate that the site can be seen from part of the Langley valley to the west, Almshoe valley to the north and from the edge of St Ippollits to Todd’s Green. In many of these views, there is a backdrop of the existing urban area of Stevenage. Views towards the site from Stevenage itself are perceived in the context of the existing urban area and A1(M) [CD/WSC/PRO/19C, photographs A-K].

16.11 The Landscape Strategy [CD/WSC/PRO/19B, drawing CAS-13] accords with the Master

Planning Principles [CD/SPG/1 (i)-(iii), Section 9] and meets the requirements to provide a strong landscape structure to the new neighbourhood using native species to increase opportunities for biodiversity, recreation and amenity. The majority of the existing vegetation would be retained and reinforced where appropriate. Particular consideration has been given to the treatment of the edges of the proposed development. The extensive linear park proposed along the western site boundary of the site together with structural planting proposed here would link existing landscape features and create an appropriate interface between the development and the adjacent countryside. Earth

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 59

modelling would be introduced on parts of the western boundary for visual screening purposes and along the eastern boundary for acoustic mitigation of traffic noise on the A1(M). This bunding would be modelled to “marry in” with the existing topography.

16.12 Off-site landscaping is also proposed as part of the Landscape Strategy to provide

compensatory visual benefit [CD/WSC/PRO/19B, drawing CAS-13]. Some of the former tree blocks and hedgerows shown on Historic Ordnance Survey Maps would be reinstated, enhancing the visual quality and nature conservation interest of the local landscape and strengthening its character [CD/WSC/PRO/19B, drawings CAS-6 and CAS-7]. Thus the beneficial aspects of the proposed Stevenage West development include retention and management of existing woodlands, tree belts and hedgerows, and the introduction of substantial areas of new planting both on and off site. Further benefits would arise from the creation of the linear park along the western edge of the development and the creation of other substantial areas of open space. It would also improve the urban fringe along this part of A1(M), particularly by enhancing the use and appearance of the Norton Green Landfill site which is currently highly visible form this major road. The surroundings of the existing Dyes Lane travellers’ site would be improved by the proposed bunding alongside A1(M) and by the planting forming separation from the proposed playing fields [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19 figure 24 on page 73A]. Set against all these advantages, the total number of existing properties, public rights of way and roads that would be adversely affected to any significant degree is limited [CD/ PA3/12e and CD/PA5/12e, volume 2 of 4, annex 9.6]. Some of these areas are already influenced by the built up area of Stevenage including, for example, the line of pylons to the north of the site, the Lister Hospital and development on rising ground on the east of Stevenage [CD/WSC/PRO/19C, photographs A-K].

16.13 Although the site falls within a Landscape Conservation Area under SP1998 policy 43,

the wording of that policy and accompanying text [CD/DP/1d policies 43 and 44 and paragraph 393 ] signal the end to such local designations. Although this is an approach not fully taken forward from PPG7 into PPS7, continued reliance on this designation by NHDC is, it is submitted, misplaced and contrary to now well-established policy. NHDC has itself gone a considerable way towards preparation of a landscape character assessment for its area in line with the now current approach. The inconsistency of retention of the landscape character area designation with hen Government policy was identified by the SDP2004 Inspector, who recommended at least partial review [CD/DP/9E paragraphs 7.123-7.124]. In the circumstances it is submitted that no material weight should be placed on the technical retention of part of the site in the Landscape Conservation Area designation.

16.14 The principal objection to the scheme on landscape impact grounds is made by NHDC.

That Council jointly with SBC employed Hyder Consulting in September 2001 to carry out an assessment of the landscape and visual impact sections of the EIA for Stevenage West. The assessment states that “The work undertaken by the applicants and reported upon represents a systematic and objective account of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed scheme. Direct and indirect effects have been considered, the methodology used and the relevant data base are described and a good account of the development is given. It therefore complies with current planning and landscape assessment guidance in these terms. However, several matters, not of a fundamental character, have not been satisfactorily addressed.” [CD/NHDC/6, paragraph 2.6]. These last matters have since been considered in the ESFI [CD/PA3/22 and CD/PA5/22, volume 1 of 2, annex 9.0/5].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 60

16.15 The assessment of landscape and visual impact produced by WSC for the Inquiry has not

changed in substance from that produced in the EIA. In seeking to raise objection in principle at the Inquiry [NHDC/PRO/3 paras.5.1 and 5.2], it would thus seem that NHDC is seeking to change the stance that it had previously taken [CD/NHDC/4 paragraph 8.59]. Indeed, the areas of the proposed development which NHDC now considers to be unacceptable in principle lie within the area identified in the landscape appraisal of Stevenage West compiled in 1999 by NHDC itself as being an acceptable location for development of 5,000 units [CD/LAN/9 paragraph 7.2]. A larger development area than that identified in the 1999 appraisal was subsequently shown in the withdrawn NHDLP2000 [CD/DP/7 Proposals Map 13]. The development of the detailed boundaries, it is submitted, indicated that far from the site being unacceptable in landscape and visual impact terms as NHDC now suggests, the development of 5,000 houses could be acceptably located west of the A1(M).

16.16 The starting point for any appraisal of landscape impact is assessment of the quality and

importance of the landscape affected. There is a large measure of agreement in this respect. The assessment of WSC’s EIA carried out on behalf of NHDC and SBC in 2001 described the landscape to the west of the A1(M) as being “transitional between urban fringe and traditional agriculture in as much as there has been introduced into the landscape elements which have undermined the intrinsic rural character of the landscape” [CD/NHDC/6 paragraph 6.15]. It identified as examples of urban intrusion the landfill site, the Transco High Pressure Gas Main compound and the travellers’ site. SBC in its committee report on the current applications also describes the character of the area as being “a transition between the built-up area of Stevenage to the east and the rural landscape to the west” [CD/SBC/16 paragraph 2.5]. The view of NHDC officers, in their committee report on the applications confirmed that the land affected by the development “while attractive, is not exceptional or particularly rare” [NHDC/4 para.6.59]. Further confirmation of this latter point is contained in the Landscape Character Assessment of North Hertfordshire and Stevenage. This was carried out on behalf of NHDC and SBC to inform, among other things, the identification of Landscape Character Areas in accordance with advice in paragraph 2.15 of PPG7 [CD/NHDC/PRO/3A, appendix A]. It indicated that the site lies within the “Almshoe plateau” character area which is acknowledged to be “frequent in the county” [CD/NHDC/PRO/3A appendix A page 17] and is considered to be in “a poor condition where improvement and restoration is required” [page 18]. Similarly, the Langley valley is considered to be in poor condition and weak in terms of its robustness, with “reconstruction” required [p.29].

16.17 WSC fully accepts that the Stevenage West development would have an impact on the

landscape in visual terms. The issue, however, is the magnitude of this impact, which has been assessed systematically in the EIA submitted with the applications and in evidence to the Inquiry [CD/PA3/12e and 22e and CD/PA5/12e and 22e and CD/WSC/PRO/19 suite]. It is intended that the broad structure of landscaping for the site would be subject to control by planning condition, and details for each part of the scheme would b reserved matters.

16.18 The specific concerns now raised by NHDC relate to distinct aspects of the proposed

development, as follows:

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 61

The north and north-west frontage of the development and its impact of the Almshoe valley [CD/NHDC/PRO/3A, appendix B, figure 7, viewpoints A, B and C and appendix 8 photographs] 16.19 WSC acknowledges that at various locations in this area at completion of the

development there would be an impact of moderate significance [CD/WSC/PRO/19 paragraphs 3.66-3.67 and CD/WSC/PRO/19B, drawing CAS-18]. However, development has always been anticipated on this part of the site [CD/GAR/C1 and CD/DP/7 Proposals Map 13].

16.20 The significant areas of structural landscape planting proposed would reduce the residual

effects of the proposed development from properties and rights of way to the north and north-west of the proposed development and the impact is regarded as low or negligible [CD/WSC/PRO/19B, drawing CAS-19]. It has been confirmed that this landscaping would be provided as part of the initial phase of the development thereby providing about 7 years for it to establish before dwellings in the north and north-west areas of the applications site are built [CD/WSC/PRO/19(2)]. Reduction of ground levels to enable the dwellings to sit lower in the landscape could also be explored at detailed stage, but is not an approach that WSC commends. It may also be appropriate to allow existing off-site hedgerows under control of WSC to grow higher than now, thus adding to the screening without requiring new planting. The illustrative landscaping proposals have been developed around the PA5 scheme but it would be possible to produce suitable interim proposals for the PA3 scheme for approval at detailed stage.

16.21 It should also be noted that SLA designation does not include the north and north

western parts of the applications site [CD/NHDC/PRO3A Revised Figure 3] and that the Lister Hospital is also visible as a backdrop here [CD/WSC/PRO/19C, photograph 9, white buildings to left hand side]

16.22 In all the circumstances, it is thus submitted that the character of the valley outside the

development area would be largely preserved, as would the amenity of the rights of way through it [CD/WSC/PRO/19B, drawing CAS-18 and CAS-19].

The western frontage south of the mixed use centre between High Broomin Wood and W5 and impact on the Langley valley (“the bulge”) [CD/NHDC/PRO/3A, appendix B, figure 7, viewpoint D and appendix 8 photographs] 16.23 Turning then to the effect of the outward “bulge” in development north of High Broomin

Wood on views across the Langley valley, WSC accepts that there are isolated points on the road and rights of way network from which, by reason of their elevated position, would allow distant views towards the proposed development. The effect on these views would, however, be limited. They would also be mitigated by the proposed advanced landscaping [CD/WSC/PRO/19B, drawing CAS-13] and the fact that they would already have the urban area of Stevenage as a backcloth and features such as the Rush Green scrapyard in the foreground [CD/WSC/PRO/19C photograph 18 and CD/PA3/12e and CD/PA5/12e volume 4 of 4, plan 9.0/5].

16.24 NHDC accepted in cross-examination that the impact of development from viewpoint D

would, by reason of the distance across the valley, be “low”. In any event the proposed buildings would not break the skyline in views from this location. Views of the development from lower parts of the Langley valley would be negligible. In respect of views from the west of the area of proposed development between High Broomin Wood

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 62

and W5, it is of note that the development boundary proposed by NHDC in preparing its withdrawn local plan No.3 included the “bulge”.

The landmark buildings fronting the cricket pitch [CD/NHDC/PRO/3A, appendix B, figure 7, viewpoint D and appendix 8 photographs] 16.25 NHDC objection on this point appears to be simply on the basis that the proposed

“landmark buildings” ought not be seen. However, an approach whereby all buildings are screened from off-site views is not one which WSC can endorse and it is also not an approach which informed the development of the Master Plan [CD/GAR/6/1]. Indeed, landmark buildings, such as churches and country mansions are a familiar feature of the countryside. The existing listed Almshoebury Farmhouse is an example of a local landmark building [WSC/PRO/19/REB paragraphs 5.4-5.5]. These buildings would to an extent be intended to be seen from the west and, in particular, from elevated viewpoints on the west side of the Langley valley. However, their detailed design is a reserved matter and NHDC may be assured that they would be well designed and set within an attractive landscape setting. They would not therefore be visually unacceptable. In any event if at the design stage a different approach is preferred, the detailed design of these buildings can take that on board. Nonetheless, the Master Planning Principles and Design Guide specifically provides for landmark buildings [CD/PA3/9 and CD/PA5/9, paragraph 3.38 and glossary definition, and see also CD/GAR/5, page 79 “place making”], so NHDC’s concern is somewhat surprising.

The secondary school site [CD/NHDC/PRO/3A, appendix B, figure 7, viewpoint E and appendix 8 photographs] 16.26 Following the production of additional sectional illustrations [CD/WSC/PRO/19(4)]

NHDC accepted in cross-examination that a) the school would be seen in the context of the proposed blocks of new woodland planting and b) the school buildings would “probably” be below the horizon. The school playing fields to the west of the proposed school and bund would be terraced and the view of these fields would be limited by the extensive planting on their periphery [CD/WSC/PRO/19(3)]. Views would therefore be limited and generally in the distance from across the Langley valley.

16.27 It is also relevant to have regard to the fact that the decision to locate the secondary

school on the western edge of the development was influenced by several factors [identified in WSC/PRO/19 REB para.5.45]. These included the aims of providing an attractive setting for the school, inclusion of the playing fields beside the linear park and ensuring that the secondary school would be well related to the mixed use centre. NHDC’s wholly non-specific suggestion that the secondary school should be moved elsewhere would extinguish these advantages. School development of this kind is predominantly open in character with buildings that give opportunities for a high standard of design, and it is entirely usual to find their location on the edge of development. That in any event in this case has a functional advantage as it would preserve the opportunity for the school to serve additional development to the west should that be sought in accordance with SP1998 and emerging RPG/RSS14.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 63

The proposed bunding [CD/NHDC/PRO/3A, appendix B, figure 7, viewpoints D and E and appendix 8 photographs] 16.28 Proposed bunding on the school site and further south would be feathered into the

natural slope of the valley side and would be planted with a natural woodland mix to reflect existing vegetation within the local landscape. Both the profile and detailed design of the bunding would be subject to the prior approval of the local planning authority, so there would be no reason for it to be of the regimented or incongruous nature which seems to underlie NHDC’s concerns [SC/PRO/19 paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9 and WSC/PRO/19/REB paragraph 5.40]. The creation of bunds has become a well-used technique within landscape architecture and with careful planting and management there can be no doubt that the planting on the bund could be successfully established [example at Reading service area on M4 illustrated in attachments to CD/WSC/PRO/19(1)]. This may involve, for example, pit planting, mulches, incorporation of water-retaining materials, ripping the top-soil to overcome compaction during the construction phase and weed control. They would also be fenced off while plantings are becoming established to prevent damage by children and destruction by rabbits. Hardy species such as hawthorn and blackthorn could also be used.

16.29 Main points of the case for North Hertfordshire District Council 16.30 NHDC landscape concerns focus on four areas of the scheme [CD/NHDC/PRO/3A,

appendix B, coloured blue on figure 7], as follows, all but the first of which lie within the Landscape Conservation Area [CD/DP/6, policy 12]:

Almshoe Valley: The area north and north-west of the northern primary school 16.31 The Primary School is located broadly on the plateau at approximately 112.5 AOD

contour. The land to the north and northwest is on sloping ground, falling to the Almshoe valley. Here housing would be located from the 112.5m AOD down to the 97.5m contour, over a difference in levels of approximately 15metres [CD/WSC/PRO/19(2)].

16.32 This is an area which is highly visible from a number of public places to the north. It has

an outer exposed edge of approximately 600m, although not all of it would be visible from every location. There is a network of paths in the vicinity, among which are W22, W15-I21, W16-I19, I20 and the track to Almshoebury [CD/NHDC/PRO/3A, appendix B, figure 7]. It is an area which has a remoteness from Stevenage and other urban influences; the only intrusion being the Lister Hospital in the distance [CD/WSC/PRO/19C, photographs A and B and CD/NHDC/PRO/3A, appendix C, views A,B and C]. There is very little to remind one of the proximity of Stevenage town. There are no other visual detractors apart from the pylons to the North [CD/WSC/PRO/19B drawing CAS-4]. The Almshoe valley is of a different scale to the Langley valley, being smaller and more intimate in character. The impact of development would be greater here than it might in the wider spaces of the Northern and Southern parts of the valley. The landscape character is described by WSC as comprising 7 medium sized fields, sloping towards the northern valley floor which has an intimate scale with a sense of enclosure. The proposal to increase offsite hedgerow planting [CD/WSC/PRO/19B drawing CAS-13] would reinforce that enclosure and intimacy. WSC recognises that these slopes are one of the most visually exposed areas of the site and that the siting of

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 64

development here would be an exception to the general approach of locating development on the less visually exposed parts of the site [CDWSC/PRO/19B drawing CAS-12 and WSC/PRO/19 paragraph 3.48 on page 28].

16.33 The falling ground creates particular problems for mitigating the visual impact of the

development in this location. There is no bunding proposed here. The development would rely upon planting along the site edge, on falling ground. Such planting would be at a lower level than the development which would be on rising ground behind it. There is no proposal for a linear park here [CD/PA3/16B and CD/PA5/16B] and built development would be closer to the edge of the site than elsewhere. It is evident from the cross-sectional drawings produced by WSC that the development would be visible from the rights of way here [CD/WSC/PRO/19C drawings CAS-14A, CAS-14C and CAS-14D]. The trees within the development shown on these sections [drawings CAS-14A, CAS-14C and CAS-14D] do not reach the rooflines of surrounding properties: the roofs would not be screened. Even when mature the development would not therefore be fully screened. The heights assumed for assessments at maturity are 20m; this could take as long as 40-50 years to achieve [CD/WSC/PRO/19, paragraph 3.59 and CD/WSC/PRO/19A appendix 6 paragraphs 6.73 and 6.77]. Built development would thus appear as a series of rooflines cascading down the valley sides. WSC recognises that the proposal would have a high impact on completion [CD/WSC/PRO/19C drawing CAS-18]. W22 is shown as suffering high impact, as is W15, I21, W16-I19 and I20.

16.34 This analysis demonstrates the unacceptability of development in this location which

would intrude into the Almshoe valley. The building of houses here would be highly intrusive and damaging to this area, which is of a small scale and has a sense of remoteness marking it out from much of the rest of the site. But for the need to achieve housing numbers, development would not be proposed here on the exposed downslopes falling into the Almshoe valley. In the opinion of NHDC it is a step too far.

16.35 Except for one parcel (due N of the Primary School site), there would be no dwellings on

any of these areas in the PA3 scheme. Inasmuch as PA3 is concerned, about 20-30 houses would need to be redistributed elsewhere within the development to meet NHDC concerns. This is a relatively small number and could be dealt with at detailed stage. All the other parcels form part of the further 1,400 dwellings that make up the PA5 scheme. The area concerned is approximately 78,000 sq m, which equates to 235 houses (7.8ha @ 30dwellings per hectare). Unlike PA3, this is too great a number to be easily redistributed and relocation of the parcels would be necessary. No evidence has been submitted to show whether this could be achieved within the red line of the applications site. Accordingly the PA5 scheme should be refused planning permission.

Langley Valley: The area around High Broomin Wood (“the bulge”) 16.36 This is the southernmost of the areas of concern to NHDC [CDNHDC/PRO/3A,

appendix B revised figure 7] and relates only to PA5. For the most part, the western edge of the southern part of the development would be kept behind Upper Kitching Spring and behind High Broomin Wood [CDNHDC/PRO/3A, appendix B figure 6]. However, north of High Broomin Wood the form of the development would change significantly; it would bulge outwards, up to the edge of the plateau on the 120m contour, protruding well in front of a block of unnamed woodland (W5) further to the North. It would be visually exposed [CD/WSC/PRO/19C drawing CAS-12]. The

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 65

currently proposed approach is heavy-handed, and insensitive, resulting in development extending further westwards than it should. In order to provide mitigation on this falling ground, it has been necessary to propose a large bund, almost 500 metres long, which would be an unnatural feature in the landscape. Again it would be on falling ground, and less effective for that reason.

16.37 A more sensitive approach would have been to draw the leading edge of development

back, and then screen the edge by a planting belt joining High Broomin Wood to the unnamed woodland. WSC accepted that this approach would reduce the impact of the development [CD/WSC/PRO/19A appendix 7 first complete paragraph on penultimate page]. This would have the added benefit that it would be on the same level as the development, so that the screening effect would not be diminished by being at a lower level.

16.38 This is an area of 1.72 hectares. It would accommodate just 50 dwellings (at 30

dwellings per hectare) which should be located elsewhere. Taken together with the land north and west of the northern primary school, there is a total of 285 dwellings in PA5 which thus should relocated. Again, there is no evidence that it would be possible to relocate them within the red line of the applications site. The visual impact would be unacceptable and it must follow that PA5 should be refused planning permission.

Langley Valley: The central school site 16.39 The playing fields and athletics track would occupy some 560m of the site frontage

facing the Langley valley. If the cricket square is included, this would increase to more than 750m. The creation of the playing fields and the track would require significant earth moving operations to create a level playing platform. The currently proposed plans [CD/WSC/PRO/19(3) and CD/WSC/PRO/19(4)] show that the two senior playing fields (those oriented NW-SE) would be on an embankment of 3m at their northwest corner and in a cutting of over 5m along the width of their southern boundary. The two junior playing fields (those oriented NE-SW) would be on an embankment of between over 2m and almost 4m high along their northwest boundary, whereas the southeastern boundary changes between an embankment of over 2m high and a cutting of over 2m. There would be a steep bank between the junior and senior pitches, involving a change in levels of 9 m over about 30m, resulting in a slope of approximately 1:3.

16.40 South of the junior pitches the levels would rise from 112.9 m to 119 m at the athletics

track, in a double step giving a 6m difference in height over a horizontal distance of 50m. The section drawing [CD/WSC/PRO/19(4)] reveals that the slopes would be 1:3 and 1:5. The athletics track itself would require only small levels changes. The 2 further playing fields associated with the primary school would also have small changes in levels but is in an area that is unprotected by bunds. The overall effect would be to create an angular, engineered appearance, entirely out of character with the slope of the surrounding countryside, which is characterised by a gently rolling chalk landscape. It would appear as a series of engineered platforms, connected by cuttings and embankments. The total area occupied by these surfaces would be 5.7 hectares, a very significant area of land, and that excludes the additional areas that would be taken up by embankment, slopes and bunds.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 66

16.41 This area would be visible not only from the west side of the Langley valley but also from the public right of way past Coney Cottages. The cross-section submitted by WSC is only taken from B656 [CD/WSC/PRO/19B,drawing CAS14-A, section B-B], whereas the area would be seen from the West side of the Langley valley [CD/WSC/PRO/19B drawing CAS14-A, section Ll-L] where the level is 130 m AOD. Thus from this west side of the Langley valley the view would be down onto the playing fields area which would be at the lower level of 120 m AOD. There would be exposed views of the cut faces and the embankment from the footpath running down the Langley valley, as well as other views from the local footpath network.

16.42 The bunding itself would be an incongruous and conspicuous feature in the landscape.

As can be seen from the Master Plan [CD/PA3/16B and CD/PA5/16B] it would be very extensive, being approximately 700 m in length. Moreover, the cumulative effect of the vertical slope would amount to a difference in height of as much as 11m (103 m-113 m) [CD/WSC/PRO/19B,drawing CAS14-A, section B-B].

16.43 There can also be real problems with planting on bunds, caused by compaction of the

soil and drying out, as well as discolouration and uneven growth rates. Although there are methods to deal with each of these problems, practice does not always live up to the theory. This can be seen from WSC’s own photographs of the M4 Services at Reading [CD/WSC/PRO/19A, appendix 5 which after 7 years growth show uneven growth rates and intermittent gaps]. Establishment of planting associated with the school site is likely to be particularly problematic given the proximity of the school environment. It is still unclear whether WSC’s intention is that children would be excluded from this area altogether and, if not, how plantings would be protected. Even if the area of the bund were fenced, the presence of children would doubtless make the establishment of planting more difficult and problematic.

16.44 Parts of the secondary school building would also be visible in the wider landscape and it

would be seen as a significant urban feature being a very large building 170 m in length, and approximately 10 m high. The finished floor levels would be at 115 m and 114 m AOD, above the bund at 114 m and 113 m [CD/WSC/PRO/19(3)]. A fair amount of the building would be visible above the bund, particularly in panoramic views from higher ground, for example from Langley Lane on the opposite side of the valley, at 130 m. The Primary School would be a further 80m long, have a finished floor level of 117.5 m and be located close to the secondary school building [CD/WSC/PRO/19(3)]. It is not appropriate for this school complex to be sited right at the edge of the development site in what is a sensitive location given the topography and the scale of the school proposals.

16.45 NHDC’s conclusion in respect of the school site is that what is proposed is unacceptable

due to the harm it would cause to the overall character of the local landscape and that accordingly planning permission should be refused for both the PA3 and PA5 applications.

Langley Valley: The landmark buildings around the cricket pitch 16.46 These would be at a high point of the site, about 120m AOD, and on the western

boundary [CD/PA3/16B, CD/PA5/16B and illustration in CD/PA3/9 page 32 and CD/PA5/9 page 32]. NHDC’s concern is one of design approach. Whereas WSC wishes to use these buildings to “mark” Stevenage West in the landscape, NHDC

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 67

considers that the development would more appropriately be screened and its visual impact mitigated. WSC acknowledges that this western edge between High Broomin Wood and Almshoebury is the most visually sensitive part of the site and that substantial visual impacts would result, particularly on the views across the Langley valley [WSC/PRO/19A, appendix 7, letter to Ms Allen dated 21 August 2002, third paragraph on the second page beginning “at paragraph 4.8…”]. Given the distance of the view from the far side of the Langley valley one would not be able to appreciate the quality of architecture or design of any proposed landmark buildings; all one would perceive would be the scale and therefore the impact of (tall) buildings. As presently shown the area around the cricket square would appear as a significant and largely unbroken block of development. No screening is proposed. The impact would be more severe because of the strong vertical emphasis. It would be more appropriate to reduce the scale of the buildings and to break the building group up with planting, to create a softer edge to the development.

16.47 Although clearly a matter of detailed design this dispute discloses a fundamental

difference of approach between WSC and NHDC on how this high point of the site should be treated. The Inspector is invited to indicate in his report what in his opinion should be the correct approach; obviously the precise form of development would emerge at the detailed stage.

Main points of the case for the Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion 16.48 It is Government policy that the countryside should be safeguarded for its own sake and

non-renewable and natural resources should be protected [CD/PPG/6 paragraph 2.14]. The loss of this countryside – green fields, hedges, shrubs, trees, fresh air and wildlife – would be keenly felt by many of those 7,000 plus people who have objected through CASE. It would be a vast area to urbanise (281 ha or 694 acres) and the bluebells in High Broomin Wood and Kitching Spring together with many miles of hedgerow would survive only in an urban rather than a rural setting. There would be further inevitable urbanisation of the fringes beyond the applications site itself, including through fly-tipping. This is an important strip of countryside between the Chilterns AONB to the west and the built up areas to the east. The majority of the site would be built on, concreted over or covered by tarmac. The development would be high-density. Although this loss received little Inquiry time it is nonetheless of considerable importance and considerable weight should be placed upon it, made more acute by the fact that it is Green Belt land that would disappear too.

17. Lighting Policies 17.1 SP1998 says, among other things, that development proposals that would be likely to

result in, or significantly contribute to unacceptable levels of pollution (which includes light pollution) will not be permitted [CD/DP/1d, policy 57]. This is repeated in SP2003 [CD/DP/2f, policy 57] and in SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d, policies 26 and 29 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2].

17.2 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)] MP45 requires full

and adequate street lighting designed to minimise aerial light pollution.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 68

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 17.3 The local environment is already affected by the lights of Stevenage and Hitchin

[WSC/PRO/18]. However, lighting within the proposed development would be subject to detailed approval, so minimum intrusion through sky glow and reflected light could be ensured. This would be fully addressed through the proposed conditions.

18. Luton Airport

Policies

18.1 “The Future Of Air Transport” White Paper was published by the Department for Transport in December 2003 [CD/AIR/10]. It sets out the strategic framework for the development of airport capacity in the United Kingdom over the next 30 years, and will thus have a bearing upon emerging regional strategy [CD/RPG/6]. Among other things, it recognises the importance of air travel to regional and national economic prosperity while seeking to minimise the impact of airports on those who live nearby. In the South East of England, it establishes the first priority as making the best use of existing runways at Stansted and Luton. It then urges provision for two new runways, one at Stansted to be delivered around 2011 or 2012 followed by another at Heathrow, but does not support a second runway at Luton.

18.2 References to airports in RPG9 are concerned primarily with access arrangements [CD/RPG/1b, policy T8]. Draft RSS/RPG14 [CD/RPG/6 supporting text to policy T5] recognises Stansted and Luton as the major airports in the region and asserts that, in order to accommodate the White Paper proposals, major prior investment in access infrastructure would be necessary. This is to be balanced with securing effective protection of the environment by considering the location and nature of development in relation, among other things, to noise pollution.

18.3 SP1998 makes only passing reference to Luton Airport, which falls under the jurisdiction of Bedfordshire [CD/DP/1d paragraph 331] but contains policy 37 reserving land for potential housing needs associated with the expansion of Stansted Airport. That policy would be deleted in SP2003 and replaced with a new policy saying that airport development proposals affecting Hertfordshire will be considered having regard to a range of criteria. These would include aircraft noise, the implications for the local and sub-regional economy, the potential to accommodate additional pressures for housing and employment development and the impact on travel, transport and other infrastructure [CD/DP/2f, new policy on page 75]. SP 1998 and SP2003 policies 57 are also relevant to the subject of aircraft noise pollution.

18.4 In NHDLP1996 [CD/DP/6], the Proposals Map shows areas where aircraft noise levels are considered to cause a nuisance to people, and policy 23 cautions that within those areas development will only be permitted if a tabulation of criteria is met. The tabulation is based on a “Noise and Number Index” drawn from Circular 10/73. That Circular has now been superseded by advice in PPG24 which establishes Noise Exposure Categories for new dwellings and the range of maximum noise levels measured as LAeq,T appropriate to each such category. SDP1994 [CD/DP/8a] and SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d with CD/DP/9h, volume 2 proposed modifications] contain general policies seeking to ensure that all development complies with “environmental safeguards” but the latter also includes specific policy relating to aircraft noise. This says that proposals for noise sensitive use in areas that are defined as having the potential

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 69

to be significantly affected by aircraft noise associated with London Luton Airport will only be permitted if they would not be exposed to an unacceptable levels of noise [policy 29].

18.5 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)], MP46 requires that noise levels affecting the site be investigated and taken into account in the planning of the development.

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium

18.6 At the outset, it should be noted that LLAOL does not object in principle to the development of Stevenage West, and it is no part of its objection that the relationship of the site, either now or in the future, to the airport is unacceptable. It further concedes that air noise is unlikely to present an overriding objection to housing development at Stevenage West, that the development would not have the effect of significantly setting back the expansion of Luton Airport and that no aircraft safeguarding or public safety issue arises in this case.

Public Safety

18.7 Public Safety Zones are defined at the ends of runway at the busiest airports. Within these zones, development is restricted in order to minimise the number of people on the ground at risk from an aircraft crash on take-off or landing. In the case of Luton Airport, the relevant Public Safety Zone extends some 4km from the runway in the direction of Stevenage West [CD/WSC/PRO/18A, appendix A]. However, given that the runway is some 8 km from Stevenage West, the proposed development falls well outside the Public Safety Zone and there are accordingly no restrictions on the proposed development under Circular 1/2002 (Control of Development in Public Safety Zones). Indeed, the Civil Aviation Authority, which has statutory responsibility for aviation safety has not raised objection to the proposals. Even if Luton should become more intensively used, the Public Safety Zone would be unlikely to extend much further than now, that for Heathrow being, for example, 4.2 km long. It is also commonplace to find development under flight paths outside the Public Safety Zones, as is the case on approach to Heathrow.

Airport safeguarding and operational matters

18.8 In 2002, Luton Airport handled about 6.6 million passengers and about 60,000 passenger flights, representing a 3% increase over 2001. There were also 6,000 air freight flights in 2002. The current capacity of the existing 2,500 m long runway is declared to be 28 movements per hour. The South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study, which superseded earlier work done by RUCATSE (a working group established by the Secretary of State in November 1990 to study, among other things, runway capacity in the South East Region), forecast that Luton may be expected to handle 10 million passenger per annum by 2015. The Airports White Paper refers to forecasts suggesting potential for growth at Luton to 30 million passengers per annum by 2030 [CD/AIR/10 paragraph 11.84]. Subject to certain safeguards, two options are put forward to increase runway capacity. One is a new runway 3,000 m long to the south of the present runway (which would be retained as a parallel taxiway) and the other is to extend the existing runway to 3,000 m [CD/AIR/10, paragraph 11.89 and maps on page 130]. While there is therefore now some policy backing for expansion of runway capacity at Luton, the White Paper does not convey any public funding. Rather, the likelihood of runway reconstruction and extension is subject to commercial realities about which there are

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 70

acknowledged to be large uncertainties [CD/AIR/10 paragraph 2.9]. These include the potentially considerable cost and difficulty of extending the existing runway, or building the new one, on existing ground having an adverse gradient.

18.9 In the light of clause 12 of Annex 1 to Circular 1/2003, it is apparent that Stevenage West falls to be considered in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Aerodromes and Technical Sites) Direction 1992 [CD/GOV/29]. There are no requirements to consult on street lighting proposals under the 1992 Direction, but Local Planning Authorities are required to consider the air safety implications of street lighting proposals within 4.8 km of airport boundaries under the later 2003 Direction. Since street lighting at Stevenage West would be well beyond that distance and designed so that there would be no light spill above the horizontal there would be no prospect of dazzle or distraction of pilots in the vicinity of the airport.

18.10 There is a requirement under the 1992 Direction to consult on developments likely to attract birds (wetland, landscaping, feeding, roosting or breeding opportunities, shelter or security) within a 13 km radius of the airport. In the Civil Aviation Authority’s published guidance on safeguarding aerodromes this is explained as landscaping or water features that may increase the risk of bird strike, rather than landscaping and water features in general. It cites landfill sites, wetlands and nature reserves as examples of where expert advice should be sought [CD/AIR/7, paragraph 5.8]. The landscaping proposals for Stevenage West would not include those types of feature and details of plantings are a reserved matter. It can thus be ensured that large flocks of birds likely to cause danger to aircraft would not be attracted to the site. A condition specifically requiring details of landscaping and other matters to be submitted for assessment of the likely implications for bird strike would thus be unreasonable and unnecessary [CD/MISC/15].

18.11 Aircraft arriving at and departing from Luton Airport would overfly Stevenage West at a height of about 1,600 feet above ground level (2,000 feet above OS datum), so there is also no danger of buildings obstructing or endangering the flight path. In any case it would be unnecessary for there to be a condition limiting the height of buildings on the site to less than 90 m, because a lower limit has been accepted for landscape reasons. This would be dealt with in the proposed conditions.

Aircraft noise

18.12 The airport is required to stay within noise limits set in 1984 [CD/AIR/6 condition 11] and Luton Borough Council produces annual monitoring reports relating to the operation of Luton Airport, considerable parts of which are concerned with noise [CD/AIR/4, volumes 1-5]. Among other things, these contain noise contour maps comparing 16 hr and 8 hr Leq for 1984 with the various subsequent years.

18.13 Annex 1 to PPG24 establishes four noise exposure categories (NECs A, B, C and D). It is only in NECs C and D that permission should not normally be granted. For aircraft noise, the range of noise levels in NEC B is 66-72dBALeq (day time) and 57-66dBALeq (night time). The latest monitoring report is for 2002 and this shows aircraft noise to be less than in 1984 and that the site is not intersected by the 57dBA contour [CD/AIR/4, volume 1 of 5, figures 3, 5, 6 and 8]. At present the site thus falls within NEC A, wherein PPG24 says that noise need not be considered a determining factor in granting planning permission.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 71

18.14 The relationship of Stevenage West to Luton Airport was considered in the SP1998 EIP Report, in the light of objection from LLAOL [CD/DP/1b, paragraphs 5.88 - 5.92 on page 5-15]. The EIP took account both of the then capacity of the airport and the potential identified by RUCATSE to increase capacity to 30 million passengers per annum. The EIP predicated its conclusion that aircraft noise cannot be regarded as a substantial objection to Stevenage West on the basis of the RUCATSE proposal for a runway extension of 2,500 m rather than the 3,000 m now envisaged for Luton in the White Paper. However, the effect of that would be that aircraft would overfly the site approximately 160 feet lower than they do now, which would not significantly increase the transient noise levels experienced. Nonetheless, WSC accepts that if the runway was to be extended to 3,000 m either on it present alignment or by way of a parallel runway, that the 60dBALeq daytime air noise contour would encroach into the applications site. However, even on the worst case scenario (SERAS fleet mix in 2030) less than 1/3rd of the site [CD/LLAOL/PRO/1A figures 10, 11 and 12] would fall within Noise Exposure Category (NEC) B in Annex 1 to PPG24 [CD/PPG/15].

18.15 There is no preclusion on housing development in such areas, PPG24 saying that noise issues within NEC B may properly be controlled by the imposition of planning conditions. The SP1998 EIP report reached a similar conclusion [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 5.88]. PPG24 is itself held up by International Civil Aviation Organisation as an exemplar of a means by which air noise is to be considered in the context of land use planning decisions [CD/AIR/8, section 5.3].

18.16 While extending the existing runway on its present orientation is currently LLAOL’s preferred option for meeting its growth needs, the option of a new parallel runway has not been ruled out. Simply constructing a new runway to the south of the existing one would reduce the amount of Stevenage West within NEC B. Moreover, if either the existing or new runway were to be re-aligned only 3º further north-westwards, there would be no perceptible increase in noise levels on the applications site at all.

18.17 Besides, all the indications in Government policy are that aircraft noise will be reduced rather than the reverse. This is to be achieved, among other things, through the target of reducing aircraft noise by a half by 2020 and by introducing night flying restrictions to bear down on night noise [CD/AIR/10, paragraphs, 3.6-3.7, 3.11, 3.12 and 11.89]. Although it is also intended that land use planning should avoid new housing in areas exposed to high levels of noise, this is defined in the White Paper as noise levels of 69 dBALeq or more [CD/AIR/10, paragraph 3.21], which would not be reached at Stevenage West. While PPG24 is currently under review and it will almost certainly make reference to the Lden noise weighting, it seems unlikely that there would be any significant change in the range of noise levels stipulated in Annex 1 of the current version of PPG24. It should further be borne in mind that LLAOL operates its own night jet policy, which is acknowledged to have had a considerable degree of success in reducing night-time aircraft noise [CD/AIR/14 volume 5 of 5 page 54].

18.18 All of the dwellings would be insulated against external noise to ensure that internal noise levels would be within limits recommended in BS8233, and this would be required by planning condition in accordance with PPG24 advice. It would be incorrect to seek to apply a single LAmax weighted noise level generally across the whole of the site in this respect, because that varies from place to place. In that case, dwellings furthest from sources of noise (such as those under the Luton airport flightpath) would be inappropriately deemed to be exposed to noise levels higher than they actually are. WSC also does not accept that any noise condition should be supplemented with a further

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 72

requirement to maintain insulation, since that would be contrary to Circular 1/95. There is no basis on noise grounds to conclude that Stevenage West should not be permitted.

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council

18.19 Noise pollution from aircraft landing at Luton Airport has been assessed using 1984 day and night time noise contours in relation to the decibel standards outlined in PPG24 [CD/PPG/15]. The PPG sets out Noise Exposure Categories (NECs) ranging from A to D. NEC A represents circumstances in which noise is unlikely to be a determining factor, while NEC D relates to a situation in which development should normally be refused. NECs B and C deal with situations where noise mitigation measures may be necessary to make development acceptable.

18.20 Assessment has shown the applications site not to be affected by aircraft noise during the day (NEC A), but a proportion of the site falls within NEC B for night-time noise o which the 48dB contour is relevant rather than the 57 dB contour [CD/AIR/4, volume 1 of 5, figures 3, 5 6, and 8]. While the noise levels are not high enough to preclude the grant of planning permission for the uses proposed, properties that fall within NEC B would have to be subject of a condition requiring higher acoustic insulation standards.

18.21 On air safety, notwithstanding the provisions of the 1992 Safeguarding Direction [CD/GOV/29], Annex 2 of Circular 1/2003 gives guidance in relation to the safeguarding of Aerodromes that it is permissible and germane to take into account. In response to consultation on PA3 and PA5 by SBC, the CAA replied that “it may seek the imposition of constraints that restrict the use of the site when consulted for advice at the reserved matters stage”. SBC is content for a condition to be imposed on any permission whose effect is formally to commit the Council to consultation with LLAOL in relation to any reserved matters application. It would not, however, be acceptable at the reserved matters stage to impose a condition that amounted to revocation or modification of an outline permission already granted (Kingsway Investments v Kent County Council [1971] AC72, 96B per Lord Morris) [CD/SBC/22].

Main points of the case for North Hertfordshire District Council

18.22 An alternative form of wording for the proposed noise condition is suggested [CD/MISC/9A condition 26 and CD/COND/4]. It is imperative that the condition is clear as to which rooms within dwellings are to be protected, when and to what extent. With these points in mind, use of the word “noise” should be avoided as this is subjective and refers to unwanted sound. It would be more appropriate to refer to “sound pressure level”. The condition should cover habitable rooms other than bedrooms because residents are likely to spend significant amounts of time in these rooms. Where the Lmax metric is cited it is good practice to refer to the detector setting of the sound level meter. The typical choice is between fast (F) and slow (S). The difference between F and S settings can be significant, so it is expedient to specify at the outset which detector setting is relevant. PPG24 refers to LAmax results using the S setting.

Main points of the case for London Luton Airport

18.23 Luton Airport was originally a Second World War Squadron Base, but opened for commercial business in 1963. It is owned outright by Luton Borough Council but there is a concession arrangement currently with TBI Plc for development and management of the airport in return for a fee per passenger and per tonne of cargo per annum. The airport currently operates in accordance with the terms of a planning permission granted

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 73

in 1998 [CD/AIR/6]. About 6.5 million passengers per annum pass through the airport, with about 82,000 aircraft movements. In some peak periods up to 25 movements per hour take place [CD/LLOAL/PRO/2 figures 2.1 and 2.2]. Cargo operations currently account for about 22,000 tonnes per annum, mostly during the night-time period. Since 1985 the airport has been used increasingly by Low Cost Carriers such as EasyJet [CD/LLOAL/PRO/2 figures on pages 8 and 9]. Such operations typically involve high aircraft utilisation with modern medium sized jets (such as Boeing 737) operating up to 5 return sectors per day [CD/LLOAL/PRO/2 figure on page 14].

18.24 The current declared runway capacity is 32 aircraft movements per hour with the peak periods being 0600-0730, 0930-1100, 1400-1600, 1830-2000 and 2200-2330. The summer peak season starts in April and runs through to October, when charter flights begin from 0430 daily with night-time arrivals and increased frequencies throughout the day. In accordance with its Public Aerodrome Licence, however, the airport is open for aircraft 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

18.25 The likelihood of expansion at Luton is high. Historically it has been growing. Bedford Structure Plan policy 48 supports expansion to 10 mppa [CD/DP/10a]. That is not a cap. Above that, expansion is to be assessed on its merits. Luton Local Plan policy LLA 1 supports continued expansion at Luton and has no upper limit. It refers to 1984 contours [CD/DP/11a]. The Luton replacement plan First Deposit has no passenger limit nor specific noise considerations [CD/DP/11b]. The SP1998 EIP considered RUCATSE proposals for an expansion to 30 million passengers per annum on the basis of a 2,500 m runway, but the RUCATSE proposals do not have policy status. Rather, the Airports White Paper [CD/AIR/10] explains the Government’s policy on the future of Luton Airport. The Government supports growth to some 30 million passengers per annum involving maximum use of a single full length (3,000 m) runway based broadly on the current alignment [CD/AIR/10 paragraph 11.89]. It is important to note that this could mean extending the runway eastwards with the result that the toe of the runway would be 970m closer to Stevenage West [CD/LLOAL/PRO/1A figure 1] and that the current alignment is to be adhered to only broadly. The Government contemplates and supports some twist, though not the considerable twist which formed one of the consultation options. Growth is to be subject to stringent limits on the area affected by aircraft noise [CD/LLOAL/PRO/1A figures 10, 11 and 12].

18.26 The UK is a member of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) whose policy towards development in the vicinity of airports is set out in the ICAO Airport Planning Manual [CD/AIR/8 and paragraph 6.1.3in particular] and summarised in the Airports White Paper [CD/AIR/10, page 33 second bullet point in shaded box]. Further advice is contained in the consolidated statement of ICAO policies [CD/AIR/11 Appendix F paragraph 4 (b)]. In a nutshell, inappropriate development is to be discouraged or prohibited around airports.

18.27 The direction of take-off and landing is determined by wind direction. Typically, about 75% of the time, flights land from the east and take off to the west [CD/LLOAL/PRO/1A figure 2]. This varies considerably, however, and there can be long periods when operations adhere to one direction and inevitably the residents who live under the flight path may notice the consequent change in consistency and frequency of air traffic [CD/LLOAL/PRO/1A figure 13].

18.28 Stevenage West would be about 8 km from the airport. When landing, aircraft become “established” about 7 nautical miles from the runway threshold, which means the aircraft would be flying over the applications site [CD/LLOAL/PRO/1A figures 1 and 2]. The

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 74

“track” at this point within which aircraft will be flying is about 3 km wide. Flying over the applications site aircraft would be at their noisiest on the approach to landing. As such, aircraft could overfly all parts of the site, and noise measurements show aircraft noise of up to 82 dBA max [CD/LLAOL/PRO/1b annex 1, paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8]

18.29 Condition 11 of the 1998 planning permission [CD/AIR/6] imposes noise limits corresponding to the area of the 1984 noise contours. It is important to note that it is the area, not the geographical location, of the contours that applies. PPG24 also sets out Government policy on airports and new developments in so far as noise alone is concerned [CD/PPG/15]. It establishes a range of noise exposure categories (NECs). In NEC B (for aircraft noise, the noise exposure range is 57-66 dBLeq in daytime and 48-57 dBLeq during night-time) should be taken into account, and where appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure adequate protection against noise. Noise at the upper end of NEC A is not a desirable level. The NEC procedure applies when introducing residential development into an existing noise source.

18.30 The 1984 night contours show about half the applications site to be within the 48 dB contour and therefore a night-time within NEC B [LLAOL/PRO/1A figure 7]. The 1984 daytime contours do not quite reach the site [LLAOL/PRO/1A figure 4]. Concentrating therefore on night contours, in 1999 about half of the applications site was affected [LLAOL/PRO/1A figure 8]. In 2002 they just clip the site [LLAOL/PRO/1A figure 9]. In 2001, the 48 dB contour extended all the way to the A1(M) thus affecting a sizeable part of the site [LLAOL/PRO/1A figure 3].

18.31 Looking to the future, and comparing with the PPG24 NEC B noise levels, the daytime 57 dBALeq 17 hour contour would cover approximately one third of the site based on SERAS fleet mix assumptions in 2030 [LLAOL/PRO/1A figure 10]. On the basis of the current fleet mix the same contour would also cover a significant part of the site [LLAOL/PRO/1A figure 11]. On LLAOL’s prediction of future fleet mix, again about the same area as for the SERAS fleet mix would be is affected [LLAOL/PRO/1A figure 12]. These are daytime contours. Night contours would be greater and the contours both day and night are not the limits within which the aircraft fly. Given that the track within which the aircraft travel on the final approach is about 3 kms wide, the area of the site affected can be readily judged from the 1 km grid square on each of the noise contour maps.

18.32 Extending the runway would mean that aircraft would be about 160 feet lower at the applications site (1440 feet rather than 1600 feet) and the noise increase would be about 1dB.

18.33 The Airports White Paper [CD/AIR/10] requires noise insulation to be offered to residential properties suffering both 63 dBALeq and an increase of 3 dBALeq or more taking 2002 as the baseline [CD/AIR/10 paragraph 3.24]. Comparison with the noise contours show this will not be the case at Stevenage West. However, WSC has maintained that the 2002 baseline applies not only to noise mitigation requirements compensation schemes, but also represents the base point for considering Environmental Impact Assessments and planning applications. This is insupportable on the clear wording of the White Paper [CD/AIR/10 paragraph 3.25 and its context in paragraphs 3.10 to 3.24]. There is an exchange of correspondence on the point [LLAOL/PRO/1(2), LLAOL/PRO/1(3) and WSC/PRO/10(14)] but whatever the case may be BS 8233 (referred to at paragraph 8 of Annex 6 of PPG24) states that in bedrooms at night, individual noise events should not exceed 45 dBAmax. This standard assumes partially

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 75

open windows. It must therefore be the case that the maximum noise levels in bedrooms at night should be no more than 45 dBAmax irrespective of any baseline.

18.34 Indeed, the environmental statement [CD/PA3/10 and CD/PA5/10 paragraph 15.39] asserts that the transient noise level inside any new dwelling would be reduced to an Lmax of 45 dBA. This figure was affirmed by WSC in evidence as the desired night-time level applicable to the whole of the applications site. It was further accepted by WSC in cross-examination that there would be no objection to a planning condition limiting noise ingress to this level. Assuming an external Lmax of 80 dBA and with a closed window giving 25 dB of sound insulation (on the basis of alternative means of ventilation, which would be a Building Regulations requirement), the internal noise level would, however, still be 55dBA. A further 10 dB of insulation would therefore have to be provided together with whatever may be required to take account of future airport expansion. This would not be a difficult task and could be achieved using existing building materials and construction.

18.35 Turning to the formulation of the proposed noise condition [CD/MISC/9a, condition 26], LLAOL does not accept the NHDC suggestion that reference should be made to the S (slow) setting of the sound level meter rather than to the F (fast) setting [CD/COND/4]. However BS 8233 says use F [CD/WSC/PRO/4/REB, table 5 at paragraph 5.6]. LLAOL submit that BS 8233 is correct on this and should be preferred to the more general advice in PPG24. LLAOL also supports inclusion of a requirement that the noise insulation measures be retained [CD/MISC/15]. To do otherwise would undermine an important environmental protection. WSC complain that this would be an unreasonable fetter on owners’ powers to adapt their homes, and that removal could even be permitted development. While it is accepted that the developer should not be responsible for later changes, this requirement would do no more than ensure that future occupiers were responsible for their own protection. If the planning system allowed environmental protections to be avoided because those currently affected did not object, many developments not in the public interest could go ahead. The planning system does impose sensible standards for public protection. In terms of sustainability, development must not prejudice the needs of future generations.

18.36 In LLAOL’s view a further condition is required to deal with the potential risk of bird strike [CD/MISC/15]. This may arise if significant numbers of birds are attracted by proposed features of the development such as landscaping (including artificial areas of water) and areas for waste recycling [CD/LLAOL/PRO/1(1) CAA Safeguarding Advice Note 3 attachment]. The normal approach with Luton Borough Council is for LLAOL to be consulted at outline planning application stage and then, if LLAOL has registered an interest, to be consulted again on submissions in connection with relevant conditions, such as those dealing with landscaping. Every opportunity is also taken by LLAOL to advise developers to take account of guidance published by the Civil Aviation Authority’s Safety Regulation Group [CD/AIR/9]. This guidance indicates that safeguarding should extend in a 13 km circle around airports, based on the statistic that 99% of bird strikes occur below 2,000 feet [CD/AIR/9, paragraph 5 of Chapter 27] and that aircraft can be expected to be below this level within that radius. Stevenage West would fall well within this area. When appropriate LLAOL also consults the Central Science Laboratory (an executive agency of DEFRA) who offer advice on a commercial basis. Stevenage West, however, is a scheme of much greater scale and complexity and thus requires a different approach. It must also be remembered how airport safeguarding works. The safeguarding authority is consulted on the planning application and it is then

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 76

up to that authority to decide whether to request the Secretary of State to call the application in. However, the terms of the 1992 Direction [CD/GOV/29] would not seem to apply to applications submitted pursuant to conditions, as would be the case at Stevenage West once outline permission has been granted.

18.37 A condition should therefore be imposed requiring the developer to show how the

development would, or would not, affect bird strike risk and to submit proposals to deal with that risk [CD/LLAOL/PRO/1/REB page 13 draft condition under heading “bird strike”] This approach would accord fully with the CAA Safeguarding Advice Note [attached to CD/LLAOL/PRO/1(1)]. If, however, the Secretary of State is not minded to impose such a condition LLAOL urges that a requirement be imposed not to construct any major landscaping schemes, areas of water, bird sanctuaries, waste disposal sites or sewage works unless details have been approved by the Local Planning Authority following consultation with the safeguarding authority. That approach would require an undertaking from SBC and NHDC not to approve applications pursuant to conditions without first notifying the safeguarding authority. A period of 28 days should then be allowed to request the Secretary of State to call-in the application, a process that would accord with the 2002 Safeguarding Direction [CDGOV/29 and paragraph 22 of Annex 2 thereof].

18.38 LLAOL acknowledges that the proposed planning conditions [CD/MISC/9a] would

adequately deal with other airport safety concerns relating to building height and lighting [CD/LLAOL/PRO/1/REB pages 13 and 14 draft conditions under headings “maximum height of buildings or structures” and “external lighting” and CD/MISC/15].

Main points of the case for the Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion 18.39 CASE broadly support the submissions made by LLAOL but oppose the development

more firmly. Whether or not there is a conflicting land use with a proposed development is a material consideration to the determination of a planning application. It would make no sense to construct some 5,000-10,000 houses directly under the flight approach to a rapidly expanding major airport. Residents of Stevenage West would be endangered, and would also suffer harm to their residential amenity whether or not more flights come in and out of Luton in the future.

18.40 The Airport White Paper [CD/AIR/10] envisages full utilisation of a single runway of

3,000 metres in length broadly in line with the current alignment. This could be achieved either by extending the existing 2,160 m runway or by construction of a new 3,000 m runway south of the current runway. It is envisaged that either option would deliver capacity of around 30 million passengers per annum. This would represent a significant increase from the present 6.5 million passengers handled per annum so there is a strong likelihood that the number of flights is going to increase.

18.41 While the Noise Exposure Categories defined in PPG24 are appropriate in theory, CASE

has first-hand experience of the effects of aircraft overflying Dyes Farm on their way to and from Luton Airport. Among other things, the noise is very intrusive in the gardens of the property and sufficiently so to interrupt conversation for example. This may not endanger health, but it is certainly very irritating. While there are fewer flights at night, the night-time flights are mainly cargo planes which are older and thus noisier than passenger flights.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 77

18.42 The inevitable result of building more houses in this area would be that the residents’ amenities would be seriously compromised. Imposing a noise condition would provide insufficient mitigation because that would only address noise impact inside dwellings and would not necessarily prevent any wider harm from noise. All the residents of West of Stevenage, all the workers in the shops, offices and service buildings, all the visitors to the facilities and all the people using the linear park would be exposed to frequent and in some cases loud aircraft noise. People are reasonably allowed to keep their windows open whether they are office workers or residents at home day or night so the intrusion would find its way into buildings whether or not they are insulated.

19. Nature Conservation Policies 19.1 SP1998 and SP2003 policies 38 seek to protect the County’s environmental assets.

These include Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, National Nature Reserves, Ramsar Sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, together with Local Nature Reserves, other nature reserves and other identified Wildlife Sites and Prime Diversity Areas [CD/DP/1d and CD/DP/2f and CD/PA3/12g, plan 11.0/1 and CD/PA5/12g, plan 11.0/1].

19.2 In NHDLP1996 [CD/DP/6] a small part of the southern tip of the site is shown to be

within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (Burleigh Meadow) [CD/DP/6 and CD/PA3/12e 4 of 4, plan 9.0/2A and CD/PA5/12e 4 of 4, plan 9.0/2A]. Two other SSSIs border the site here (Morio Meadow and Knebworth Woods) [CD/PA3/11 andCD/PA5/11, drawing 11.0/1]. Policy 14 seeks to preserve the wildlife importance of such sites, wherein development will not normally be permitted. SDP1994 identifies a number of sites of County or Borough importance for nature conservation which are to be protected [CD/DP/8a, policies EN19, EN20, EN21, EN22] and a similar approach is taken in SDP2004 [CD/DP/9h, policies EN17, EN18, EN19, EN20 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2]. Further policy seeks natural habitat creation in new developments [policy EN20 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2]. In the Stevenage West Chapter of SDP2004 policies SW3 and SW11 require, among other things, that the development proposals protect and provide management guidelines for features of nature conservation interest on or adjacent to the site.

19.3 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)], MP39 seeks to

encourage opportunities for increased biodiversity in both the built and landscaped areas of the development.

Common Ground and other relevant background 19.4 Development affecting SSSIs is governed, among other things, by the Conservation

(Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. In accordance with requirements, ecological surveys have been carried out by WSC both on site and in the surrounding areas in order to identify the range of habitats and species present. The Environmental information accompanying the applications includes assessment of the implications for the SSSIs in view of their conservation objectives [CD/PA3/12G, CD/PA3/22G, CD/PA3/34-38, CD/PA5/12G,CD/PA5/22G and CDPA5/34-38]. Consultation has also been undertaken with the relevant statutory and voluntary conservation organisations. This includes English Nature, whose views (along with others) have been taken into account.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 78

Main points of the case for the West of Stevenage Consortium 19.5 For the most part, the site consists of arable fields and grassland, divided by hedgerows

and treelines [CD/WSC/PRO/15A, plan E1]. There are also areas of woodland together with some small ponds and watercourses. Together these create a habitat for a variety of farmland birds [CD/WSC/PRO/15A, schedule at appendix 3] and there is also evidence of bats, brown hare and badgers. Some of the habitat features have designations recognising their local significance. These are Lucas Wood, High Broomin Wood and Kitching Lane, which are designated County Wildlife Sites [CD/WSC/PRO/15A, plans E2 and E3]. There is also a group of Sites of Special Scientific Interest bordering the land to the south [CD/WSC/PRO/15A, plan E2], one of which touches the southern tip of the site.

19.6 Development of Stevenage West would give rise to potentially harmful ecological

impacts on and off site both during the construction phase (physical damage, hydrological changes and contamination of water courses, for example). Harm would continue when the proposed dwellings are occupied (increased public access, impact of domestic pets, light pollution and habitat fragmentation, for example). These ecological matters have been discussed and largely agreed over a period of some 6 years though meetings of the Conservation and Wildlife Sub-Group of the Environment Topic Group and Ecological Forum. These involved representatives of the County and District Councils, English Nature, the Environment Agency, RSPB, Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre and the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust [CD/WSC/PRO/15A, appendix 1]. The subject was also considered in the SP1998 EIP report when it was concluded that the site was of limited nature conservation interest [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 5.87]. A similar view was reached by the SDP2004 Inquiry Inspector [CD/DP/9E, volume 2 of 2, paragraph 12.195]. HCC, SBC and NHDC do not now object to the proposed development on ecological grounds. The Environment Agency also does not object and English Nature has confirmed its view that it would work with WSC to maximise both standards and outcomes for people and wildlife [CD/LET/41].

19.7 In essence, a detailed ecological mitigation strategy has been developed which would

offer counterbalancing benefits and avoid or minimise disturbance [CD/PA3/15 and CD/PA5/15]. This includes provision for the retention of important existing habitats, provision of new habitats and increased connectivity between all. It would be implemented through an overall Landscape and Nature Conservation Management Plan. This would be followed by individual management plans, which would provide greater detail as each parcel of development comes forward and there would be a continuing long-term programme of monitoring. A method statement would also be produced to minimise impact on wildlife during building work. It is important to note that a single large scale development of this kind allows a more comprehensive approach to mitigation than would arise from a series of small scale development sites. The Wildlife Trust supports that view [CD/NHDC/4]. Although the strategy doesn’t specifically refer to areas such as the linear park, it also doesn’t specifically exclude them and they could be incorporated if considered desirable. However, in respect of allotments, play areas and playing fields, for example, a limit would need to be drawn to distinguish matters that relate to management of ecological interest from matters of open space management in general.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 79

19.8 The arable fields possess little plant interest and their loss would not cause any significant adverse ecological impacts. New and improved habitats would be created by increasing the amount of woodland, grassland and ponds on and around the site, and by establishing linear features that would benefit wildlife by linking existing fragmented areas of habitat [CD/LET/43]. Hedgerow loss and disturbance would be kept to a minimum, with existing hedgerows incorporated into open space or landscape features within the development. The neglected hedgerow along Kitching Lane, which is considered to be of high local value in ecological terms, would be incorporated into the proposed linear park.

19.9 There would be no loss of the major existing woodland blocks and overall there would

be a net gain in woodland cover within the applications site. As County Wildlife Sites, these existing woodlands would be retained and incorporated into the proposed linear park [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figures 24, 25 and 26 and CD/WSC/PRO/15 appendix CPM3 plan E2], as would the Almshoebury Hedgerow Pond, which is an ecological database site albeit not having any statutory protection [CD/WSC/PRO15A appendix 1, plan CPM/E1, pond P6]. Other existing ponds are rather small and neglected. All would be retained and the opportunities for many of the species using the ponds would be enhanced. There would be no impact on either the Langley or St Ippollits brooks. Grassland adjacent to A1(M) opposite Symonds Green is also an ecological monitoring site. It has already lost much of its species diversity but is nevertheless of moderate local value [CD/WSC/PRO/15 paragraph 2.29]. Two thirds of its area would be retained as open space and would be enhanced through the introduction of an infiltration pond to assist drainage. One third of its area would be lost, but this would be more than compensated for by the provision of a substantial area of new wildflower meadow within the proposed linear park. The Lower Titmore Farm track, another ecological database site, would be retained within a primary greenway and would also adjoin open space for much of its length.

19.10 Indirect effects, if any, upon the SSSIs from increased public usage of footpaths and

bridleways would be effectively secured through the Access Management Strategy. Amongst other measures this would provide for the improvement of the protection between the public highways and Morio Meadow [WSC/PRO/15 para.2.33 and WSC/PRO/8 para.3.40]. Burleigh Meadow would be protected by encouraging users to follow alternative routes to that which traverses the Meadow. If necessary, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provides a mechanism to secure the diversion of the public footpath which crosses Burleigh Meadow [WSC/PRO/15 para.2.36]. Detailed monitoring of hydrological changes has been carried out since 1998. Both English Nature and the Environment Agency are content that changes to the hydrology of the area are not of a type that is capable of damaging the nature conservation interests of the group of SSSIs here, referred to collectively as the Knebworth Woods SSSIs [CD/LET/41].

19.11 Existing wildlife would, nonetheless, inevitably be displaced from the site. In this

respect, the S106 planning Obligation would provide a fund (£270,000) that could be used to increase the capacity of surrounding farmland to support larger populations of flora and fauna. This would complement Government countryside stewardship initiatives implemented by local farmers and would be administered in accordance with the proposed Farmland Species Strategy by an organisation with experience in the area, such as the Hertfordshire Countryside Management Service [CD/ECO/10, paragraphs 2.2 - 2.7]. DEFRA has confirmed that providing this privately funded scheme does not pay

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 80

for work already funded by Government, there would be no conflict in activities [CD/LET/47]. Until precise details of Government stewardship initiatives are known, however, the Farmland Species Strategy that has been agreed in principle cannot be finalised [CD/ECO/9]. The S106 planning Obligation has thus been formulated to recognise this while formalising the funding and procedural arrangements and dealing with all other outstanding matters [CD/ECO/10, paragraphs 1.5, 1.10, 1.11 and 1.12].

19.12 In particular, however, the proposed linear park would enhance the habitat for bat and

other species [CD/LET/43] and create habitat attractive to additional species, such as lizards [CD/PA3/34 and CD/PA5/34, paragraphs 4.1-4.3]. Brown hare would benefit from the proposed Farmland Species Strategy [draft at CD/ECO/9]. No badger setts have been recorded in the applications site, which is considered to be of limited value for foraging, but use of the site by badgers would be monitored in advance of and during development. The farmland species strategy would be unlikely to significantly enhance the carrying capacity of farmland in the wider area to accommodate certain bird species that would be displaced, such as skylarks. However, skylarks are relatively plentiful hereabouts, and loss of their habitat to Stevenage West would not endanger the species as a whole.

19.13 Detailed criticisms raised by Mrs Palmer and her father, Mr Pateman [33.34, 33.35,

33.36, 33.37, 33,38] in particular thus have no real substance. They were raised in front of the SDP2004 Inquiry Inspector and rejected by him, and are not supported by English Nature.

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council 19.14 The Environmental Impact Assessment has considered the ecological impact of the

proposed development on both the applications site and the surrounding area [CD/PA3/10-12, 22g and 34 and CD/PA5/10-12, 22g and 34].

19.15 The Watery Grove/Knebworth Woods SSSI lies outside the applications site

[CD/PA3/11 and CD/PA5/11, drawing 11.0/1] and is within NHDC’s administrative area, but its protection falls within the ambit of SDP2004 policy EN18. English Nature and the Environment Agency have been consulted and apart from requiring regular monitoring raise no objection [CD/LET/41].

19.16 There are 3 designated Wildlife Sites within the applications site [CD/PA3/11 and

CD/PA5/11, drawing 11.0/1], of which Kitching Green Lane lies within Stevenage Borough. SBC is content that the proposals provide adequate protection to meet the requirements of SBC2004 policy EN17.

19.17 Recording of protected species on the site has been undertaken and these would be

monitored during the course of development in accordance with recommendations of the Environment Agency, English Nature, The Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust and the Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre.

19.18 There is also some 9.29 km of hedgerows on the site of which 515 m would be lost.

That amounts to 5.54% of the total and would be compensated for by additional planting. 19.19 The proposed conditions and S106 planning Obligation would also make provision for

the submission of a construction method statement, an Access Management Strategy and

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 81

a Landscape and Nature Conservation Management Strategy. SBC believes that the guidance in PPG9 [CD/PPG/7] has been followed.

Main points of the case for North Hertfordshire District Council 19.20 The list of features covered by the ecological mitigation strategy [CD/PA3/15 and

CD/PA5/15, page 5] should include the linear park, the greenways, the cemetery, rights of way and playing field areas. The mitigation strategy has not been accepted by all parties at all stages [CD/ECO/11, third paragraph]. At the meeting of the Stevenage West Project team on 13 June 2003 it was agreed with WSC that a new ecological management strategy would be prepared [CD/ECO/12, page 2 of 4]. In the event, this did not come forward until 23 March 2004 and was proffered even then only on the basis that it remained subject to the views of WSC’s landscape consultants.

Main points of the case for the Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion 19.21 The alleged benefits to flora and fauna would be outweighed by the environmental

impact of the proposed dwellings, which would transform the rural landscape into an urban one.

20. Noise Policies 20.1 SP1998 and SSP2003 policies 57 seek, among other things, to ensure that pollution

sensitive development such as dwellings and schools are kept away from areas that are, or are expected to become, exposed to unacceptable levels of pollution, including noise [CD/DP/1d and CD/DP/2f]. Similar policy is included in SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d, policies EN26 and EN27 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2].

20.2 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)] MP44 says that any

adverse environmental and visual effects of surrounding uses such as A1(M) must be identified and good quality screening provided. MP46 requires that noise levels affecting the site be investigated and taken into account in the planning of the development.

Common Ground and other relevant background 20.3 The main concern about noise arises from the relationship of the site to the flight path to

and from London Luton Airport. This is dealt with separately under the Luton Airport subject area above [18.1-18.42]. Other potential sources of noise derive from proximity to the A1(M), additional traffic on the local road network and construction noise, evidence on which is reported here.

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 20.4 A noise survey of the site was undertaken in August 1999 [CD/WSC/PRO/4A, table

15.0/4 and figure 15.0/1]. There have been no material changes in the local noise environment since that time. Close to A1(M) noise levels were found to be in the 70-78dBA L10(18hr) range. Further west, noise levels were noted to fall away and for the most part the noise climate was characterised by levels in the 50-59 dBA Leq range. The

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 82

ambient noise environment in the northern part of the site is in the range 49-75 dBA Leq. Overnight noise levels were found to be lower, generally in the range 47-56 dBA Leq [CD/ PA3/10 and CD/PA5/10 paragraphs 15.25-15.28].

Noise from A1(M) 20.5 For the most part, the site lies within Noise Exposure Category B for road traffic noise as

referred to in Annex 1 to PPG24 [CD/PPG/15]. Without any mitigation and on completion of development in 2014, it is estimated that A1(M) traffic noise would raise noise levels experienced throughout the site by only about 1 dBA [CD/PA3/10 and CD/PA5/10 paragraphs 15.25-15.28] but noise mitigation is required to render the part of the site alongside A1(M) suitable for residential development.

20.6 The proposed disposition of land uses would be arranged to ensure that, for the most

part, noise sensitive uses are kept away from A1(M), those nearest to the road being mainly open spaces and employment areas [CD/PA3/16b and CD/PA5/16b]. A 5m high earth bund would also be constructed along this boundary of the site which, in parts, would be surmounted by close boarded wooden fencing. This would reduce noise by between 4 dBA on the west side of the site and 12dBA on east side. With these in place, the majority of the site would be brought within Noise Exposure Category A and only a small part would be in Category B [CD/WC/PRO/4A, figure 5.1]. Whatever the case may be, a satisfactory noise environment would be created in terms of the advice given in Annex 1 to PPG24.

Traffic noise on Stevenage road network 20.7 Analysis of calculations made by Buchanan Consulting Engineers to inform the EIA

process [CD/PA3/12c and CD/PA5/12c] shows that the predicted increase in noise on the Stevenage local road network deriving from Stevenage West traffic would be less than 3dBA Leq. However, a small estate of pre-fabricated homes at Cartref (off Redcar Drive) close to the new Meadway access would be exposed to increased traffic noise disturbance, the nearest dwelling suffering a 15dBA increase. The mitigation measure proposed here would be the construction of a bund and barrier [CD/WSC/PRO/4A], the effect of which would be to reduce the predicted increase in noise to 5 dBA. While this would still represent a noticeable increase in traffic noise (ie more than 3 dBA), it would be within acceptable limits. The design of the barrier is a matter for detailed planning stage, but to the extent that it may impact upon the outlook from the Cartref properties, it could if necessary incorporate glazed panels.

20.8 A traffic noise study undertaken in 2001 on behalf of Whitney Drive Residents and

commissioned by HCC found that traffic noise levels at 51 and 43 Whitney Drive was not excessively high. The predicted increase in noise levels in this area as a result of the proposed development would be 0.16dB L10(18 hr), which would be imperceptible. Noise mitigation measures here would not therefore be justified.

Construction activity 20.9 Control of noise and general disturbance during the initial stage of development

(principally construction of the Meadway underpass) is not foreseen to be problematic [CD/WSC/PRO/14/REB/8 and CD/WSC/MISC/18]. It is anticipated thereafter that there would be a two-way flow of about 66 construction vehicles per day, which would be

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 83

routed via the Bessemer Road underpass where there are no existing dwellings. Construction noise is itself subject to control under the Control of Pollution Act. A Construction Method Statement would, in any event, be prepared and submitted for approval as part of the submission of details.

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council 20.10 SBC accepts that WSC has carried out two noise/vibration monitoring exercises along

A1(M) and the Borough Council’s consultant is satisfied that the results amount to a rigorous validation of the present situation and the future predictions. The noise attenuation bund proposed along the eastern length of the site would reduce noise from A1(M) that could affect residents and users of the site. The height and design of the bund is considered satisfactory for this purpose.

20.11 Additionally, a noise attenuation bund is proposed along Redcliffe Drive to the east of

A1(M) to reduce noise generated by the new Meadway access road. The principle of placing a bund in this location for the benefit of existing residents’ amenity is considered satisfactory, with the detailed design to be agreed at reserved matters stage.

21. Norton Green Landfill Policies 21.1 SP1998 and SP2003 policies 57 seek, among other things, to promote policy protection

from developments likely to result in or significantly contribute to unacceptable levels of pollution [CD/DP1d and CD/DP1f]. A similar approach is taken in SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d, policies EN26 and EN30 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2].

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 21.2 This existing landfill site lies in the south east corner of the applications site and

occupies an area of approximately 13.4 ha. It is highly visible to passing traffic on the A1(M). Non-toxic and non-putrescible waste materials had been deposited there from 1977 until 1988 under a Waste Management Licence, infilling a former valley. In all, it is estimated to contain some 1,150,000 cu m of waste. The waste management licence has now been surrendered to the Environment Agency, which issued a Certificate of Completion on 7 August 2003 and is now owned by English Partnerships [CD/LET/45].

21.3 The landfill has been investigated by boreholes and historic records and found to contain

mainly demolition rubble and clay soils up to about 9.6 m in depth. Analysis shows a low level of contaminants and although there are some concentrations, these are at levels considered acceptable [CD/WSC/PRO/6A, appendix 4 Waste Management Paper 26A]. The landfill is underlain by boulder clay over upper chalk, with the major aquifer about 30-40 m below ground level. Groundwater monitoring in the aquifer indicates the chemical quality of the water to be generally good. Landfill gas is being monitored, and is found generally low but with concentrations at two locations on southern boundary of the site. The carbon dioxide component may be a result of reaction of groundwater with calcium carbonate (chalk) and thus naturally occurring rather than associated with landfill. The methane content may be associated with isolated pockets of residual buried vegetation or pieces of wood contained within the demolition rubble buried there.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 84

21.4 In the development proposals the site would become part of the green waste composting site, a school, high and medium density housing, playing fields, local centre plus access roads, cycleways, landscaping , drainage and other utilities [CD/WSC/PRO/6A, appendix 1, figure PE2]. The access formed by continuation of Bessemer Drive would also cut through it as it emerges from under A1(M) from a depth of some 9 m. A significant volume of fill would arise from this excavation and levelling of the land for development. This would be re-used within Stevenage West wherever possible, to avoid generating lorry movements off site, mainly in the landscape bund along eastern perimeter of site. A suitable thickness of clean soil cover would be provided in any proposed residential garden areas. Structures would be piled, using techniques that mitigate the potential for downward migration of perched water, which should itself be lessened in consequence of site coverage by buildings. Landfill gas can be mitigated by a passive ventilation system for the buildings with a gas membrane and a ventilated granular layer beneath the buildings, and would be a matter for detailed building design.

21.5 The Environment Agency is now content subject to suitable safeguarding conditions, as

is Sport England [CD/LET44]. 21.6 In itself, the restoration of this landfill site for beneficial uses, as proposed, would make

a major contribution to the Government’s regeneration objectives set out in the 24th July 2002 statement [CD/GOV/18].

22. Open Space

Policies

22.1 In draft RSS/RPG14, local policy formulation is required to provide for connected and substantial networks of accessible multi-functional green space in urban, urban fringe and adjacent countryside areas to service the new communities in the sub-region by 2021 [CD/RPG/6, policy ENV1]. Local Planning Authorities are required to consult with Sport England and local community groups to determine the best locations for sporting facilities where need has been identified [policy C4].

22.2 SP1998 policies 47 and 48 [CD/DP/1d] are generally concerned with ensuring the protection and management of existing open spaces within towns and guiding leisure development that requires extensive areas of land and buildings to urban fringe locations. This is in the interests, among other things, of enhancing access to rural recreation by the urban population and diverting visitor pressure away from more sensitive countryside.

22.3 In SP2003 [CD/DP/2f] policy 46 says that open space will only be released for development if surplus to requirements as established by assessment of need and the application of standards in accordance with PPG17. It adds that where there is an exchange of land to compensate for loss of open space this should be at least equivalent in terms of size, quality, accessibility, usefulness and attractiveness and should aim to realise a qualitative gain for the community. Policy 47 is directed at Local Plan policy formulation rather than development control, but similarly includes reference to the assessment of need and formulation of standards in accordance with PPG17. Reference is also made to the need for policies to identify sufficient land for additional cemetery space [new policy, page 103].

22.4 NHDLP1996 [CDDP/6] contains a scattering of policy references to open space and recreation but the main focus of these is to protect existing provision within towns and to avoid coalescence of urban areas. SDP1994 [CD/DP/8a] includes policy L3 which

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 85

resists the loss of existing leisure facilities, with policy L10 making specific reference to resisting proposals that may result in the loss (among others) of the Meadway Playing Fields. Policy L12 resists the loss of school playing fields where schools themselves become redundant. Also at Meadway, policy L13 allocates 0.53 ha of land for open space, leisure or recreational use. Policy L14 requires all proposals involving sites of more than 10 ha to provide leisure facilities (including open space) commensurate with the scale of the development. In proposed residential areas, policy L16 adds a requirement for at least 8% of the total area of the site to be for play space. Policy EN13 stresses the importance of “green links” in maintaining the visual continuity of green spaces, accessible green routes and wildlife corridors.

22.5 SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d and CD/DP/9h, volume 2] policies L12 and L13 resist the loss of existing playing fields and other outdoor sports facilities. Policy L16 requires the provision of children’s playspace in accordance with National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) Standards and policy L17 adds to this provision of informal open space in residential developments. Policy L20 requires new allotments in residential areas where there would otherwise be a deficiency in provision. Policy EN11 refers to Green links in much the same way as SDP1994 policy EN13. In the Stevenage West Chapter the main policies relevant to open space are SW3 (among other things, the development proposals protect and provide management guidelines for open space on or adjacent to the site), SW9 (replacement of Meadway Park), SW11 (integration of open spaces within and around the development), SW16 (provision of playing fields and other outdoor sports facilities), SW17 (provision of leisure facilities including a sports hall, health and fitness centre, artificial surface multi-use games area and sports pitch) and policy SW18 (allotment provision). Policy SW23 requires cemetery provision.

22.6 In the Master Planning Principles Document [CDSPG/1(i)-(iii)], MP27 seeks provision of leisure facilities to include sports halls, a health and fitness centre, a swimming pool, an artificial surface sports area and a multi-use games area. MP28 further seeks provision of parks and open spaces, playing fields and supporting changing facilities grouped together in a number of locations. Play areas, replacement of any playing fields and club house facilities lost to access improvements, allotments and a cemetery are also required.

Common Ground and other relevant background

22.7 It is proposed to provide a range of open spaces suitable for a variety of recreational uses [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 26]. The main area of informal open space would take the form of a substantial linear park, some 36 ha in area. This would form a landscaped swathe along the western boundary of the site, separating it from the Langley valley.

22.8 Formal sports facilities would include 4 full size football pitches (one all-weather) in the south east part of the site, and four to the north east part of the site. There would also be a cricket pitch and athletics track to the west of the proposed mixed use centre. Each of these three groups of facilities would have a pavilion/changing room and parking facilities and all would be adjacent to the proposed Central Transport Spine. They would amount, in all, to about 19.48 ha. In addition, at the proposed secondary school site there would be a 4 court sports hall incorporating health and fitness centre and changing rooms, with a multi-use games area alongside, together with a floodlit all weather hockey pitch. Grass pitches within the proposed primary and secondary school sites would amount to some 4.26 ha.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 86

22.9 Children’s playspace provision would take the form of 5 neighbourhood equipped areas of play (NEAPs) of 1000 sq m each and 16 local equipped areas of play (LEAPs) of 400 sq m each. All dwellings would be within 1000 m (15 minutes walking) of a NEAP and 99.8% would be within 400 m (5 minutes walking) of a LEAP [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 22].

22.10 There would also be two areas of allotments totalling 1.14 ha [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 23] and a 1.06 ha cemetery [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 24].

22.11 The Statement of Common Ground affirms that there is no disagreement with SBC and NHDC on open space issues [CD/IPD/3, Chapter 7], SBC having commissioned its own report on the subject [CD/SBC/5] to inform SDP2004.

Main points of the case for the West of Stevenage Consortium

22.12 On the basis of an assumed population of 12,750 (for the PA5 scheme), the current NPFA “2.4 ha Standard” that has now replaced the former “6 acre standard” would require 20.4 ha of open space to be provided within the development, of which 15.3 ha would be for pitch sports. In addition, formation of the principal means of access to the proposed development at Meadway would involve the loss of the existing Meadway Park. This is an area of mainly playing fields extending to some 2.27 ha on the east side of the A1(M). Even allowing for this, and excluding the provision to made on the proposed school sites the quantum of open space proposed at Stevenage West would exceed the NPFA standard. Dual use of certain of the school facilities may be possible, as may use by the schools of certain of the community facilities [CDWSC/PRO/3(2)], but is not essential to ensure adequacy of open space for either school or community use individually.

22.13 Sport England has raised concern about the open space provision, but has not objected. It has accepted the overall level of open space provision and withdrawn previous objections to the siting of the proposed replacement pitches for Meadway Park. Only minor concerns are expressed about the siting of pitches alongside A1(M), the siting of pitches on the Norton Green landfill site and the orientation of the proposed cricket pavilion [CD/LET/44]. These are matters that can be suitably addressed in landscaping details or by planning conditions. Pitches of equivalent or greater size to those at Meadway Park would be made available within 18 months from the commencement of construction of the proposed new Meadway access.

22.14 WSC does not accept that the site falls within the definition of open space of public value in clause (ix) of paragraph 2 of the Annex to PPG17. This is because it does not have an identifiable quality or character that qualifies it as such, as required by the definition of open space in paragraph 1 of the Annex to PPG17. It is not available for sport or recreation in the context of paragraph 25 of PPG17, or accessible in terms of paragraph 2 of the Annex. Rather it is predominantly open fields to which the public is not entitled to have access except by using the footpaths and bridleways [CD/WSC/CLOSE appendix A, pages 222 and 223]. In the context of paragraph 10 of PPG17, however, an up-to-date assessment of local open space need was undertaken during the formulation of SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d, paragraphs 8.4.1-8.7.10]. While existing deficiencies in certain types of open space provision have been identified in Stevenage, these are not of a type that the site currently provides. Replacement of Meadway Park would accord with SDP2004 policy SW9 and open space provision on the site has been the subject of lengthy discussion through the Topic Group process.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 87

There has never been any suggestion from either SBC or NHDC that provision on site would be insufficient.

Main points of the case for Hertfordshire County Council

22.15 The County Council has reservations about the maintenance liability attaching to proposed weather playing surfaces [see paragraphs 11.19 and 11.27, above] and the absence of any specific arrangements in the S106 planning Obligation to ensure availability to the community of the multi-use games area at the Secondary School Site.

23. Rush Green Airfield Policies 23.1 Reasoned justification for policy 47 in NHDLP1996 identifies three existing “general

aviation” airfields in North Hertfordshire District, one at Baldock, another at Nuthampstead and a third at Langley, the latter being Rush Green [CD/DP/6, paragraph 3.54]. The policy indicates that proposals for increased use will be refused if these would cause highway safety problems or greater noise nuisance.

Other relevant background 23.2 This is a small, unlicensed grass airfield used mainly for recreational flying, situated

immediately to the east of B656 and on the northern side of Rush Green [CD/PA3/12e and CD/PA5/12e volume 4 of 4, plan 9.0/1. It contains two intersecting grass runways, a hangar and an office and lies directly beneath the flightpath into London Luton Airport, being less than 4 nautical miles from the edge of the Luton Control Zone.

23.3 Safeguarding of aerodromes falls under the ambit of Circular 1/2003. Annex 1 clause 12

of this Circular provides that the Town and Country Planning (Aerodromes and Technical Sites) Direction 2003 is cancelled “save that it shall continue to apply to any application for planning permission to develop land which was mad and not determined before the new Direction comes into force” (on 10 February 2003). The Regulations contained in the 1992 Direction [CD/GOV/29] therefore apply to PA3 and PA5. Rush Green is not, however, subject to these official safeguarding procedures because it is classified as a minor airfield. Nonetheless, under paragraph 9 of the 1992 Direction (and in accordance with Circular 2/92) minor airfields may agree a consultation procedure with the Local Planning Authority and in November 2000 a safeguarding map was accordingly submitted to and accepted by NHDC [CD/BOWK/1 annexes 4, 4a, 4b and 4c].

23.4 Flying activity from the airfield is also controlled by the “Rules of the Air”. The 1996

version of these rules [CD/WSC/PRO/18(i)/REB appendix B] was under review and at the time of the Inquiry it was expected that new rules would have passed into law with other amendments to the Air Navigation Order in September/October 2004 [CD/WSC/PRO/18(i)/A appendix D].

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 23.5 Although objection to the Stevenage West proposals was voiced at the Inquiry by Mr

and Mrs Bowker, Mr Bowker in fact sold the business that he formerly operated from

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 88

the airfield together with the existing airfield buildings [CD/WSC/PRO/18i(1)] to a Mr Parker in 2003. The airfield is at present used by Rush Green Aviation Limited for recreational flying and for light aircraft repairs. Mr Bowker retains a reversionary interest in the existing grass runways following expiry of a 10 year licence granted to Mr Parker [CD/BOWK/PRO/1A, document 15] but no longer has any operational involvement in the airfield and retired from flying in 1999. Neither Mr Parker nor Rush Green Aviation raise objection to the Stevenage West proposals [CD/WSC/PRO/18(ii)REB appendix A]. Mr and Mrs Bowker’s objection should therefore attract little weight.

23.6 Pilots approaching the airfield to inspect the runway may at present fly a circuit pattern

before landing. The established circuit pattern for the airfield would result in overflying of part of the Stevenage West development at a height of about 500 feet. Given that the proposed development site is at a maximum elevation of 400 feet and that no proposed structures would exceed 50 feet in height, the proposed Stevenage West development would not penetrate any of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces indicated on the safeguarding map [CD/BOWK/1 annexes 4, 4a, 4b and 4c and CD/NHDC/4 paragraph 7.2 on page 123]. It may also be assumed that there would be no conflict with the 1500 feet requirement in the LLAOL letter of agreement (500 feet flying height + 400 feet ground elevation + 50 feet buildings = 1450 feet). Likewise, there would be no conflict with the emerging Rules of the Air 2004, which would allow overflying of “congested areas” (such as Stevenage West) at 1000 feet. It is only if existing 1996 rule 5 remains in force requiring a minimum 1500 feet clearance above the highest point in the development (450 feet + 1500 feet = 1950 feet), or if clearance to 1500 feet was not given by Terminal Control, that there would be a prima facie conflict with the LLAOL letter of agreement [CD/WSC/PRO/18i/REB, appendix B, rule 5(1)(ii)]. WSC therefore accepts, at least until the coming into force of the proposed 2004 rules, that the Stevenage West development would constrain the existing circuit pattern followed by aircraft using the airfield.

23.7 Even so, Article 127 of the Air Navigation Order would enable CAA to grant

exemptions to the Regulations (including Rule 5) either absolutely or subject to conditions. Since the number of aircraft movements is very low and unlikely to increase and that they would not need to encroach into airspace above Stevenage West by more than about 400 m (horizontally), there is every prospect that an exemption would be given. However, there is no compelling need for a circuit pattern to be flown. This is because a straight in-straight out pattern would be just as acceptable from an operational and safety perspective. Mr Bowker himself confirmed that such an arrangement would be possible [CD/BOWK/PRO/1/REB, page 2] and there is an existing example at Spilsted Farm near Hastings [CD/WSC/PRO/18i/REB paragraph 18]. Alternatively, different circuit paths could also be considered [CD/WSC/PRO/18i paragraphs 56-64 and CD/WSC/PRO/18i/A appendices E and F]. Rush Green is acknowledged to be suitable only for experienced pilots [CD/WSC/PRO/18i/REB, appendix C]. In the rare event that an aircraft attempting to land is forced to “go around” (for example because of other aircraft approaching the landing on a north westerly path) or needs to make a reconnaissance of the runway before landing, such a manoeuvre could be carried out safely within existing aviation rules and with minimum inconvenience [draft 2004 rules Annex G, clause 2.5.1].

23.8 There are, in any event, two other recreational airfields performing similar functions in

close proximity, namely at Henlow (18 km away) and at Panshanger (8 km away), so

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 89

pilots not comfortable with these alternative arrangements at Rush Green would have a choice of landing places in the area. Operation of Rush Green airfield and recreational flying in the area would not therefore be seriously compromised by the proposed development.

[Inspector’s note: Mr and Mrs Bowker’s evidence on these points is included as a third party representation at paragraphs 33.10-33.14 below]. 24. Safety/Security/Crime Prevention Policies 24.1 SDP2004 refers to forthcoming SPG on how the design and layout of development can

assist crime prevention and notes that SBC has introduced a scheme for Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in the town. Policy TW10 says that contributions will be sought towards a programme of appropriate measures to deter crime and improve safety and security [SDP2004 paragraph 2.6.12, CD/DP/9d, and CD/DP/9h, volume 1]. Policy SW8 provides opportunities for new prestige developments lining the main approaches to the development from the east side of A1(M). In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)], MP7 requires that the development be designed to permit casual surveillance of public and private areas. Houses are to overlook roads, footpaths and open spaces. Narrow, isolated footpaths are to be avoided. MP36 says that the design of the development will aim to reduce the opportunity for crime and the fear of crime.

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 24.2 The new and existing underpasses beneath A1(M) would be upgraded to make them

attractive and safe for all users. It is also now intended that the proposed new Meadway vehicular access would be widened sufficiently to accommodate pedestrian and cycle traffic, as an addition to the separate parallel crossing for pedestrians and cyclists only (CD/TRAN/37/7, drawing). Vehicular traffic would be subject to a 30 mph speed limit and, on the proposed GWR peak-hour route, buses would be passing at 15 minute intervals. Although all-purpose traffic flows would diminish during off-peak hours, comparison with a similar district distributor at Grace Way in Stevenage suggests there would still be flows of about 7 cars per minute before midnight and 2 cars per minute after midnight, rising again substantially after 06.00 hrs (CDTRAN/37/10). Together with proposed CCTV cameras (CD/TRAN/37/9) both at Meadway and Bessemer Drive, there would be sufficient surveillance of pedestrians and cyclists to ensure personal security. Nonetheless, it may be possible at detailed design stage to introduce a land use adjacent to the Meadway access (within the applications site boundary) that may promote natural surveillance of the type NHDC seeks.

Main points of the case for North Hertfordshire District Council 24.3 Links between Stevenage and the site are crucial to the success of the scheme since

particular effort must be made to provide an attractive, welcoming and safe environment for people to walk and cycle through when crossing the significant barrier created by the A1(M). NHDC is concerned with the proposed uses adjacent to the Meadway and Bessemer Drive accesses which it considers to be unsatisfactory because they would create an environment for pedestrians and cyclists that would be perceived as unsafe and

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 90

vulnerable to anti-social behaviour. An amendment to the Master Plan [CD/PA3/16B and CD/PA5/16B] is accordingly sought to increase the potential for casual surveillance. The access arrangements are the same for both PA3 and PA5 so the evidence applies equally to both applications.

24.4 Around the Meadway access the Master Plan shows an employment area adjacent to

either side of the new dual carriageway entrance. A tree planted noise attenuation bund and barrier is proposed adjacent to the A1(M). Overall, these are uses that would attract little activity during hours of darkness. The underpasses, dense tree planting and inward facing employment uses to the south contribute further to the vulnerability of this area. Having travelled up to 300 m on the eastern side of the A1(M) in an area of limited casual surveillance, a similar prospect would be created on the western side of A1(M). All of the route choices available to pedestrians and cyclists approaching this crossing would provide an unfriendly and unsafe gateway into and out of the development. [CD/NHDC/PRO/2A, appendix 4]

24.5 At Bessemer Drive there would be a proposed green waste composting site and

employment uses and a separate underpass would be provided for cyclists [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19 page 54iA]. The existing route along Chadwell Road leading to Norton Green would be closed to vehicular traffic but maintained for pedestrians and cyclists. In addition there would be areas of open space incorporating playing fields and tree planting adjacent to A1(M), and the existing travellers’ site and gas compound would remain. Pedestrians and cyclists approaching from the town centre would have travelled some 300 m along a part of Bessemer Drive with little or no casual surveillance, before they even reach the underpass. Upon emerging on western side of A1(M) and entering Stevenage West, the proposed pattern of development shown on the Master Plan would also offer limited casual surveillance opportunities [CD/NHDC/PRO/2A, appendix 4].

24.6 This is all very different from what should be expected. For example, the Environmental

Statement promises “Safe, convenient, attractive and well-signed pedestrian and cycle routes …to link the Stevenage West site to higher order facilities within Stevenage” [CD/PA5/10 paragraph 5.27 on page 23]. The Step Change document promises the developers will “design the new neighbourhood in line with the principles of reducing crime and the fear of crime, including avoiding narrow, isolated footpaths and enabling casual surveillance of public areas and car parks” [CD/PA5/14 page 24]. There are similar aspiration voiced in the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1, principles 7, 9 and 36]. Equally, what NHDC seeks is fully in accord with Government and other policy advice [PPG3 paragraph 56, Circular 5/94 ,“By Design, Better Places to Live, A Companion Guide to PPG3” (DTLR/CABE 2001), “Designing Out Crime, Designing in Community Safety (Hertfordshire Constabulary, 1999)] .

24.7 If an attractive, welcoming and safe environment cannot be created for people to walk

and cycle then they will choose other less sustainable forms of transport to travel to and from Stevenage. It is not sufficient for WSC to argue that passing traffic along the access routes would provide the casual surveillance that would otherwise be absent. Traffic moving along these routes would not make people safe, or make them feel safe because it would be free-flowing, and relatively fast moving, along the major routes to and from the development. There would be relatively few vehicles at night and in the early morning. WSC evidence seeking to demonstrate traffic flows during the evening period [CD/TRAN/37(10)] is no more than an estimate, inconsistent with other evidence [WSC/PRO/14/REBA appendix 1] and not based on comparable data.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 91

24.8 Mitigation measures proposed by the applicants include CCTV in vulnerable areas, and

the proposed planning conditions would provide for the siting of the cameras to be approved by the Local Planning Authorities. This is welcomed, but is an afterthought and does not address underlying design and layout shortcomings.

24.9 Rather, the layout needs to be revised to position some uses that promote an element of

activity and “eyes on the street” during hours of darkness within the areas of concern. The proposed mixed use centre and southern local centre propose a variety of uses such as shops, pub/restaurants, residential and community facilities. These are more likely to promote activity after hours of darkness than employment, open space and playing fields. Development opportunities on the eastern side of the A1(M) should also be considered.

24.10 This would not be difficult. The draft Master Plan used at the visioning conference

[CD/GAR/9] showed different uses beside the Meadway access (both west and east of A1(M). To the west of the A1(M) the mixed use centre was shown directly adjacent to the Meadway access. To the east of the A1(M) a landmark building was shown [indicated by a red block on the plan], whereas the current Master Plan shows parkland in the same location. The land to the east of the A1(M) up to Redcar Drive is within the red line of the applications site. Again, built development in this location could provide an element of natural surveillance. Some kind of leisure or community facility or a residential use would be appropriate. Development east of the A1(M) would also be consistent with SDP2004 [CD/DP9d, policy SW7, section 12.8 on page 10/23 and policy SW8].

24.11 At the Bessemer Drive access, there is limited opportunity for development east of the

A1[M] unless Gabriel Securities’ land became available. Without that land and given the current constraints, NHDC can make no suggested improvements at present. With no obvious change possible here, the importance of achieving improvements at the Meadway access is increased. West of the A1(M) at the Bessemer drive underpass, the Master Plan requires review to provide appropriate natural surveillance: possibly by bringing the local centre or residential development nearer, to front the roadside. This is made more important given that walkers would have to pass through the underpass itself and the employment area east of the A1(M).

24.12 Hertfordshire Constabulary supports NHDC on this subject [CD/NHDC/PRO/2(1) letter

dated 30 January 2004]. The County Architectural Liaison Officer also fully supports the principle of achieving natural surveillance on the linkages to and from the proposed development, and calls for the Master Plan to be amended. NHDC is surprised that SBC do not seem concerned by WSC’s current proposals, given that the part of the site concerned is within their district boundary. The Secretary of State is invited, should he be minded to grant permission, to indicate in the decision letter whether this aspect of the accesses should be re-thought. The necessary improvements can then be resolved at detailed design stage.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 92

25. Shopping/Retail Policies 25.1 In draft RSS/RPG14, Stevenage is identified as a regional centre in the regional

shopping hierarchy [CD/RPG/6, policy E9]. However, in both SP1998 and SP2003 the town is regarded as a “major sub-regional centre” albeit in the first echelon of the hierarchy of Hertfordshire’s retail hierarchy. Its role is to be maintained and enhanced, with out-of-town development permitted only where this contributes to the overall sustainability objectives of the Plan and in accordance with a sequential approach to location [CD/DP/1d and CD/DP/2f, policies 16 and 17].

25.2 NHDLP1996 provides only in exceptional circumstances for new retail provision outside

existing town centres and on identified sites and generally seeks to limit such provision to proposals for less than 1,500 sq m in local centres and serving local shopping needs [CDDP/6, policy 42]. SDP1994 generally seeks to protect and enhance the vitality and viability of the existing Stevenage town centre and Old Town area [CD/DP/8a, policies S1, S2, S4, S6] and maintain the existing network of neighbourhood centres [policy S10]. New neighbourhood centres are required in association with major new residential neighbourhoods [policy S11].

25.3 In SDP2004, Stevenage is recognised as a sub-regional centre for shopping and leisure

activities [CD/DP/9d, paragraph 6.1.4 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2]. A sequential approach is to be adopted to retailing outside existing centres [policy TR5, with modification proposed in CD/DP/9h, volume 2 to make clear that proposals at Stevenage West can be excluded from this policy requirement if site specific policy is met]. Provision is also made for new neighbourhood shopping centres associated with new residential neighbourhoods [policy TR14 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2], but new retail proposals that may individually or cumulatively have a detrimental effect on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre are to be accompanied by a study of the likely impact in retail, travel and environmental terms [policy TR6 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2]. In the Stevenage West Chapter of SDP2004, policy SW15 requires provision of a foodstore of a size appropriate to, but no larger than is necessary to, meet the needs of residents and accordingly allows for site allocation of up to 3,000 sq m. Proposals larger than this would need to satisfy relevant requirements of policy TR5. In the local centres the policy says that provision should be made for small convenience stores of between 100 and 250 sq m with other small retail and service units.

25.4 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)] MP18 requires

shopping provision to be made locally with comparison shopping provided by Stevenage Town Centre rather than within the site, the latter having an aim of discouraging shopping related trips into the development.

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 25.5 The desire to provide a comprehensive range of easily accessible local facilities within a

mixed use centre and two local centres initially emerged through the Garden City 21 programme [CD/GAR.C/2 fifth bullet point on page 2]. Quantum of provision was then defined through the Topic Group process, beginning with a review of retail studies carried out on behalf of SBC and NHDC by Drivers Jonas and MVM Planning respectively in 1998 [CD/PRO/17A appendix 12]. Further advice was sought by the

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 93

Commission for the New Towns from GVA Grimley in 1999 [CD/PRO/17A appendix 2] and the findings were later influenced by the planning permission granted for a new ASDA store on the North Hertfordshire College site following call-in by the FSS in 2000 [APP/K1935/V/99/000088, CD/PRO/17A, appendix 3]. That store is now open and trading and effectively absorbed any surplus convenience goods expenditure capacity within Stevenage to the end of the SDP1994 period (April 2001) [CD//PRO/17A appendices 16 and 17]. Nonetheless, the topic sub-group recommended that in order to minimise car trips for food shopping outside the development, a foodstore of about 2,500 sq m – 3,000 sq m minimum net floorspace should be provided at Stevenage West. This accords with paragraphs 3.18 and 3.19 of PPG6 and was reflected in policy SW15 of the SDP2004, albeit supported on the basis of a development of 10,000 dwellings at Stevenage West [CD/DP/9d, paragraph 2.12]. Policy SW15 also makes provision for 100-250 sq m convenience provision within the local centres. Although only the main mixed use centre and the southern local centre fall within Stevenage Borough, this quantum is intended to cover the whole of the Stevenage West site, including the part within North Hertfordshire. The relevant policy in the NHDLP is policy 42 but that predates SP1998 and was formulated before Stevenage West was envisaged. Even so, that amount of retail development would not breach the requirements of policy 42, including clause (iv) [CD/DP/6, page 27]. I

25.6 In the event, the amount of retail provision now actually proposed, whether for PA3 or

PA5, would be limited to no more than 1620 sq m of convenience retail floorspace in the main mixed use centre and 160 sq m in each of the local centres. For PA5, this is broadly proportionate to the quantum of floorspace referred to in SDP2004 policy SW15 and entirely supportable by the amount of expenditure likely to be generated by the Stevenage West development. For PA3, there could be a modest shortfall in available expenditure, but a smaller store even if not of optimal size would still be commercially viable [CD/WSC/PRO/17A appendix 12]. Small scale complementary retailing (Use Classes A1, A2 and A3) to meet day-to-day needs of residents would not raise any retail impact concerns because of their limited scale and local function. The floorspace figures would be controlled by planning condition and would be well within the Master Plan Principles MP18 and SDP2004 policy SW15 limits. The retail facilities on site would complement rather than compete with retail provision elsewhere in Stevenage [CD/WSC/PRO/17A, appendix 14, paragraph s 30 and 33 and appendix 18], and there are no similar facilities nearby whose trade would be reduced [CD/WSC/PRO/17A appendices 5, 9,10].

25.7 It is intended that retail provision would progress in step with the development of

Stevenage West. In essence, a convenience shop of about 150 sq m would be provided in the main mixed use centre, by the time that the 100th dwelling had been completed. This would probably be provided in a permanent building suitable for later alternative re-use and would initially need to be subsidised. Retail provision would be added as housing is constructed outwards from the main centre, followed by provision at the second village centre. This would ensure sustainability in terms of minimising the need to travel to other convenience shopping facilities from the outset.

25.8 Main points of the case for the Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion 25.9 Additional retail facilities would be necessary to serve Stevenage West but this must not

deflect shopping trips away from the existing town centre.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 94

26. Stevenage Regeneration Policies 26.1 In draft RSS/RPG14, Stevenage is identified as one of the key centres on which

development and change are to be centred [CD/RPG/6 policy SS2]. SP1998 also identifies Stevenage as one of the settlements in which development is to be concentrated [CD/DP/1d policy 6] although the main development strategy does not distinguish between the County’s principal settlements in this respect and is concerned mainly with controlling development in and around them [policy 7]. SDP1994 recognises that Stevenage Town Centre is “showing its age” [CD/DP8a paragraph 10.1.3] and therefore pursues policies aimed at welcoming development that would upgrade both its environment and services [paragraph 10.1.4 and policies TC1 and TC2]. SDP2004 affirms the Council’s commitment to maintaining and enhancing the town’s sub-regional role and promoting town centre regeneration [CD/DP/9d, paragraphs 2.5.1-2.5.4 and policy TW5 with CD/DP/9h, volume 1 proposed modifications]. This is supported by site specific policy and reasoned justification outlining a regeneration strategy for the town centre [paragraphs 6.1.6 – 6.2.5 and policy TR2 with CD/DP/9h, volume 2 proposed modifications]. The main components of the strategy, which is supported by English Partnerships, are to secure new retail development, improved Civic facilities, high density housing and additional Use Class A3 and D2 uses, to promote a range of environmental enhancement projects, and to establish an integrated sustainable transport strategy [paragraph 6.1.11 with CD/DP/9h, volume 2 proposed modifications].

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 26.2 Stevenage is recognised as one of two “major sub-regional centres” in Hertfordshire

[CD/DP/1d, policy 16]. It has a reasonable range of middle ranking national and multiple retailers and a health check shows its general vitality and viability to be satisfactory [WSC/PRO/17A, appendices 4,6 and 8]. It is also well placed to draw on a sizeable and relatively wealthy population [WSC/PRO/17A, appendix 7]. However, the town centre was developed concurrently with Stevenage New Town and despite some recent investment now looks tired and dated. It lacks a department store and a range of speciality traders.

26.3 A regeneration study for the Town Centre was commissioned by SBC and English

Partnerships, and a report including recommendations was published in January 2002. The report said that to overcome its shortcomings and compete with its rivals, Stevenage would need a major injection of vitality and quality through both the improvement of existing facilities and co-ordinated new development. The recommended strategy recognised the need for more up-market shopping including, in particular, a department store, a better range of leisure facilities, more hotel accommodation and possibly some high density housing. In July 2002, SBC adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for the town centre, drawing heavily upon this strategy [CD/SPG/2]. It proposed a range of developments aimed at bringing forward regeneration, which are now to be taken forward in SDP2004. SBC and English Partnerships have since selected a development partner and the next stage centre will be further public consultation. This approach mirrors the Government’s response to the Transport, Local Government and The Regions Committee Report “The New Towns: Their Problems and Future” published in November 2002. Regeneration of the town

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 95

centre will, nevertheless, be a lengthy task, and is likely to stretch over a period of some 10 years.

26.4 According to the 2001 Census, the existing population of Stevenage is 79,715. PA3

would add about 9,180 people (an increase of 11.5%) and PA5 some 12,750 people (an increase of 16%). Given the close proximity of this substantially increased population and the ease of accessibility to the town centre, there is every prospect that the scale of development proposed at Stevenage West would make a significant contribution to the viability of town centre regeneration and its attractiveness to new traders. Indeed, the development would provide significant benefit in terms of additional available expenditure (some £4.75 m in comparison expenditure) to the proposed town centre redevelopment [CD/WC/PRO/17, paragraph 7.29].

26.5 The level of job creation would similarly go a long way to achieving the regeneration

objectives for Stevenage and there is a pressing need for affordable and other housing in the area to support the workforce for local employers [CD/SBC/16]. The development would be ideally placed for access to the principal leisure facilities of the town, including Stevenage Leisure Park and Stevenage Arts Centre, both of which are located on the west side of the town centre, as well as to open countryside to the west.

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council 26.6 SBC wishes to stress the importance of the proposed development at Stevenage West to

the much needed and sought for regeneration of Stevenage Town Centre [CD/SBC/20, and axonometric sketch at CD/SBC/21]. A clear strategy has been formulated and a development partner has now been appointed [CD/SBC/20 and CD/TRAN/58]. Although regeneration is progressing independently of PA3 and PA5, it is plain that an increase in the population of the town of some 12,000 people that would follow from PA5 can only assist the proposed regeneration and provide incentives for the private sector to invest in the town [CD/SBC/PRO/5A].

Main points of the case for the Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion 26.7 Although WSC says that Stevenage West would contribute to the regeneration of

Stevenage, developers tend always to make such claims. The need for regeneration has to be put in context. Neither the WSC nor SBC have claimed that Stevenage’s ability to grow and prosper as a town depends on Stevenage West being developed. New residents would bring new spending power but the vitality and viability of the town centre appears to be satisfactory without. It has, for example, just attracted a reliable and resourceful developer for its town centre scheme.

26.8 The proposed town centre redevelopment would itself be a large-scale scheme

[CD/SBC/21]. It would make a tremendous difference to the ability of Stevenage to compete with surrounding centres, especially in retail terms because of a plentiful supply of car parking. A new leisure development would be included and a vibrant evening economy would be promoted. There would be an enhanced public transport system with better accessibility for buses pedestrians and cyclists and a new integrated rail and bus station. Private car access and parking would be properly managed and a new residential quarter developed. None of this regeneration and investment would in any way be dependent on Stevenage West being developed.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 96

27. Traffic, Travel and Transportation Policies 27.1 RPG9 urges the adoption of policies that seek to minimise the distance people need to

travel while enhancing choice and ease of access to activities [CD/RPG/1b, policy T1]. Walking and cycling is to be vigorously promoted [policy T4], and public transport improved to enable it to compete more effectively with private car use and to increase its share of total travel [policy T5].

27.2 Draft RSS/RPG14 likewise seeks to secure reduction in the need and hence demand for

travel and to promote small scale local improvements of public transport services and facilities for walking and cycling. An improved range of public transport is also proposed at Regional Interchange Centres, which include Stevenage [CD/RPG/6, policies SS6 and T2]. Walking and cycling is to be encouraged, particularly where this integrates with the Regional Interchange Centres [policy T12] and the use of public transport is also to be promoted [policy T13]. Conversely, car traffic levels are to be stabilised in the Regional Interchange Centres [policy T14], which include Stevenage.

27.3 SP1998 includes the aim of reducing growth in private motor traffic on the County’s

roads and minimising its environmental impact, especially during peak periods and in towns [CD/DP/1d, policy 22]. Pedestrian, cycle, bus and equestrian networks are to be identified and implemented and developments that enable improved provision in these respects are to be welcomed [policy 23]. A further aim is to secure the most efficient and effective use of primary routes, particularly for through traffic [policy 26]. Road safety implications are to be taken into account in the assessment of development proposals, and development is to be located so that traffic is discouraged from using roads to which it is not appropriate, in accordance with a defined hierarchy [policy 29]. Reference is made to the 1996 Trunk Road Programme that includes proposals for widening of junctions 6-8 on A1(M) [policy 33]. SP2003 takes a very similar approach to all of these matters [CD/DP/2f, policies 22,23, 26, 29 and 33].

27.4 SDP1994 policy T4 requires a detailed traffic impact statement to accompany all

proposals for significant new development [CD/DP/8a] and policy T5 follows this through with a requirement for developers to fund any highway capacity improvements that such statements find necessary. Policy T9 indicates that proposals from the then British Rail to increase commuter parking at Stevenage station would be welcomed.

27.5 In SDP2004 policy objectives include reducing the need to travel and encouraging use of

means of travel other than by car [CD/DP/9d, policy T1 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1], retaining a safe and efficient highway network [policy T21 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1], promoting Green Travel Plans [policy T4 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1], securing developer contributions towards a range of travel and transport measures required in connection in large developments [CD/DP/9d, policies T5, T13, and T14 with proposed modifications in CD/DP/9h, volume 1] and encouraging pedestrian and cycle priority in the shared use of roadspace [CD/DP/9d, policy T7 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1]. Proposals for passenger transport and interchange are to be supported at Stevenage Railway Station, as are improvements to the station generally [CD/DP/9d, policies T8 and T10 CD/DP/9h, volume 1]. Loss of car parking at the station is to be resisted and proposals for increased provision welcomed [policy TR10 and CD/DP/9h, volume 2].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 97

27.6 In the Stevenage West Chapter of SDP2004, policy SW3 requires, among other things, access arrangements that have regard to the locational advantage of the development in relation to Stevenage’s town centre and other facilities and encourage the use of sustainable travel modes. In line with the findings of the SP1998 EIP Panel [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 5.50], policies SW5 and SW6 specify a minimum of two all-purpose access points linking across A1(M) into the Borough’s existing road, cycleway and pedestrian networks, and require that the development includes measures to make passenger transport, cycling and walking more attractive than private car use. Reference is made to necessary off-site enhancements to existing transport networks together with expansion of existing rail/bus interchange facilities. Policy SW7 describes the four existing A1(M) crossings that could serve the site and the alterations that would be required to them if they are to serve as any of the minimum of two access point required for the first 5,000 dwellings.

27.7 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)], MP6 requires a

layout that produces good permeability to facilitate travel other than by car, together with well-designed and located car parking areas. MP8 stresses the importance of convenient access for disabled people. MP9 seeks a modal shift away from the use of private cars, MP10 requires provision of necessary infrastructure to enable a quality bus service to be implemented in phases as development progresses and MP11 says that all transport infrastructure and services are to be designed to a high level of safety. MP12 seeks to avoid unacceptable impact on the existing highway network (with text adding that there shall be no vehicular access to B656 and no direct access to A1(M). MP13 requires that all modes of transport be integrated with transport infrastructure and key facilities in Stevenage. MP23 requires that emergency vehicle requirements are incorporated in the design of the development, particularly with regard to the major access routes.

27.8 Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan 2001-2006 (LTP) [CD/DP/5] sets out the future

transport strategy for the County. This is divided into Area Plans, which also include individual Urban Plans. The Urban Plans are scheduled for completion by December 2004 with the first schemes being delivered in 2005/2006. The LTP also includes development control policies, largely reflecting those in both SP1998 and SP2003. LTP policies MP9-MP13 [CD/DP/5, page 50] set out draft Master Planning principles for transport and transport infrastructure for Stevenage West. The LTP has 3 “daughter” documents - Hertfordshire’s Bus Strategy [CD/TRAN/16], Hertfordshire’s Intalink Strategy [CD/TRAN/17] and Hertfordshire’s Rail Prospectus [CD/TRAN/11]. Also of relevance are the consultation draft of Stevenage Parking Strategy 2003 [CD/SPG4a] and the Stevenage Cycling Strategy 2002 [CD/SBC/15].

Common Ground and other relevant background 27.9 Stevenage new town was developed at a time when motorised travel was firmly in

ascendancy and the road network was therefore constructed to modern and well-engineered standards. The roads are for the most part broad thoroughfares, some being dual carriageways, and many of the junctions are roundabout controlled, some with grade separation. Pedestrians, cyclists and mopeds are, for the most part, segregated in the town centre area on a separate network of routes. Unlike more historic towns, the road network operates well with only relatively limited congestion at key junctions during peak hours. There is, for example, morning peak congestion around the A1(M) junctions and on the A602 south of Stevenage (where queues regularly form in the

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 98

vicinity of Gunnels Wood Road) and in its Hitchin Road section. There are also tidal flows across the town between the eastern residential areas and the western employment and town centre areas during morning and evening peaks.

27.10 The primary route network of the town includes A1(M) and the section of A602 running

south east from A1(M) junction 7 at Langley towards Ware and Hertford [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 1]. In July 2003, the Government’s response to recommendations on the London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study was announced [CD/TRAN/18]. It was accepted that widening of A1(M) between junctions 6 and 8 should not go ahead [CD/TRAN/22]. This reflects the study’s conclusion that the M1 and M11 should be identified as the key strategic north-south routes through the area.

27.11 The main distributor road network includes other parts of the A602 and also the A1072

Gunnells Wood Road which forms an important link through the main employment areas of the town. Both Meadway and Bessemer Drive extend from its western side to the existing A1(M) underpasses. Other distributor roads include A1155 Fairlands Way, A1072 Six Hills Way, A1070 Martins Way and A1155 St Georges Way that together effectively form a “box” around the town centre.

27.12 Stevenage also has a well-developed bus network, including comprehensive district and

regional services. For the most part, these originate from the town centre bus terminus [CD/PRO/14A, plan at appendix 3].

27.13 Stevenage Railway Station lies on the East Coast Main Line and is served by both West

Anglia Great Northern (WAGN) and Intercity trains. It is a “gateway station” for long distance routes there being links to London, Cambridgeshire, Peterborough and the north [CD/WSC/PRO/14A, plan at appendix 6]. It is also an important centre for local services on the rail network in Hertfordshire and is well placed to benefit from the Thameslink 2000 proposals [CD/WSC/PRO/14A, plan at appendix 7]. The County’s Rail Prospectus 2001-2005 [CD/TRAN/11] identifies a range of problems associated with the existing station. These include difficulties of interchange with buses, the narrow width of the platforms and pedestrian bridge and the lack of staff presence [CD/LET/39 and CD/WSC/PRO/14/REB/6]. The prospectus includes the proposal referred to in SDP2004 policy T8 to develop a combined bus and rail interchange in Stevenage as part of the major town centre regeneration being promoted jointly by HCC, SBC and English Partnerships. The result of a design and build competition among preferred bidders was announced in February 2004 [CD/TRAN/58], but anticipated completion has slipped from 2005 to 2008.

27.14 The primary vehicular access route to the proposed development would be via a new

section of dual carriageway at Meadway connecting Gunnels Wood Road via Clovelly Way and a new underpass beneath A1(M) to the main mixed use centre [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 14 and detail drawing at WSC/PRO/14A appendix 8]. The existing roundabout junction with Gunnels Wood Road would be substantially altered with full signalisation, widened lanes and a segregated slip road, and there would also be similar capacity enhancement of the intermediate roundabout at Clovelly Way. The existing A1(M) underbridge from Meadway would be retained and adapted for non-vehicular movement.

27.15 Secondary access to the development would be from Bessemer Drive using an existing

A1(M) underbridge with the addition of a new footway/cycleway in a separate bore to

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 99

•

•

the south of it [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA/15, figure 15 and detail drawing at WSC/PRO/14A appendix 9]. On the east side of A1(M), Bessemer Drive would be widened, primarily to facilitate bus movement. A further access point, for emergency vehicles only, is proposed at the northern end of the development onto Fishers Green Lane west of the existing bridge over A1(M). This would be controlled by an automatic barrier or bollard to prevent use by other vehicles.

27.16 A range of off-site highway improvements is also proposed to mitigate traffic impacts

and to provide bus priority [CD/PA5/22c 1 of 4, plan 7.0/18S and schedule and detail plans at WSC/PRO/14A appendices 10 and 15].

27.17 The main route through the site would take the form of a Central Transport Spine (CTS)

passing lengthwise through the broadly linear form of development and linking the main mixed use centre and the north and south local centres to the main points of access. [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 8]. A proposed Strategic Green Travel Plan [CD/PA3/9 and CD/PA5/9, appendix B] would be used as a guide for the preparation of travel plans for individual uses (employment, education, residential etc) at detail stage. A travel co-ordinator would be appointed who would be the focal point for all sustainable transport initiatives including, for example, encouragement of home-working, liaison with public transport operators, facilitating ride-sharing schemes, integrating with HCC’s Travelwise initiative, and establishing focus groups for walkers and cyclists.

27.18 The full travel and transport networks proposed cannot be provided from the outset of

development, and would necessarily develop and expand in step with it [CD/MISC/18]. All would be in place, however, on completion of development and designed to facilitate transition between the two development scenarios of 3,600 and 5,000 dwellings, with potential for expansion to accommodate a further 5,000 dwellings as intimated in SP1998 [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 16].

Main points of the case for the West of Stevenage Consortium Background to the travel and transport proposals 27.19 The Transport and Access Topic Group met on seventeen occasions between January

1999 and May 2000 and its deliberations were informed by three sub-groups dealing with passenger transport, cycle and pedestrian movement, and traffic modelling respectively. Core members of the group included Buchanan Consulting Engineers on behalf of WSC, English Partnerships, NHDC/SBC Planning and Engineering Officers, HCC Transportation Planning Officers, HCC Passenger Transport Unit Officers and Highways Agency representatives. Consultees included transport operators, public utility companies, emergency services and the County Association for the disabled. The overall objective [CD/WSC//PRO//14A, appendix 1] was to shape, in a consensual manner, the approach to fundamental travel and transport matters, including:

The requirements for highway access and options to achieve it.

The form and minimum frequency and coverage of passenger transport services for the development.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 100

• The principles for the design of on-site movement infrastructure and off-site connections and improvements.

27.20 The process was an incremental one informed, for example, by a Local Visioning

Conference held in January 1999 as part of the Garden City 21 project [CD/GAR/2, CD/GAR/4, CD/GAR/5, CD/GAR.C/1 and CD/GAR.C/2], which led to production of the “Step Change” document [CD/PA3/14 and CD/PA5/14]. Among other things, this set key sustainability targets, which included a reduction of over 30% in peak hour car journeys from the proposed new homes, a doubling of the number of peak hour journeys by bus, cycle and foot, and the aim that about 80% of all peak hour traffic would be contained within Stevenage [CD/PA3/14 and CD/PA5/14, page 5]. These targets were to be achieved by a range of measures co-ordinated under a Strategic Green Travel Plan.

27.21 Land to the west of A1(M) at Stevenage is particularly well suited to meeting

sustainability objectives because of the new town’s pattern of development. In particular, containment of the town by the A1(M) has led to the main retail, administrative, entertainment and employment areas together with the railway and bus stations being to the west of the centre, with the main housing areas to the east [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 1]. Development to the west of A1(M) would therefore create a more balanced and rounded pattern to the town, maximising the advantage of proximity to the range of higher order facilities that are already available either in the town centre or close to the east side of A1(M).

27.22 There would also be sustainability benefits to the wider urban area of Stevenage arising

from the development proposals, including additional high quality bus services and improvements to the existing bus terminus. The Stevenage West proposals are fully recognised in the adopted Local Transport Plan [CD/DP/5, pages 47-51], which also contains similar Master Planning Principles to those advanced by HCC in the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i)-(iii)].. In particular, HCC itself accepts that each of the factors listed as being necessary to achieve compliance with policy MP9 of that SPG are capable of being satisfied by the development as proposed, even if there remains disagreement over detail.

Measures to optimise the locational advantages of the site and reduce reliance on private car use 27.23 It should be recognised from the outset that, in allocating the site in SP1998, HCC had

itself already identified the Stevenage West site as being a sustainable location. Much of the concern expressed during the formative stages of SP1998 about the traffic implications of development at Stevenage West was based on the assumption that 10,000 dwellings would be proposed rather than 5,000 [CD/DP/1b, page 5-8, paragraphs 5.46 and 5.47, page G-4 paragraphs 14-19]. It was necessary for WSC to disabuse the EIP that 5,000 dwellings would warrant a light rail connection to Stevenage Town Centre as some participants had suggested. While the EIP indicated that there may be a need to consider “innovative” forms of public transport [CD/DP/1b, page 5-8, paragraph 5.51], it is clear that this did not extend beyond a guided bus way [CD/DP/1b, page 5-8, paragraph 5.47]. It may have included bus-only lanes or other means of ensuring public transport priority. Indeed, there has never been any requirement for guided bus routes to be provided, because this would be impractical for a development of the scale proposed. Likewise, it is not considered that even a fully dedicated route would be necessary. This is because if limited to within the site it would be of marginal benefit to overall bus

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 101

travel times to and from the town centre. Conversely, if extended beyond the site there would be a requirement for significant re-allocation of road space (and consequent implications for the free flow of other traffic in Stevenage generally). It would also necessitate unattractive compromises in urban design and layout. Consideration of a fully dedicated route had been discounted in 1999, at about the same time as a section of the CTS route through Six Hills Way, which had been preferred for buses only, was being ruled out for engineering/cost reasons and, eventually, for environmental reasons [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB(9), meeting 2 and meeting 3 sections 5, 6 and 7].

27.24 In essence, WSC proposes that the CTS would be an integral part of the road network

within the site but with key sections reserved for bus and access traffic only (with pedestrians and cyclists on a segregated track). The CTS would be 7.3 m wide, sufficient to allow two buses to pass, or a bus to pass a refuse lorry, comfortably [WSC/PRO/14RA appendix 1, pages 5-7 and plans therewith]. Usage would be controlled by Traffic Regulation Orders and by bus access only “gates” at specific identified points [shown diagrammatically in CD/TRAN/37/12]. Bus activated “transponders” (to change traffic lights or lower bollards as a bus approaches) could also be employed to ensure buses are not delayed at junctions. Given that most drivers are law abiding, the bus-only sections would be largely self-enforcing. Private vehicles would be diverted around the local centres on less direct routes. The CTS would thus be uncongested and sufficiently well “branded” to create a strong perception of a high quality public transport route.

27.25 There would be some frontage development to the CTS for townscape reasons, and this

may have access from the CTS to servicing areas and parking. Where vehicles do need such access, parking and waiting areas would be arranged in such a way as to avoid obstructing the free passage of buses. Neither the northern nor the southern primary schools would require access directly off the CTS, and the central primary/secondary school site would be sufficiently large for parking and drop-off/pick-up areas to be provided within its curtilage. The applications are in outline, so details of the CTS and the other buildings and land fronting onto it, including the precise number and location of accesses to frontage properties, can be designed at a later stage in consultation with the Local Authorities. It would also be open to HCC and SBC to introduce Traffic Regulation Orders designed to slow car speeds off-site and thus further favour bus usage should they wish to do so. Residential car parking would be set at no more than 1.5 car parking spaces per dwelling for the development as whole, in accordance with PPG13 advice concerned with reducing car usage [CD/MISC/17a and b].

27.26 The balance of traffic flow on the Meadway and Bessemer Drive accesses would be

significantly biased towards Meadway, as has always been envisaged [CD/WSC/PRO/14/REB, table on page 33 and WSC/PRO/14R, paragraph 5.3]. Both have been designed to be uncongested, despite revisions to the Bessemer Drive access arising from changes to bus priority measures and making this route fully available to pedestrians and cyclists, as requested by HCC.

27.27 The rest of the road network internal to the site would follow the hierarchical structure

recommended in the Hertfordshire Design Guide [CD/TRAN/1], subject only to recognising contemporary design philosophy [CD/TRAN/37/2]. This hierarchy would include primary access roads, primary streets, secondary streets and semi-rural lanes. The details would be refined as each area of the development is brought forward. “Home Zones” would be incorporated, where pedestrians would have absolute priority

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 102

and cars would travel at little more than walking pace. Many other residential areas would be subject to 20 mph speed limit, although if employed too widely such speed limits may cause driver frustration and increase the likelihood of accidents. Areas of the development with greatest public transport accessibility would be subject to the most restrictive parking regime, and standards generally would be within the maxima recommended in SBC guidance [CD/SPG/3]. It can thus be seen that a range of measures would be in place to ensure ease of vehicular access to all parts of the site, but less direct than the CTS which would have priority for bus travel.

27.28 The Master Plan layout has been formulated inherently to facilitate serving the

development by bus. Thus, higher density land uses would be located within the main and local centres along the CTS. More widely, the linear pattern of development to both sides of the CTS would also ensure all neighbourhoods would be close to public transport and that bus services could operate at high frequency [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, fig 8]. Proposed bus routes have now been agreed with HCC and bus operators [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 10 plan). In effect, there would be two routes. One would be the “principal route” along the CTS via Bessemer Drive, to and from the town centre bus station. This would have a periodic “route extension” to and from the Lister Hospital to the north of the town. The alignment of this route is subject to minor alteration [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 9 letter]. The second (“the GWR peak-hour route”) would be more circuitous. It would again travel along the CTS and cross A1(M) at Bessemer Drive before turning south along Caxton Way to pass through the centre of the Gunnels Wood employment area. It would continue via the southern parts of the town to the town centre and then along Gunnels Wood Drive to re-enter the site at the Meadway access, joining the CTS at the main mixed use centre. Both the principal route and the GWR peak-hour route would be two-way operational. Service interval would be 10 minutes throughout the day on the principal route, which is more frequent than the minimum required for “turn up and go” [CD/TRAN/41 and HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 9 and CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 15]. Combined with the GWR peak-hour route, the service interval through the site would in fact be 5 minutes in each direction during the morning peak hour. Bus stops along the spine would be suitably spaced with high quality street furniture and “real-time” information displays to further encourage patronage [CD/WSC/PRO/14, paragraphs 6.10 and 6.11]. There would also be an operating subsidy of £1m to establish the services and a bus travel subsidy of £200 per household to encourage bus use from the outset [CD/WSC/PRO/14, paragraph 6.4]. Information regarding the services would be publicised via the travel plan co-ordinator [CD/WSC/PRO/14, paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9] and on the neighbourhood web-site [CD/WSC/PRO/14, paragraphs 6.13 and 6.14].

27.29 It is further intended that the bus services and facilities would operate as a Quality Bus

Partnership initiated under the Transport Act 2000 to ensure an effective and co-operative approach to provision for bus travel. While control over bus services is difficult in a de-regulated environment, a Quality Bus Partnership could prevent low cost operators abstracting ridership without providing the quality of service sought. It could, for example, preclude use by competitors of the bus-only sections of the CTS, real time information systems and bus stop facilities, while the cost of necessary transponders, buses and staff training would militate against such abstraction. Any new operator would also be faced with investment in necessary infrastructure (depot, engineering facilities etc) as well as having to compete with an existing frequent and high quality service.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 103

27.30 An important consideration in the design of these services was to ensure integration with existing services in Stevenage and opportunities for interchange [CD/PA3/22c and CD/PA5/22c, document 1 of 4, explanatory paper 4]. The routes have also been chosen to complement the viability of existing services rather than compete with them. It was HCC’s own Public Transport Unit that requested omission of a direct bus route to Lister Hospital in favour of one via the town centre, for example, despite this involving a longer journey time. The S106 planning Obligation would include funding for bus infrastructure improvements, subsidy to support early introduction of the proposed services, and a bus travel subsidy for residents to help establish their use of buses as soon as they move to the site. There has been no suggestion of additional or alternative measures by objectors that should be taken to enhance bus patronage.

27.31 In sum, the proposals would represent an exemplar of effective partnership of the type

sought in the County’s Bus Strategy [CD/TRAN/16], which is itself a daughter document of the Local Transport Plan.

27.32 In addition to car restraint and bus priority measures, good quality links from Stevenage

West to the town centre for pedestrians and cyclists are proposed. Within the site it is intended to establish a hierarchy of footpath/cycleway routes [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 9], many of which would connect through “home zones” [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA5/19, figure 11a]. Overall, there would be direct high quality pedestrian and cycle routes generally segregated from vehicles linking the development to key destinations in Stevenage and to the wider existing network of settlements and countryside. Indeed, 98% of the development would be within 800 m of a local centre, 92% within 600 m of a primary school, 88% within 1500 m of the proposed secondary school and 95% within 800 m of useable open space [CD/PA3/9CD/PA5/9, figs 17,18,22 and 23 and CD/WSC/PRO/14, paragraph 4.28]. The existing horse riding route within the site [CD/WSC/PRO/8A appendix 4, plan CPM2] would be retained and where this would intersect the highway system serving the new development, dedicated crossing facilities would be provided. Signalised crossings would be located between the Clovelly Way roundabout and A1(M) to permit safe access to the Meadway underpass, and at the Bessemer Drive access just west of the A1(M).

27.33 Taken in the round, the only criticism made of the proposals to encourage public

transport use relate to the detailed design of the CTS and the detailed proposals for Bessemer Drive. These are both matters which, if necessary may readily be addressed at the detailed design stage and neither represents an objection in principle to the proposed development. There can be no doubt that the underlying objective of optimising the locational advantages of the proposed development has been met.

The traffic modelling process 27.34 The travel and transport proposals advanced in support of the applications have been

developed over a period of years involving a range of modelling processes [CD/WSC/PRO/14A appendix 13, CD/PA3/12c and CD/PA5/12c, pages 24, 25, annex 7.0/2 and diagram at annex 2]. There is, in consequence, a large measure of agreement over them. In particular, it was agreed between the parties at an early stage that it was appropriate to develop a bespoke model to assess the likely effects of the proposed development in terms of transportation and traffic generation. HCC criticism of the modelling process focuses on the Local Model. This Model is a highly sophisticated one that, for a given mix of house types, densities and tenure predicts trip numbers,

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 104

destinations and modal choice [CD/PA3/22C and CD/PA3/22c, document 3 of 4, and resumés at CD/SBC/PRO/3/SUP, paragraphs 2.1.1-2.1.11 and WSC/PRO/21, paragraphs 11-25]. This it does by comparing journey costs (computed in terms of time) by six different modes (car, bus, car-rail, bus-rail, cycle and walk) using estimated distances between origin and destination. The Model assesses trips generated in the morning peak hour only, on the basis that this will give a robust output for other times of the day. The output is also generated on the assumption that development is completed and all proposed infrastructure in place (ie, as at 2014 for the 5000 scheme). Although the Local Model contains a large number of complex equations [WSC/PRO/21, paragraphs 21 and 24], it is not specific to Stevenage and there is nothing inherent in the programme codes that would be specific to a particular application. Everything can be specified and altered by the user. In this particular case, the Local Model has been calibrated using 1991 Census and National Travel Survey data and validated both against emerging 2001 Census data and other observed data [WSC/PRO/21, paragraphs 31 and 32]. It has also been subjected to sensitivity testing to assess whether it produces expected outputs with a range of data inputs.

27.35 Base year validation of the Local Model [CD/PA3/12c and CD/PA5/12c, diagram at

annex 2] was accepted at a meeting of the Topic Sub-Group on 10 November 1999 [CD/TRAN/51, paragraph 2.1]. The modelling process is, however, an iterative one. Some 16 versions of the Model had already been run by the time of the Inquiry as input data was altered and refined. For example, at the request of HCC, the Local Model was re-run in December 2003 using a range of inputs in terms of bus fares, service frequencies and journey speeds to assess how sensitive the mode share would be to variations in each. This pre-dated the bus routes that have now been agreed with the bus operators and excluded a 50p fare option that had been agreed to be unsuitable [CD/TRAN/38]. Following further correspondence with HCC, the results were up-dated in January 2004 [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 11].

27.36 At a meeting on 15 May 2003, it had been agreed by those attending, including HCC,

that responsibility for acceptance of the Local Model input assumptions would be assumed by SBC [CD/PRO/14RA, appendix 4, SBC being represented by SM in the minute]. SBC has since produced a critique of the Local Model (CD/SBC/PRO/3SUPP), which HCC also relies upon in evidence [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 19] despite now seeking to distance itself from agreeing the SBC role. Indeed, in December 2003, HCC had confirmed its acceptance of the Local Model as a viable tool for analysing the likely generation of trips and mode share for the proposed development [CD/WSC/PRO/14A, appendix 13]. SBC has also confirmed its general satisfaction with the Model [SBC/PRO/3/SUP, paragraphs 3.2.8, 3.16.4 and 4.4 and table 3.1 as amended on page 9, and CD/TRAN/46] and as far as WSC had been aware at the opening of the Inquiry, no outstanding issues remained with either HCC or SBC on the Local Model.

27.37 Although much less refined than the Local Model, the SBC spreadsheet is itself a

thorough and sophisticated appraisal [CD/TRAN/55]. It is a more advanced generation of modelling technique than that employed by Harrison Webb on behalf of HCC [CD/TRAN/10 and CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 20], but unlike the Local Model it is not at the cutting edge of travel and transport analysis. Comparison of Harrison Webb data with WSC figures shows good correlation for modal split to car at 58% [CD/TRAN/10 and CD/TRAN/37/2]. Indeed, Harrison Webb suggested bus mode share of 24% for the proposed development, based upon much the same total number of trips

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 105

as used by WSC [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, paragraph 3.41]. Criticisms by Harrison Webb of the Local Model [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB/DJH/9, paragraphs 2.12, 3.6, 3.16 and 3.22] are founded on misunderstanding. In particular, DB32 and “Places, Streets and Movement” were central to the development of the Master Plan, different assumptions on population and employment floorspace would not affect mode share, and there are no “fudge factors” in the modelling process.

27.38 There are also many areas in which the Harrison Webb work can itself be criticised. For

example, the Harrison Webb assessment carried out for HCC in 2000 assumed 45% of Stevenage residents would work in Stevenage (CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 20, paragraph 3.15]. That is surprising in the light of 1991 and 2001 Census data showing 61% and 57% respectively, which correlates closely to calibration results for the Local Model [CD/PA3/22c and CD/PA5/22c, document 3 of 4, page 3-6, table 3.7]. The Harrison Webb report also seems to have been written before necessary data had been obtained [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 20, paragraph 3.18, for example]. While Harrison Webb allege that the need for dedicated space for buses was noted in their original advice to HCC [CD/HCC/PRO/REB, document 20, paragraphs 3.22 and 3.24], there is nothing in that advice to say that dedicated space had been assumed [CD/TRAN/10, paragraphs 2.7 and 2.9].

27.39 Among the HCC concerns expressed at the Inquiry was the absence of opportunity to

have access to and inspect the Local Model. WSC acknowledged that concern, access having been denied until then for reasons of commercial sensitivity and the need for operator training. WSC had, nonetheless, at all times sought to be open about the methodology employed and to be transparent with regard to the various inputs [CD/TRAN/33, CD/TRAN/56 and CD/PA3/22c and CD/PA5/22c, document 3 of 4, and CD/WSC/PRO/21, paragraphs 33-35]. The transport assessment was up-dated in April 2003 to reflect, among other things, 2001 Census data [CD/PA3/22c and CD/PA5/22c, document 1 of 4]. All details sought by HCC and others had been provided to enable sensitivity testing sufficient to ensure that the Model was generating appropriate outputs. HCC has now also had the opportunity to investigate the Local Model as requested.

27.40 A further HCC concern focussed on the Local Model’s calculation of the number of

education trips by bus. It is acknowledged that an error had been made in this respect (the “education mistake”). This arose from a failure to recognise that, in practice, many children would walk or cycle to school rather than travel by bus. The decrease in number of bus trips would, however, be counterbalanced by recalculation of the average bus fare based on information provided by the bus operators. This shows that the bus viability analysis in fact underestimates fare income by nearly 11% [CD/PRO/14RA, appendix 11]. The Local Model has since been re-run at HCC request to double-check the effect on mode share, but shows that it would not be significantly changed and that there would be limited effect on bus patronage [CD/WSC/PRO/14/SUPP].

27.41 SBC and HCC are wrong to criticise the Model for using “crow fly” distances

[CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 19]. This is because the distances by bus were, in fact, measured individually, and the distances for car journeys were measured in two sections, one from home to the A1(M) crossing and the other from there to destination. Since similar data were used for both calibration and validation, any differences between outputs based on “crow-fly” and actual distances would, in effect, be compensated for, and nothing has been revealed by sensitivity testing (including SBC’s own spreadsheet check) to indicate a questionable result. Likewise, dispute over cost parameters is

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 106

unfounded because the current Transport Economics Note figures exclude commuting journeys [CD/TRAN/45, paragraph 2.2 and table 2/1] and take account of a longer morning period than just the peak hour [table 2/5]. Judgement must therefore be applied in selecting the appropriate cost parameter to apply and, again, sensitivity testing has not disclosed any peculiarity in the result. Walk and wait times for public transport would be a relatively small proportion of overall journey time (given the frequency of bus service proposed). Given that the Model is predicting forward to 2014, account should also be taken of changes that may be introduced nationally or locally in the interim, such as enhanced public transport infrastructure generally and rising costs of car use. Low bus speed used in the Model has the effect of favouring car use and thus serves to make the output from the Model more robust rather than the reverse. The Local Model does not include time penalties for walking [CD/PA3/22C and CD/PA5/22c, document 3 of 4, page 3-5, table 3-5], so it is wrong to criticise these for being too high. They could be introduced for sensitivity testing if required. The penalties for cycling are simply a product of the modelling process and recognise that cycling rates have fallen. The “sweat factor” is a disincentive to cycling, which is largely unrecognised. However, efforts are being made nationally to promote cycling among school children and if the SUSTRANS initiative is successful, the related time penalty would largely disappear. Neither walking nor cycling time penalties would have a significant bearing on the outcome of the modelling exercise. Indeed, comparison of the Local Model outputs with those produced by the SBC spreadsheet show close correlation.

27.42 A number of further criticisms have been raised by HCC in supplementary written

evidence [CD/HCC/PRO/4/SUPP] as well as by CASE. With regard to whether the Local Model has properly taken account of increased out-commuting by residents of Stevenage disclosed in the 2001 Census [CD/HCC/PRO/4/SUPP, paragraph 2.3], validation of the Local Model showed there to be close correlation with the modelled output on this and other matters. Extrapolation of 1991 and 2001 Census data to indicate car ownership levels for Stevenage West in 2014 [CD/HCC/PRO/4/SUPP, paragraph 2.7] has also been accounted for [WSC/PRO/14REB(2) paragraph 2.12]. CASE is wrong to assert that development needed to satisfy regional housing need such as that at Stevenage West would result in travel demands that are regionally rather than locally based. This is because the regional need would be met not just at Stevenage, and over the long period of development the travel patterns of incoming residents would become increasingly assimilated into those typical of Stevenage generally. The high proportion of affordable housing is also likely to be occupied by households with a local focus from the outset. The ODPM Survey of English Housing shows that about 25% of households move home per annum and that most tend to move very locally [CD/TRAN/50]. Marketing of the Stevenage West development would mainly be local, because that is where WSC expects most prospective purchasers to come from. Typically, over 20% of homes in Stevenage as a whole are traded annually, so the Stevenage West dwellings would represent only a small annual proportion in any event. Generally people tend to move to be closer to their place of work, rather than moving in search of work, or to be further from their place of work. The proximity of Stevenage West to employment areas on the west side of Stevenage would tend to reduce out-commuting to other employment areas in any event [WSC/PRO/14REB(3) paragraphs 2.3-2.7].

27.43 For all of these reasons, WSC does not accept that the Harrison Webb approach, the SBC

spreadsheet, or any of the other detailed points raised at the Inquiry provide any reliable basis on which to question the results of the Local Model. This Model has been properly developed and validated, and accords with proven modelling techniques.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 107

27.44 Objection raised by the Highways Agency (HA) reflects HCC criticism of the SATURN

Model. This criticism is itself based on the premise that if the Local Model is incorrect, then the inputs that it provides to the SATURN Model would also be incorrect and hence so would the output from the SATURN Model. That criticism is not accepted. Validation of the SATURN Base Year Model was based on advice in the DOT’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges [CD/TRAN/7, volume 12] and independent examination has shown it to satisfactorily meet the relevant criteria [CD/PA5/22c, volume 2 of 4, page 4-2 paragraphs 4.7 – 4.10]. Conversely, particular care needs to be taken when comparing Base Year Modelled flows and flows recorded by automatic traffic counters as HCC has sought to do [HCC/PRO/4A, appendix DH9]. In the section of Gunnels Wood Road between Six Hills Way and Broadhall, for example, traffic flows to and from A1(M) impact on capacity at the southern end to a greater extent than they would at the northern end. Also, there is a number of accesses and egresses to and from Gunnels Wood Road that may significantly affect recorded flows, depending upon where the Automatic Traffic Counter was located. An element of professional judgement must also be applied when using the Forecasting Model to assess the capacity of individual junctions. In that context, both the HA’s position and the Faber Maunsell note on which it relies [HA/PRO/2(1)] are based largely on assertion and display a misunderstanding of the Local Model, its methodology and its inputs [CD/WSC/PRO/14R(4)].

27.45 That said, WSC accepts that the mitigation works proposed for Junctions 7 and 8 on

A1(M) would have to be designed to accommodate all traffic 15 years from the date of Stevenage West development and no attempt has therefore been made to identify the extent of those mitigation works attributable solely to Stevenage West traffic demand. Traffic queue detectors have been suggested by HA as a suitable way of addressing potential queuing on the northbound off-slip and these could be replicated on the south bound off-slip if traffic generated by the development warranted it. HA is, in any event, content that the impact of the development on the A1(M) would be acceptable, subject to suitable mitigation measures which are included in the proposed Section 106 planning Obligation.

Mode share 27.46 The main outstanding concern raised by HCC in respect of the modelling output relates

to the level of mode share to bus compared with private car usage. When considering the various statistics put forward to illustrate the likely travel mode split at Stevenage West, considerable care needs to be taken to ensure that comparisons are made on a like for like basis. It is necessary to recognise, for example, that some figures are collected on the basis of being only for journey to work, others are for all home-based trips, some are peak hour, and some are for outbound trips only.

27.47 Data collected in 1997 from the County Council’s TravelWise Programme indicated an

existing travel mode split in Stevenage of 85% car and 12% bus [CD/PA3/12c and CD/PA5/12c, table at paragraph 6.9, CD/TRAN/37/6, extract attached to rear, table 3(3)]. After comparison with other data collected on a national, regional and local level [CD/PA3/12c and CD/PA5/12c, paragraphs 6.10-6.13] WSC formed the view that, on completion of development and with all proposed traffic and transport measures in place, car mode share for Stevenage West could be reduced to 52% and bus use doubled to over 20% [CD/PA3/12c and CD/PA5/12c, paragraph 6.14]. These were the only figures available at the time of the applications, and it is from them that the 30% reduction in

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 108

peak hour car journeys from the new homes and a doubling of the number of peak hour journeys by bus were advanced by WSC as key sustainability targets [CD/PA3/14 and CD/PA5/14, page 5, seventh bullet point].

27.48 Data that has subsequently become available includes Census data for 2001, which

shows car mode share for journey to work in Stevenage increasing from 67.1% at the time of the 1991 Census to 68.8% in 2001, while bus share was recorded as 7.7% in 1991 and 5.5% in 2001 [CD/HCC/PRO/4, page 31, table DJH4] County Travel Survey data collected by travel diary in 1999 (full day, not just peak hour) similarly shows mode split to car of about 70% for both Stevenage and Hertfordshire residents, but a much higher bus mode share in Stevenage (16%), which is about 2½ times that for Hertfordshire (7%) [CD/TRAN/10 Appendix D, “all journeys” tabulation]. The figures generated for calibration purpose during the traffic modelling process were 71% car and 7% bus [CD/PA5/22c, volume 3 of 4, page 3-6, table 3.8], and the Saturn Model traffic predictions are based on a mode share to car of between 52% and 74%, depending on the nature of trips included, the bus route alternatives and the size of development [WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 2]. Figures for Cambridge (a medium-sized, self-contained town with a strong rail service and a substantial existing employment and social base) indicate that car mode share for journey to work trips of as low as about 40% is within a potentially achievable range [CD/TRAN/37/1].

27.49 The WSC figure used in the analysis of bus viability in fact anticipated 13% bus share

during the peak hour [CD/TRAN/37/6, last paragraph on page 2] and is considered robust. After correction of the “education mistake” the mode share figures now submitted by WSC for home-based and facility trips, to supersede those in the ESFI [CD/PA3/20 and CD/PA5/20, table 7.0/1 on page 42], are 49% car, 11% bus and 34% walk/cycle [CD/TRAN/54A]. The 11% figure excludes combined bus/rail trips which, if included, would increase bus share to 13%. Either figure represents a significant and sustainable level of usage, especially when compared with existing bus mode share in Stevenage.

27.50 The figure for bus mode share is also likely to be conservative for a number of reasons.

It would, for example, be influenced bus speed. While 18 kph (over the whole route to the town centre, not just the CTS) has been used for modelling purposes, 22 kph has been used in assessing viability. Until the 19 February 2004 letter from Arriva [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, last document in the bundle numbered DJH/21], the 22 kph figure had never been questioned by the operators, despite earlier meetings and correspondence. Indeed, that figure was originally put forward by the operators themselves, not by WSC [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 1, paragraph 2.2 and WSC/PRO/14R, paragraph 3.21]. Furthermore, the operators have not suggested that the figure would be unrealistic if bus priority measures are in place [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, last document in the bundle numbered DJH/21]. On a pro-rata basis, increasing bus speed from 18 kph to 22 kph might produce an increase of 5.2% in bus ridership [WSC/PRO/14R, paragraph 3.21]. In WSC view, increased speeds of up to about 25 kph could be achievable with bus-operated transponders to give priority at traffic light controlled junctions [CD/PA3/22c and CD/PA5/22c, page 12, paragraph 3.22].

27.51 In any event, it is probable that high modal transfer from car to bus can be more easily

achieved along specific transport corridors, as would be the case with the proposed linear form of Stevenage West and the CTS. Indeed, greater than average bus use can be

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 109

anticipated here than in wider Stevenage for a number of reasons. These include the location of the site close to existing retail, employment and other facilities on the west side of the town, and the package of measures formulated for Stevenage West to promote bus patronage [referred to in paragraphs 27.28-27.33 above]. Evidence produced by others shows a 5% mode shift and increase in bus ridership from 10% to 30% was achieved on the West Midlands Bus Showcase project, where a range of measures similar to those proposed at Stevenage West to promote bus patronage was in place [CD/GS/PRO/1A, appendix 2.6].

27.52 Car mode share may be resilient to transfer to bus because of the availability of car

parking within Stevenage, particularly on major employment sites. However, it may be inferred from current planning policies that this would decline over time as sites come forward for redevelopment and reduced parking standards are applied. Proposals to increase parking in central Stevenage are primarily to foster rail travel and it would be for SBC and the railway authority to ensure those spaces are retained for rail travellers rather than for shopping or employment trips to the town centre. Parking charges could be related to the purchase of a rail ticket, for example. It cannot be the case that, with all the measures proposed at Stevenage West to promote bus usage, a significant modal shift both in Stevenage itself and in similar urban areas where no such measures are in place cannot be achieved.

27.53 A comparison of journey times by bus and car has been undertaken [CD/TRAN/35, table

2] including for both on- and off-site parts of the route to the town centre (CD/TRAN/35, table 3). For bus travel to the town centre, this comparison includes walk and wait times, assumes a bus speed of 22 kph and considers two service frequencies (5 mins and 10 mins). For car travel the assumed speed is 20 kph and two parking times are considered (5 mins and 10 mins). These parking times have since been checked by WSC during an evening off-peak period. It was found that the time taken from entry to the town centre multi-storey car park to arrival on foot at the town centre bus pick-up point, including finding a mid-level parking space and purchasing a ticket amounted to some 7 ½ minutes. If endeavouring to park at a busier time, accompanied by children, considerably longer may be required. On that basis, there would be significant journey time benefits to travel by bus rather than car in all respects [CD/TRAN/35, table 2 – WSC invites comparison of unbracketed figures for bus with bracketed figures for car]. Indeed, proposed town centre redevelopment would bring with it larger car parks with greater delays. Whatever the case may be, the figures advanced by WSC at the Inquiry were never intended to provide a basis for assessing mode share or the likely success of public transport provision. Rather, they simply provided a time comparison that HCC had requested. Convenience and comparative cost would, for example, also have to be taken into account in assessing modal choice.

Bus viability 27.54 There is general agreement on the costs of bus operation on the agreed routes

[CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 9 for the agreement, and appendix 10 for the routes]. However, dispute remains over viability, which turns on likely trip rates per person per annum by bus (tppa) and thus directly informs revenue income.

27.55 While WSC originally suggested bus ridership of 332 tppa [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB,

document 18], that derived from a very early stage in the assessment when it was necessary to identify a suitable figure to work from [CD/HCC/PRO/4A appendix 17,

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 110

footnote 1 on penultimate page]. It was, in fact, based on data obtained from London Transport which was annualised and then adjusted to reflect the Stevenage situation. The Local Model has since been used as the basis of the calculation of ridership for the purposes of capacity assessment. WSC’s calculation assumes an annualised ridership of 250 tppa, which is at the low end of figures derived from the Local Model. It assumes an average speed of 18kph along the CTS, which is also at the low end of what may be expected and made no allowance for revenue from trips wholly external to Stevenage West. It also uses peak hour vehicle requirements, thus excluding any cost savings that may accrue from reduced staffing and vehicle requirements during off-peak hours [CD/WSC/PRO/14, paragraph 4.59]. It may thus be regarded as a conservative approach but nonetheless shows that the routes would become viable in the third year of operation [CD/WSC/PRO/14A appendix 14].

27.56 HCC criticism focuses on alleged underestimation of cost inflation and ridership. The

6% cost inflation figure put forward by HCC is based on labour costs [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document RDJH13, second letter in bundle dated 14 January 2004]. That, however, represents only part of the operating costs and, at that level operating costs would grow at twice the rate of income, which is unrealistic [CD/WSC/PRO/14R, paragraph 6.12]. Inflation in operating costs is, in fact, now decreasing [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA appendix 13, extract from “Transit” publication, 23 Jan 2004] and inflationary trends have historically been modest.

27.57 In order to take account of the dispute over operating costs inflation and other matters,

and following correction of the “education mistake” [see paragraph 27.40 above], a further series of viability analyses were carried out based on 250 tppa and 165 tppa [CD/WSC/PRO/14R paragraph 6.14 and appendix 12]. On the 250 tppa analysis services would become viable by year 3, with a mid-year population of 3000, requiring total subsidy of £188,000 including inflation. With 165 tppa, the services remain negative until year 5, and would require a subsidy of £407,000, but this would improve with a higher service interval and/or a faster rate of development [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 12]. The S106 planning Obligation would provide for £1m subsidy, which would therefore be more than adequate in either case.

27.58 To test the matter further, an additional viability analysis has been carried out on the

basis of the lowest level of ridership suggested by HCC, of 76 tppa [HCC/PRO/4/REB paragraph 5.4.2 and table at paragraph 5.4.7]. This has been applied to the principal route, which the Transport and Access Topic Group regard as representing a sustainable bus service. The result of this rather extreme approach is that viability is reached in year 6. The deficit during the period up to that year would remain within the £1m operating subsidy on offer through the proposed Section 106 Planning Obligation. The Local Model predictions for highway capacity are also sufficiently robust to absorb any consequent increase in car mode split [CD/TRAN/37/6]. The 165tppa figure accords more closely with that which may be derived from 2001 Census data. It would also be readily achieved given the 5 minute peak hour bus service interval proposed together with a direct route into the town centre and rail station, all dwellings within 400 m of a bus stop, high quality buses and waiting areas, real time information displays and a travel co-ordinator. Indeed, with these measures in place it would defy logic to rely on ridership figures for Stevenage West as low as 76 tppa.

27.59 Nonetheless, HCC still remains of the view that the annualised ridership is unrealistic

based, in effect, on its refusal to accept the output of the Local Model. In this respect,

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 111

other bus ridership figures extracted from WSC data and advanced by HCC to discredit the bus viability analysis must be treated with caution [HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 18]. Not all are directly comparable because, for example, they count only journey to work trips rather than all purpose trips, outbound trips rather than trips in both directions, or cover more than just the peak hour. Also, some are based on the original ESFI 50p flat fare whereas others are not. There is therefore nothing useful to be gained from extracting figures in that way. HCC is also wrong to suggest that bus ridership levels similar to those found in London and English Metropolitan areas could not be approached in Stevenage West [HCC/PRO/4A/REB, appendix 7]. This is because there are significant parts of those “urban” areas that are more remote from public transport services than Stevenage West, while also having easy connections to other transport services, in certain parts. In comparison, the linear shape of Stevenage West, the CTS corridor and proximity to the town centre would be combined with car restraint measures and financial inducements to secure relatively high levels of bus usage in a compact built-up area.

27.60 In its most recent submissions, HCC suggests that bus ridership in Stevenage currently

amounts to no more than 30 tppa [CD/HCC/PRO/4/SUPP, paragraph 5.12]. Such a figure is considerably lower even than that for Shire Counties (which typically include large tracts of relatively remote open countryside) [CD/HCC/PRO/4/REB, paragraph 5.4.2 and CD/HCC/PRO/4A/REB, appendix 7] and that drawn from the 2001 Census data which showed an 8% modal split to bus, equating to about 80-100 tppa [CD/WSC/PRO/14 (SUPP (1)]. This is because the 30 tppa figure is based on only 23 out of the 59 services operating from Stevenage Bus Station [CD/WSC/PRO/14/REB(3) paragraph 2.3], while service coverage within Stevenage is uneven [CD/TRAN/43]. For these and other reasons the HCC analysis that gives the 30 tppa figure is therefore deeply flawed and a figure of between 111 tppa (home based trips only) and 175 tppa (with facility trips included) would be more appropriate [CD/WSC/PRO/14/REB(3) paragraph 2.31, CD/WSC/PRO/14R(5) and CD/WSC/PRO/14R(7)].

27.61 In sum, HCC’s concern is about the amount of bus subsidy on offer, rather than on any

“in principle” objection to the method of its calculation or any other part of the basis for of its assessment. The FSS should have every confidence that the bus services proposed would be viable and that the mode split to bus that is predicted would be achieved.

Off-site highway and infrastructure works 27.62 Both WSC and HCC are in agreement that the correct approach to the assessment of the

impact of the development on the existing road network is to ensure “nil detriment”, an approach which accords with that for the trunk road network set out in Circular 4/2001, paragraph 17 [CD/GOV/17].

27.63 In addition to the main points of access to the site itself, off-site highway mitigation

works and bus priority measures within Stevenage town are proposed [CD/WSC/PRO/14A, appendix 15]. Following Stage 1 Safety Audit [CD/TRAN/32] and detailed objector criticisms, a number of revisions have been made to these [WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 7] and only limited points of criticism therefor remain. HCC concern that shortcomings in the Local Model would carry through to the SATURN modelling process are unfounded [CD/WSC/PRO/4/REB(3) paragraphs 2.13-2.21]. This is not least because testing of the junctions [WC/PRO/14A, appendix 17] using the SATURN forecasting Model was based upon the mitigation schemes that were subjected

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 112

to the safety audit rather than the later revisions. The Model can be seen to be robust because it was run on the assumption of only the principal bus route being operational, so the input figure for car mode was increased to 60%. It also uses high traffic growth assumptions at all stages, adopting the high factor from the range of national forecast traffic growth in TEMPRO [CD/TRAN/14, paragraph 5.17] rather than relying simply on NRTF projections [CD/TRAN/4], as well as being based on the 5,000 dwelling scheme. Independent testing following screenline and cordon analysis has shown there to be spare junction capacity in 2024 at all of the three main junctions where HCC has expressed reservations [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 16 tabulations].

27.64 At the Gunnels Wood Road/Fairlands Way junction, all of the points originally raised by

HCC have been suitably addressed [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 7 pages 14, 23 and 24]. Further criticism that buses would have to cross 2 lanes of traffic to turn right into Bessemer Drive when leaving the bus lay-by on the eastern approach to the roundabout is misplaced. This is because only two of the lanes would move forward on the green light, so only one lane would need to be crossed. This is a perfectly normal manoeuvre. Although it is acknowledged that a bus would still need to get over to the right hand lane to make use of the bus lane, that lane is some distance further on from the junction [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, separately bound appendix R7, plan number J501/205D]. Bus drivers should not therefore experience any difficulty.

27.65 At the Broadhall Way and Valley Way junction, WSC accepts that pm peak hour queuing

in Broadwater Crescent would increase from 61 vehicles without the Stevenage West development to 77 with development in place. Equally, however, queues would reduce on the main A602 Broadhall Way western approach to the junction from 55 vehicles to just 7 and there would be smaller reductions on the eastern and Valley Drive approaches. Overall, therefore there would be highway benefit [CD/WSC/PRO/14R, tabulation at appendix 2 of appendix 16, junction 21, High Growth MwayQ coding].

27.66 The Bessemer Drive access would be subordinate to the Meadway access. Although the

SDP2004 Inspector recommended that references to Meadway as the principal access should be deleted, he did not intimate that the two should be given equal status [CD/DP/9e, volume 2 of 2, paragraphs 12.142-12.146]. Rather, he simply concluded that he did not have sufficient evidence to assert that Meadway should be the principal access. Bessemer Drive would not be the most direct route from the major part of the development to Stevenage Town Centre and any suggestion that it would become the principal pedestrian and cycle route is therefore unsupportable. A high quality footpath and cycleway would nevertheless be provided in the form of a 3.4 m wide footway on the north side of Bessemer Drive, continuing through the A1(M) underpass. On the south side there would be a combined footpath cycleway passing under A1(M) in a separate underpass. Even at it narrowest, this footpath/cycleway would be 3.5m wide with a 0.5 m verge, which accords with DB32 requirements [CD/TRAN/2, paragraph 3.81 (a) and (b) and caveat on page 76] and with local standards [CD/TRAN/1, Section 2 paragraph 11.17]. It is not necessary to maintain the same width of cycleway/pedestrian way as prevails throughout much of Stevenage (5m and 2m respectively). That network [CD/WSC/PRO/14A, appendix 2 plan] was designed to permit use by mopeds [CD/TRAN/59] and would now represent a wasteful use of land. A shared width of 3 m minimum is considered more appropriate [CD/WSC/PRO14RA, appendix 15, page 2 of meeting notes for 3 November 1999, paragraph 3.6.9].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 113

27.67 As indicated by TRANSYT analysis the Bessemer Drive access would operate satisfactorily, despite criticisms made by Gabriel Securities [CD/GS/PRO/1(8) and WSC/PRO/14REB, paragraph 5.23]. The proposed box-marked junctions would avoid obstruction by vehicles waiting to turn right into site entrances on the northern side. Few HGVs turn into those during the am peak hour (only one was counted during a 2 day survey). Delay to buses travelling through the proposed signals at Caxton Way would be reduced by a transponder operated green light, and HCC is content with that, even if Gabriel Securities is not. Precise details of routing for buses along Caxton Way would, however, also be a matter that can be agreed at a later stage. There would be no significant number of cars following buses through the “hurry” transponder mechanism, because there would be only one bus every 6-10 minutes. The concerns expressed focus too much on the peak hour, and the route would operate completely freely at all other times. Landscaping, placement of road signs, siting of bus stops and pedestrian/cycle provision are all matters of detail, and can easily be accommodated [CD/TRAN/57]. HCC raised no objection to the two alternatives put forward by WSC for Bessemer Drive [WSC/PRO/14RA, drawings J501/207 and J501/215] remarking only that one warranted further consideration of the effect on traffic in the area [WSC/PRO/14RA, drawing J501/215]. In particular, future development of Gabriel Securities’ own sites and others along the frontage would provide opportunities for physical and environmental enhancement if thought necessary [CD/GAB/PRO/1 paragraphs 3.1-3.3 and CD/PRO/1A plan at appendix 1]. In this respect, it should be noted that unlike Meadway, Bessemer Drive falls outside the applications site. As such, the detailed design is a matter for HCC and SBC to consider in due course and the only question for the FSS to address is whether an appropriate access arrangement can be achieved to serve the development from this road.

27.68 No significant wider effects on the local network are predicted by the relevant highway

analyses as far as traffic flows through Codicote village are concerned, the village being some 6 km south west of Stevenage [CD/CPC/PRO/1(1) and CD/WSC/PRO/14(2)].

Bus terminus layout and parking provision for the new bus/rail interchange. 27.69 A technical appraisal of the existing bus terminus has been undertaken on behalf of WSC

[CD/TRAN/30]. It is apparent from this that some of the existing bus stands are used very intensively while others are not [CD/TRAN/30, page 2 Table 1 and paragraph 2.6]. There is clearly scope to make more efficient use of those that are currently under-used. Only two new stands would, in any event, be required for the proposed new services and they could easily be accommodated. A revised layout has accordingly been put forward as an alternative to the originally proposed “front-in/reverse-out” arrangement, which SBC and HCC had found unsatisfactory [plans and letter at CD/TRAN/37/3 and CD/TRAN47, paragraph 5.2]. The original layout proposed is, however, of a type commonplace throughout the UK and would work safely provided pedestrians are kept away from the reversing area by railings or similar [CD/WSC/PRO/14R, paragraphs 6.49-6.50]. Introduction of Disability Discrimination Act requirements is likely to require no more than raised kerbs to allow easy access to low floor buses, so will affect neither capacity nor safety to any material degree. Whatever the case may be, an interim solution is likely to be needed only for a short period [CD/TRA/48] given the progress being made towards provision of the proposed new bus/rail interchange as part of the Stevenage town centre regeneration [CD/TRAN/42]. Adaptation of the interchange design to accommodate Stevenage West buses would not require any substantial work. The information kiosk and real time information display would remain the same, for

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 114

example. The town centre development brief [CD/TRAN/42] does not envisage extension or redevelopment of the existing police station to make way for the proposed bus/rail interchange. However, if car parking were to be lost there it could be replaced in a different location.

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council 27.70 The Master Planning Principles [CD/SPG/1(i)] specify that the development should

avoid having an unacceptable impact on the road network [policy MP12]. By this, SBC means that the development should continue to promote free-flowing roads, high quality grade-separated and segregated footpaths and cyclepaths and promote public transport, as has been the case since Stevenage New Town was formed. In order to meet these requirements, appropriate mitigation measures would be necessary. In particular, SBC considers it necessary to provide additional capacity within the Gunnels Wood Road corridor to accommodate the development’s traffic, prevent such traffic diverting to parallel residential roads such as Fairview Road, as well as to ensure that the road network retains a sufficient “shelf life”. Sustainable transport measures must focus on reducing overall dependency on cars by offering viable alternatives. These include traffic management measures to give priority to non-car modes and the provision of links to long-distance bus, coach and rail services in Stevenage to provide better public transport access to London Airports and the rest of the south east.

27.71 SBC appointed consulting engineers (KBR) in 1999 to give an independent view on the

potential impact of the Stevenage West development [WSC/PRO/3, page 6 section 3]. KBR subsequently attended meetings of the Transport and Access Topic Group and various sub-groups, and identified a number of potential shortcomings with the WSC Local Model. These included reliance on distances “as the crow flies” rather than actual distances, the cost parameters used for determining modal choice being set below those in the current DOT Transport Economic Note [CD/TRAN/45], the weighting given to walking and wait time for public transport, bus speeds, and the modal penalties for walking and cycling [CD/SBC/PRO/3/SUP, Section 2]. The Local Model has always been at issue between the parties. This is because it has been perceived by HCC and SBC as a “black box”, with only the inputs and outputs being made known and not the way in which the Model processes the data to get from one to the other.

27.72 KBR therefore began compiling a spreadsheet for independently validating the operation

of the Local Model [CD/SBC/PRO/3/SUP]. At a meeting of the Topic Sub Group on 15 May 2003 specific tasks were allocated to individual members. Among these, the KBR representative was charged by HCC with detailing areas where the Local Model required clarification [CD/SBC/PRO/3(1), note of 15 May 2003 meeting]. This was followed with a number of requests for certain tests to be undertaken on behalf of HCC, and KBR suggested using the spreadsheet for that purpose [CD/SBC/PRO/3(1), bundle of e-mails and other correspondence]. It is accepted that the ultimate responsibility for highways issues lies with HCC and HA. Both, however, were well aware of the KBR work and had welcomed it and relied upon it. Against this background, it is unacceptable for HCC to now seek to denigrate the work done when no criticism had been made of KBR work by HCC until HCC evidence in chief [CD/SBC/PRO/3SUP(iii)]. Those criticisms are undeserved.

27.73 In essence, the KBR spreadsheet operates at a much coarser level than the Local Model

and provides only a rough check on how the Model is operating. The results are close,

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 115

but there are some differences [CD/SBC/PRO/3/SUP, tables 3.1 and 3.2 on pages 9 and 10 for example]. These differences may vary with the input data. The spreadsheet itself has therefore been subjected to sensitivity testing [CD/SBC/PRO/3/SUP figures 3.1-3.7 on pages 11-15], and four sensitivity tests have been undertaken by BCE on their Local Model [CD/SBC/PRO/3/SUP figures 3.8 – 3.10 on pages 16 and 17]. HCC criticism of the Local Model for failing to attribute trips by schoolchildren correctly is justified, but it is only one of a very large number of values used in the Model, so the impact is not great [SBC/PRO/3SUP(ii) and SUP (ii)(1)]. There may be other errors that have not been identified, because of lack of transparency in the operation of the Local Model.

27.74 Not all of HCC criticisms of the Local Model are well founded, however. It should be

noted, for example, that “crow-fly” distances [HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 19)] were used only for car travel, not travel by bus which was measured individually. Use of standard values to apportion car trips between journeys at work and commuting trips, and between car trips and bus trips [CD/TRAN/45, and HCC/PRO/4B/REB, table 1 of document 19] is also subject to professional judgement. In order to identify more exactly the impact of these and other factors, further sensitivity testing could be undertaken, but the only requests for sensitivity testing made by HCC concerned bus services [CD/SBC/PRO/3/SUP, paragraph 3.12.1].

27.75 HCC comparisons of Local Model and Spreadsheet results are inappropriate

[CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 19], since they are compiled on a different basis. Total trip numbers are similar, as are the numbers of trips crossing A1(M) (within 10%). Overall, both the independent spreadsheet and the Local Modal thus seem to produce broadly similar results [CD/TRAN/46], but it would not be prudent for HCC, as Highway Authority, to rely on this to determine the sustainability of the proposed development in travel and transport terms. The workings of the Local Model would need to be examined in detail to provide the necessary degree of confidence in that respect.

27.76 Nonetheless, in the light of the Spreadsheet results and the outcome of other meetings of

the Topic Group, SBC has produced a statement affirming agreement with WSC travel and transport proposals [CD/TRAN/47]. There is, however, no suggestion that HCC has signed up to it.

27.77 The bus station proposals referred to in the agreed statement are those outlined in a letter

dated 13 February 2004 [CD/TRAN/37/3]. If there is slippage in bringing forward the proposed bus/rail interchange, those interim works may not, however, be sufficient. This is because the scheme as illustrated would cope with 6 extra buses per hour at the expense of some increased congestion, but when the GWR peak-hour route is introduced, the additional buses operating at a more frequent service interval could not be accommodated. It is also acknowledged that the proposed layout would require re-allocating stands, which is not within the ambit of SBC powers, and has not been subject to consultation with the parties involved [CD/TRAN/48]. A matter of concern to SBC is the failure of the S106 planning Obligation to include, in the assessment of the Transport Interchange Contribution, the cost of the acquisition of land or of rights of access over land needed to implement these improvements [plan of the land concerned at CD/SBC/PRO/3(2)]. Even if those improvements are not necessary because of progress towards providing the new interchange, it is important to bear in mind that some 14% of the patronage of the interchange in its proposed location would derive from Stevenage West. The new interchange would, in consequence, thus have to be larger than would otherwise be the case.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 116

27.78 SBC is not therefore being unreasonable in merely seeking to assess the true costs of the

improvement to the existing bus terminus. There is no reason why SBC should be prepared, inconsistently with its duty under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, to provide the land for less than market value, let alone free of charge. SBC attaches great importance to the sustainability of the proposed development and bus patronage is a key element of this. The Secretary of State is therefore asked to indicate agreement with SBC’s stance on this subject and to invite WSC to come forward with additional words in the S106 planning Obligation to include the cost of necessary land acquisition. This, it is submitted, would accord with Circular 1/97 advice [CD/GOV/1].

27.79 Insofar as bus mode share is concerned, it is acknowledged that the 2001 Census records

5.5% bus share for journeys to work. The National Travel Survey figure of 6.9% bus share is for the whole day, rather than peak hour only [CD/SBC/PRO/3SUP(ii), table 3]. The peak hour figure is 7.8% [CD/SBC/PRO/3SUP(ii), table 5]. The figures do, however, suggest that Stevenage broadly accords with the National average. On that basis, it is likely that the best bus mode share that could be achieved in Stevenage West would be in the order of 12%-13%, on the route between the development and the town centre only. This would be much less if all trips were to be taken into account. SBC has no reason to question HCC assertions that likely ridership would be 76tppa rather than 250-300ppa claimed by WSC, but expert evidence on buses is not being advanced by SBC. As far as car mode share is concerned, the Local Model predicts this as being 48% compared with National Travel Survey data of 53.9%, representing a modal shift of 5.9% [CD/SBC/PRO/3SUP(ii), paragraph 1.3.1]. This compares poorly with the 30% reduction in peak hour journey from home referred to in the Step Change document [CD/PA3/14 and CD/PA5/14, page 5, seventh bullet point]. It would however represent a relatively low mode share in terms of car usage nationally, albeit achieved for Stevenage West only, rather than Stevenage in general.

27.80 The WSC mitigation package has certain defects and the proposed footways and

cycleways fall below the best practice standards used elsewhere in Stevenage. SBC has identified how the package can be modified to meet sustainable travel and transport requirements. Agreement has been reached on SBC’s concerns with WSC [CD/TRAN/47], and the developers have agreed to fund a Travel Plan co-ordinator responsible for the preparation, implementation and monitoring of travel plans, to be employed by HCC. All of these matters now need to be included as requirements of the proposed planning conditions/S106 planning Obligation.

Main points of the case for Hertfordshire County Council Access Strategy 27.81 WSC did not participate in the Transport and Access Topic Group from March 2000 and

independently progressed the transportation elements of their proposals in accordance with its then understanding of the Topic Group’s objectives. As a consequence, the West of Stevenage proposals do not, in HCC’s view, adequately reflect the Group’s objectives in their most recent form and still retain an access strategy derived from earlier modelling work that is now of questionable provenance.

27.82 DB32 and its companion guide “Streets, Places and Movement” highlight the importance

of developing a suitable road hierarchy. This is reflected in HCC’ own guidance for new

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 117

•

developments [CD/TRANS/1]. The internal network proposed in the Master Plan [CD/PA3/9 and CD/PA5/9] would not deliver a logical hierarchy because it has not been produced in the light of likely detailed traffic flows within the site. It also does not reflect the structure currently in place on the wider network. The size of the proposed PA5 scheme, for example, is comparable to the size of 3 existing neighbourhood areas in Stevenage, which places considerable importance on the access road network linking satisfactorily to the rest of Stevenage. The principal function of using a structured road hierarchy is to ensure that traffic follows appropriate routes, but WSC proposals are to encourage maximum permeability by the creation of interconnecting networks within, and external to, housing areas [CD/DJH/1, Section 2.1, Technical Note 3]. In such a large development this approach is likely to lead to traffic taking the quickest and most convenient route through the development, effectively encouraging vehicles to use inappropriate roads. There are other examples of unrealistic design including where the Meadway dual carriageway access is shown to terminate within a town square environment.

27.83 The whole strategy of providing bus and limited access through Bessemer Drive has, in

any event, been compromised by the unreliable results of the modelling exercise. The Bessemer Drive access also has ownership constraints preventing the construction of footway and cycleway access to best practice standards in terms of width. Together with personal security implications, it is apparent that neither Bessemer Drive nor Meadway offer the potential for maximising pedestrian and cycle use and thus achieving the modal shift being sought.

27.84 From the initial conceptual stages, the Stevenage West allocation has been advanced on

the basis of its expected sustainability credentials. This is evident from a range of documents including those produced during the evolutionary stages of SP1998 [CD/DP/1q page 11, paragraph 5.1, CD/DP/1b page 1-4 clauses ii and v, page 5-8, paragraphs 5.46 and 5.47, page G-4, paragraph 17]. Policies and explanatory text in SP1998 give further emphasis to sustainability and the need to demonstrate clear advantages of sustainable modes of travel if growth in car use is to be restrained [CD/DP/1d page 31, policy 2, page 55 paragraph 177 and page 85, paragraphs 285-304]. This is reflected in the SDP2004 with 2nd deposit changes [CD/DP/9b paragraphs 5.3.1, 5.5.2, 12.1.2, 12.1.6, 12.3.1, policies SW3, SW5], notwithstanding recommended modifications [Inspector’s Report CD/DP/9e paragraphs 2.121 and 2.123 and recommendations b) and c) on page 575]. Both the Local Transport Plan [CD/DP/5] and the Master Planning Principles for Stevenage West [CD/SPG/1] develop these themes, and focus both on promoting sustainability within the site as well as on maximising the benefits of the site’s location in relation to existing development outside the site. The key sustainability targets in the Master Planning Principles post-date the end of WSC involvement in the Transport Topic Group process and are WSC’s own targets [CD/PA3/14 and CD/PA5/14 page 5, bullet point 7]. The Councils’ own sustainability requirements seek “the highest possible standards” [CD/SPG/1(i), page 8] including “making the most of the advantages of the location of the new development adjoining the town of Stevenage” [bullet point 10].

27.85 Even at application stage the “Step Change” document produced by WSC [CD/PA3/14

and 24 and CD/PA5/14 and 24] highlighted the fact that public transport strategy would be at the heart of development. It set 3 key sustainability targets:

A reduction of over 30% in peak hour car journeys from the new homes.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 118

•

•

A doubling of the number of peak hour journeys by bus, cycle and foot.

Over 80% of total movements during the morning peak being contained within the site and the Stevenage area.

27.86 The Environmental Statement adds that the development would offer a real alternative to

car travel in terms of accessibility, availability and quality [CD/PA3/10 and CD/PA5/10, page 46 paragraph 7.40]. This would be coupled with measures to restrain private car use, including parking policy (paragraph 7.39) and a comprehensive scheme of public transport priority measures. The reality would be very different, as the following submissions illustrate. None of the foregoing targets and standards would be met. Even if HCC is held to be wrong on wider strategic issues, refusal of planning permission would be warranted on transport issues alone.

Journey times and distances 27.87 The present proposals indicate that only very limited sections of the CTS would be

dedicated to bus use only. Buses would have to compete for road space with general traffic over most of the entire off-site route to and from the town centre [CD/TRAN/37/12 and WSC/PRO/14A, plan at appendix 15]. Indeed, the planning applications envisage Meadway as the main site access, with Bessemer Drive carrying relatively limited amounts of all-purpose traffic and having public transport priority [CD/PA3/10 and CD/PA5/10 paragraphs 7.54 and 7.55]. WSC’s first attempt at modelling the internal network estimated that 26% of traffic generated by the development would use the Bessemer Drive access and 36% Meadway. It is now apparent that there would be significant amounts of all-purpose traffic sharing the Bessemer Drive access with buses, and that buses would have only limited priority [CD/PA3/10 and CD/PA5/10 paragraphs 7.60 and 7.61]. Following revisions to the Model, the figures are now 38% and 50% respectively [CD/DJH/2]. This represents a large shift in traffic to Bessemer Drive to comparable levels with those originally envisaged for Meadway. HCC is concerned, in consequence, that the Bessemer Drive link would operate at about 80% of its theoretical capacity and that delays at the Caxton Way/Bessemer Drive junction may affect the attractiveness of main passenger transport service routes. In comparison, the Meadway link is shown to operate well below its design capacity. If that is so, the main car access point to the development would be subject to less delay than the public transport route. Bus activated “transponders” to give buses access to non-car sections of the CTS or priority at junctions elsewhere would not be a suitable alternative to dedicated bus routes, not least because buses would have to slow on the approach while such devices are operated.

27.88 HCC does not dispute that average 22 kph bus speeds could be achieved along the CTS

if it were to be uncongested, but with other all-purpose traffic using parts this would not be the case. In any event, 22kph bus speed would not be sufficient to offer any real advantage over private car usage [CD/TRAN/35]. WSC’s own comparison of the distances involved discloses that bus journeys both within the site and to the town centre would actually be further than those by car [CD/TRAN35, table 1 on page 2]. Journey times by bus would also be slower [CD/TRAN/35, table 2 on page 4, HCC invites comparison of bracketed figures for bus with unbracketed figures for car]. It is simply wrong for WSC to rely on a 5 minute frequency of buses and a 10 minute car parking time to demonstrate a journey time advantage by bus. The 5 minute bus frequency is not

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 119

guaranteed and would apply at peak times only in any event. Respective journey times would also be susceptible to variations in the underlying assumptions. These include, for example, the relative speeds of buses and cars, the precise town centre destination at which the total journey would actually end (which is more likely to be in town centre shops, some of which may be closer to car parks than the bus station, for example), and ease of parking. Bus travel would also be much less attractive if more than one bus was necessary to complete a particular journey. A journey to the Lister Hospital from the site would, for example, be considerably quicker by car. The correct approach is to compare (at best from WSC’s perspective) the 5 minute bus frequency with a 5 minute parking time. On that approach it is only from the southern part of the site that the journey time is the same. All other journey times to the town centre would be longer by bus than by car. Interpolation of WSC data further suggests that there may be as many as 1,000 passengers wanting to travel by bus during the am peak hour. With 10 buses per hour and 50 passengers per bus, it is unlikely that everyone would be able to get on the first bus that arrived. Picking up and setting down passengers at such times would also further increase journey times.

27.89 Given all of these factors, it is highly questionable whether the very significant modal

shift in favour of bus travel, the “dramatic step” in reducing car dependency, and the containment of 80% of all forecast travel in the am peak within Stevenage forecast by the “Step Change” document [CD/PA3/14 and 24 and CD/PA5/14 and 24] and the Local Model would, in fact, materialise [CD/PA3/10 and CD/PA5/10 tables on page 51 and paragraphs 7.72, 7.77 and 7.81 and CD/PA5/20 paragraphs 7.14 and 7.18]. The journey time disadvantage is a fundamental failing of the Master Plan. It fails to deliver on a key ingredient of sustainability, which WSC promotes Stevenage West as delivering. On that basis alone the proposals should be refused.

The CTS 27.90 The dilution of proposals for the CTS is a cause for particular concern. The EIP report

noted that even at lower levels, external traffic generated by the proposals could cause substantial traffic problems, which would require a shift towards greater use of cycling and public transport. It adds that “some form of guided busway may have an important part to play in this” [CD/DP/1b, page 5-8, paragraphs 5.47-5.51]. One of the key themes recorded at the Garden City 21 Local Visioning Conference held in January 1999 was that “nearly all the hands-on planning sessions came up with designs for some kind of integrated transport system linking the new development with Stevenage and, indeed, with other nearby towns…Most favoured a “figure of eight” loop with a guided bus system…..” [CD/GAR/5, page 58]. In the development principles section of the same document this was translated as a “dedicated public transport corridor” [page 77]. Even so, the clear intention was that it would be a dedicated route all the way into the town centre, not just within the Stevenage West site. This is affirmed in the minutes of the first Passenger Transport Sub-Group meeting held on 3 August 1999 which reported that the shared vision of the members was “..a segregated unguided route wherever possible, and conventional bus priority where there is a common alignment with other traffic”, and included references to other journey time aspirations [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB(9), summary and notes of meeting 1]. A “Help Shape the Future Community Conference” was held on 2 October 1999. The draft Master Plan that emerged from it still implied that there would be a dedicated public transport link through the site, connecting to the town centre and railway station [CD/GAR.C/1, page 47, bullet point 7]. Subsequent meetings of the Passenger Transport Sub Group took a similar approach

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 120

[CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB(9), meetings 2 and 3]. The meeting in November 1999 again referred to the CTS being “a dedicated busway wherever possible” [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB(9), meeting 3, section 5]. It is, therefore, quite wrong for WSC to suggest that the aspiration for a dedicated bus route had changed by the time that the Passenger Transport Sub-Group meetings were concluded at the end of 1999. In particular, it was still averred that the CTS would be dedicated over large sections [paragraph 7.40] and would provide a more direct route than for the car, such that non-car mode shares would improve substantially.

27.91 HCC would prefer a CTS dedicated for bus usage only as this would enable buses to

operate unhindered by other traffic. Such a route would not be impractical because most of the frontage development to it would have rear servicing. However, HCC concedes that a properly planned CTS may not in fact need to be completely dedicated in order to deliver a significant journey time advantage to the bus. This is provided that the passage of buses along it is at all times completely unimpeded, and the routes taken by other users of it include circuitous detours to slow their journeys. To that extent, HCC is broadly content with the route of the CTS itself and notes that it would, under the latest plans, have separate parallel routes for all-purpose traffic [CD/TRAN/37/12].

27.92 Nonetheless, in circumstances where there is a journey time disadvantage to bus and

substantial development is shown fronting the CTS, the need to design in protection of it from the outset is crucial. In this respect, it would not be enough simply to limit the general flows on the CTS. Rather there must be restrictions on any vehicles impeding buses through, for example, stopping on the route, turning right or crossing the CTS.

27.93 As currently proposed, however, the parallel routes for non-bus traffic would not extend

all the way to Bessemer Drive and the bus only sections would be comparatively short. There would be little to stop all purpose traffic turning onto the bus only sections of the CTS, since “access only” sections for the frontagers could only be controlled by signs. These could only be installed if sanctioned by Traffic Regulation Orders, which it would be for the police rather than HCC to enforce. There are also some points where the parallel routes would either cross or zig-zag across the CTS [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 1 plan titled “operation of public transport spine”, at bus gate 1 and to the west of bus gate 7, for example]. Free flow conditions for buses would need to be secured at these points by having advance activated traffic lights and/or bollards. Moreover, HCC would need to be satisfied that there would be control over delivery times and locations for frontage premises, separate drop off areas for the schools and parking restrictions generally. A fully dedicated CTS would, of course, avoid the risk of misuse and the need for many of these measures.

Modal split 27.94 Stevenage is an almost entirely urban area with a comprehensive network of bus routes

typically offering services at about 12 minute intervals right into the heart of residential areas. It has one of the best subsidy regimes in the County, with elderly people effectively travelling free of charge. However, almost all of the town services are provided to the east of the town centre, serving areas of the original new town development. The only areas served to the west of the town are the residential area of Symonds Green and the Gunnels Wood industrial area [CD/HCCPRO/4A, plan at appendix 3]. Stevenage also has one of the lowest car ownership levels in the County of 1.6 cars per household [CD/HCC/PRO/4, 1991 and 2001 Census data on pages 31 and

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 121

32]. Even so, Stevenage has the highest level of car-commuting in Hertfordshire at 68.8%.

27.95 Given the deregulated environment in which buses in Stevenage operate, the precise

usage of the town and inter-urban services is not known. Census data shows that bus modal share in Stevenage has declined from 7.7% in 1991 (4.1 % for the County as a whole) to 5.5% in 2001 [CD/HCC/PRO/4, page 31, table DJH4], with car modal share remaining broadly constant at about 68%. This compares with the 1999 modal split for the County as a whole of 10.8% bus and 83.6% car in the Local Transport Plan and 4% bus 78% car for the south east (journey to work) in Transport Statistics for GB [CD/HCC/PRO/4, paragraph 6.1.6]. Likewise, SBC figures based on NTS data (for UK residents, excluding residents of London Boroughs) indicate 6.9% of journeys from home are by bus and 59.3% by car [SBC/PRO/3SUP(ii), tables 2 and 3]. Nevertheless, considerable care needs to be taken to compare all the various figures on a like-for like basis.

27.96 For Stevenage West, the documentation supporting the applications [CD/PA3/20 and

CD/PA5/20, table 7/01 on page 42] suggests a modal share to bus of 21% and car of 48%. However, after correcting the “education mistake” WSC now says that bus mode share for all trips during the peak hour would be only 13% [CD/TRAN/37, page 2], and for home-based trips, just 11%. This falls well short of the policy aspiration underlying the Stevenage West allocation, but is also no more than an estimate calculated without re-running the modelling process on which the mode share figures were originally based. It assumes, for example, that all school trips transferred from bus as a result of the “education mistake” will go to walk or cycle modes, which may not, in practice, be the case. In any event, the vast majority of the 35% walk and cycle mode share anticipated [CD/TRAN/54A] derives from school trips undertaken within the site itself. Any development of 5,000 dwellings would provide a similar range of schools, so a high walk/cycle mode share and retention of high numbers of trips within the site is inherent and does not support any argument that the proposal makes best use of the locational advantages of the site. In the light of WSC’s own revised figures given at the Inquiry, bus mode share would be some 38-40% lower than that predicted by WSC at the outset of the planning application process. WSC does not dispute that this is a very substantial adjustment in its figures, and this throws the validity of the Local Model into serious question. There would, quite simply, be no “step change” or “decisive shift”.

27.97 It is acknowledged that quality control associated with deregulation could be addressed

by a Quality Bus Partnership setting standards for vehicles and infrastructure in accordance with Transport Act 2000 provisions. Even this, however, would not cover fares and service levels. Alternatively, there could be a Quality Contract but this would require Ministerial approval. In that case, the onus would be on HCC to tender for contracts under the terms of the Transport Act 1985. An alternative approach would be for WSC to have a direct contract with a bus operator subject to specifications being agreed wholly with HCC. All go to the root of the transport strategy for the development, and have not been addressed satisfactorily.

27.98 Taking a step back, this is a site that is said to have significant locational advantages

making it appropriate for major development. It is close to employment areas, the town centre (because of the historic growth of Stevenage to the east rather than the west), and community facilities. It is predicted that a large proportion of the trips generated by the development would be retained within the Stevenage area. The destinations for those

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 122

Stevenage-bound, off-site trips would accordingly be contained within a relatively tight area. There is thus a clear opportunity for public transport proposals to deliver a step change away from the car so as to optimise the locational advantages of the site, but only an 11% mode share to bus would be achieved. In effect, all that is being proposed is tinkering at the edges, with car mode share off-site remaining very high. That surely cannot be what the Secretary of State expects from major urban extensions promoted on the back of their sustainability credentials.

27.99 There is no obvious reason why, with appropriate prioritisation and perhaps built in

disadvantages to the car, coupled with the sort of locational advantages this site relies upon, public choice of transport mode should not be changed substantially. The once in a lifetime opportunity to achieve that for Stevenage would have been missed if these proposals are accepted.

The traffic modelling process 27.100 The modelling work can be divided into three key stages. Firstly, a Local Model has

been developed to determine the quantum of traffic movements that are likely to be generated by the proposed land uses, the anticipated travel patterns both internal and external to the site, and which travel mode is likely to be chosen. Secondly, a SATURN traffic Model has been employed to calculate existing travel flows and patterns for the base year (1999) and to superimpose on those the Local Model outputs for the design year, including the effect of general traffic growth. Thirdly, the outputs from the SATURN Model have been used to assess the resultant traffic flows at affected junctions and the implications in terms of highway capacity using standard software packages (OSCADY, PICADY, TRANSYT and ARCADY).

27.101 There has been lengthy discussion between HCC and WSC over the modelling process

during the period from 2001 through to the end of the main Inquiry evidence sessions in May 2004. A main point of concern throughout has been that the outputs from the various modelling processes are all dependent upon the Local Model operating properly. In essence, HCC has had three main areas of concern with the Local Model. Firstly, HCC needed to have full access to the Model. Without such access, HCC could not be confident that appropriate assumptions were being fed into it [CD/WSC/PRO/14A, appendix 13 letter]. Secondly, HCC was not convinced that the modal shares expected by the Model are realistic. The Local Model, for example, assumed an increase in mode share by bus and a decrease in car mode share, but travel to work data in the 2001 Census suggested a trend since 1991 in the opposite direction. In particular, bus ridership at the high levels originally indicated could not reasonably be expected. Thirdly, the “education mistake” is an example of an error that was identified in 2001 [HCC/PRO/4B/REB document 14] but only remedied in 2004, the consequences of which for the rest of the modelling process are still open to question.

27.102 WSC is wrong to suggest that responsibility for agreeing the Local Model had been

passed to SBC. In fact, SBC was asked only to identify areas where the Local Model required clarification [CD/SBC/PRO/3(1), note of 15 May 2003 meeting]. It was not charged with responsibility for validating the Local Model [CD/SBC/PRO/3/SUPP] and there was no delegation of HCC responsibilities to SBC in this respect. The SBC assessment was made without access to the Local Model. In any event, the spreadsheet methodology employed on behalf of SBC relies on an unrealistic bus ridership figure of 230 tppa, does not recognise the “education mistake”, takes no account of the 2001

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 123

Census results and does not reflect what is now known about the intended operation of the CTS. The SBC spreadsheet also identifies a range of other important limitations in the Local Modelling process (CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 19). Moreover, SBC has no jurisdiction in other highway matters that it has sought to agree with WSC [CD/TRAN/47], many of which have since been overtaken by revised details put before the Inquiry by WSC.

27.103 It is also not appropriate for WSC to rely for validation of the Local Model on work

undertaken by Harrison and Webb on behalf of HCC in November 2000 [CD/TRAN/10]. That pre-dated the Local Model and is no longer relevant since it considered a very different proposal. It assumed, for example, a fully segregated public transport system, a future population that is now intended to be some 11% greater, and employment floorspace that is now to be some 20% greater [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB document 15]. Criticism by WSC of more recent other correspondence with Harrison Webb is unjustified, because that correspondence [CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 20] is not advanced by HCC as evidence and was submitted to the Inquiry only in response to a WSC request to see all the relevant background papers.

27.104 Even though HCC has now been given access to the Local Model and the “education

mistake” has been corrected, HCC still has substantial concerns with the Local Model results [CD/HCC/PRO/4/SUPP]. For example, the Model has been calibrated using 1991 Census data for distribution of work trips whereas car ownership and mode of travel to work data has been drawn from the 2001 Census. Travel patterns to work have become more dispersed since 1991 so there is an overestimate of local trips with the result that the Local Model predicts higher non-car mode share than should be the case. Similarly, it is highly likely that retention of trips within Stevenage would still be less than predicted by the Local Model [CD/HCC/PRO/4/SUPP appendix A results table 11]. In seeking to verify the accuracy of the Model, WSC has sought to compare sets of data that are not like-for-like (all day with am peak hour) and has inappropriately extrapolated limited data (from 1991 and 2001 Census) on a straight line basis. Essentially, WSC has relied on assumptions rather than hard data and trends known to prevail in the real world. HCC therefore has no confidence in the output from the Local Model or, in consequence, in the output from other parts of the transportation modelling process that rely on it.

27.105 Indeed, given the serious deficiencies that have become evident through this Inquiry -

namely no journey time advantage, no dedicated CTS and no distance savings – it is not at all clear how the proposals would deliver even the much reduced bus mode share now advanced by WSC. There is nothing of substance that makes the public transport proposals significantly different from those of other similarly located areas of Stevenage, so it is far from clear what in the Local Model drives even the relatively modest improvement in non-car mode shares that it predicts.

Off-site works 27.106 The nature and extent of the proposed off-site works is determined by the forecasts of

future traffic movements generated by the SATURN Model. The outputs from that Model rely upon the input from the Local Model being correct. The outputs from the Local Model do not, however, seem to be compatible with the inputs to the Saturn Model. Indeed, the highway mitigation works proposed are identical for both PA3 and PA5. Given that HCC is not content with the operation of the modelling process, commentary upon the various junctions does not invite the conclusion that HCC would

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 124

be content with the proposed works if they were modified to address the following points [refer to plan at WSC/PRO/14A appendix 15]:

27.107 At the Caxton Way/Bessemer Drive junction, buses would have turning priority. Stage 1

safety audit suggested two options, one with traffic light controls and one without [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, separately bound appendix R7, plan numbers J501/207C and J501/215 respectively]. The non-traffic light option is unacceptable because buses would have to wait to turn into Caxton Way, the entry width would be restricted, and there may be further difficulties when buses are approaching northwards along Caxton Way. The traffic light option would therefore be preferred but only if the traffic lights would be bus activated to give bus priority. HCC accepts that this a matter that could be agreed later.

27.108 At the Gunnels Wood Road/Bridge Road junction [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, separately

bound appendix R7, plan number J501/200F], output from the SATURN Model [CD/WSC/PRO/14R page 1 of appendix 1 to appendix 16] shows a decrease in traffic flows at junction 1 entry A from 1,577 vehicles in 2011 to 1,451 in 2024. In the modelling process this outcome is indicative of congestion. WSC has carried the lower figure into the junction capacity assessment to reach the conclusion that the ratio of flow to capacity would be 89% at 2024 [CD/WSC/PRO/14R page 1 of appendix 2 to appendix 16]. In fact the Model is showing that the junction would already be congested at 2011. The forecast of junction capacity is not therefore as robust as WSC suggests [CD/WSC/PRO/14R, page 30, paragraph 4.63]. The Model also assumes that with three lanes entering a roundabout junction, all three would be equally used. In practice, this is unlikely to be the case because queuing is generally greatest in the outer lanes. There can be little doubt that the junction would be over-capacity in 2024. Moreover, stage 1 safety audit recommended that there should be only two lanes on the northern circulatory part of the roundabout [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA appendix 7, page 8/10, last paragraph 4.4]. There is therefore a conflict here between safety requirements and capacity, which needs to be addressed by re-design of the junction.

27.109 At the Gunnels Wood Road/Fairlands Way junction [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, separately

bound appendix R7, plan number 7.0/26S(A)], much the same anomaly in modelling predictions appears as at the Bridge Road junction. The junction is of key importance to providing access between the town centre and the development. On the approach to the roundabout from the town centre, buses would have to move from the bus stop layby alongside the nearside lane over into the outside lane in order to be correctly positioned on exit to turn right into Bessemer Drive. This is likely to cause bus drivers a serious problem given the relatively short distance in which to undertake the manoeuvre, even if only two lanes are involved.

27.110 At the Bessemer Drive/Gunnels Wood Road junction, HCC notes that the layout is now

improved but that bus priority measures are not shown. 27.111 At the Broadhall Way and Valley Way junction, the SATURN Model predicts severe

queuing (65/75 vehicles) in the evening peak on the approach from Broadwater Crescent [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA appendix 2 of appendix 16, results for junction 21]. WSC has advanced no proposals to deal with this.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 125

•

27.112 In these and other respects, HCC is highly surprised that a traffic assessment that has been years in formulation is still having to be explained and refined at such a late stage in the determination of the applications.

Bus Ridership 27.113 Bus viability in both the short and long term is crucial to establishing the sustainability

of the proposed development. Bus ridership figures are key to determining the income from bus routes and hence operator viability.

27.114 According to WSC’s original submissions, bus ridership of 332 trips per person per

annum (tppa) could be anticipated. That figure derived from the London Transport operating area for peak hour travel “growthed” using an annualisation factor of 2,248 and adjusted to reflect lower-off peak bus usage in locations outside London [CD/HCC/PRO/4A, appendix 14, table 2 on penultimate page]. Following further explanation from WSC, a figure of 250 tppa was used in the Local Model, which WSC promoted as being “conservative” [CD/HCC/PRO/4A/REB, letter and attachments at appendix 6], but which bus operators regarded as far too optimistic [CD/HCC/PRO4A/REB, letters at appendix 13]. WSC evidence to the Inquiry, however, now suggests ridership of between 165 and 250 tppa when adjusted for direct comparability with the earlier 21% figure and for the “education mistake” identified by HCC in November 2001 [CD/HCC/PRO/4A, appendix 14] and only now acknowledged by WSC [WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 11 and WSC/PRO/14/SUPP(i)].

27.115 However, none of these figures reflect those that are compiled by the passenger transport

industry itself (CD/HCC/PRO/4A/REB, appendix 7 and HCCPRO/4B/REB appendix DJH13). As at January 2002, these show ridership to vary between 199 tppa in London and 39 tppa in the Shire Counties. Even Metropolitan Areas achieve ridership of only 105 tppa, and those are very much more sizeable and solidly urban areas than Stevenage (HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 12 definition). A figure in the 39 to 76 range would be more likely to be achieved than one comparable with London, where population densities are higher and where whole journeys can be undertaken to a range of destinations in combination with other frequent public transport modes, such as the tube. Bus mode share at these levels would be about 6-7%, which would fall well short of the targets that WSC has set itself (CD/PA3/14 and CD/PA5/14, page 5, seventh bullet point). WSC comparisons with Cambridgeshire, where cycling is a high proportion of mode share, is inappropriate (CD/TRAN37/1). On more realistic lower bus patronage figures of between 39 and 105 tppa (less than half that suggested by WSC) the three bus routes originally proposed would never be viable with the £1 m subsidy currently on offer from WSC (CD/HCC/PRO/4A/REB, appendix 8). Unrealistically low assumptions about the impact of operating cost inflation would also have a negative effect on viability (WSC/PRO/14/RA appendix 9 letter). Whatever the case may be, the assumptions underlying the viability assessment of bus services are both unrealistic and unreliable.

27.116 That said, HCC is prepared to draw a line under the most recent exchange of

correspondence on this particular subject [HCC/PRO/4/SUPP, HCC/PRO/4B/REB appendix DJH25, WSC/PRO/14/REB3, REB5 and REB7] and takes the following position on the four step approach set out by WSC [WSC/PRO/14/REB7, 2.3-2.14]:

Step 1 (annual ridership)– the figure for annual ridership derived from local bus operators is 55 tppa.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 126

•

•

•

Step 2 (correction for other ridership in the location) – no further comment is advanced in respect of the correction factor put forward by WSC [WSC/PRO/14REB/5]. Step 3 (West of Stevenage uplift) – either add 21 as a best estimate based on a frequent and top quality bus service on all routes proposed or, if the service is as provided for in appendix 17 of the S106 planning Obligation on offer at the time of closing speeches, add nothing. Step 4 – (addition for facility trips) – this constitutes double counting, add nothing.

27.117 On either basis £1m would not support anything like the level of service promoted. The

difference between the overall level of proposed service in appendix 17 of the S106 planning Obligation and that put forward in the evidence, which focuses only on the highest level of service during the morning peak hour, is stark. In effect 55 tppa is all that can be expected if the bus service guaranteed by the S106 planning Obligation is delivered and 76 if that proposed in evidence is delivered.

The bus terminus 27.118 It is currently envisaged that a new bus/rail interchange in Stevenage, replacing the

existing town centre bus terminus, would be available by 2008. Funding is not however guaranteed, and must be drawn from a wide range of sources, including developer contributions from schemes such as Stevenage West. In the interim, or if the new bus/rail interchange does not go ahead, the existing bus terminus would need to be upgraded to accommodate the additional bus services proposed to serve Stevenage West.

27.119 The existing bus terminus has 8 stands, each of which is allocated to specific services.

This arrangement enables passengers to know exactly where to board a particular bus, and is thus more convenient than a shared stand arrangement of the type suggested by WSC. HCC acknowledges that it has not undertaken an assessment of the need for additional stands to accommodate the new bus services and that until the later phases of Stevenage West development, only the proposed principal bus route would need to be accommodated. Originally proposed plans for a “saw tooth” arrangement were unacceptable to the bus operators (CD/HCC/PRO/4B/REB, document 13). The most recently advanced plans for redesign of the bus terminus (plans and letter at CD/TRAN/37/3) have not, however, yet been subjected to detailed inspection. In undertaking such examination, HCC would be concerned to ensure that existing congestion in the bus terminus would not be increased and that safety requirements, including those of the Disability Discrimination Act (coming into force in October 2004), would be met.

27.120 HCC does not advance the shortcomings of the existing bus station as a reason for

refusal of the Stevenage West development, but further negotiations would be necessary before an acceptable solution could be found. As matters currently stand, HCC is not satisfied that the alterations proposed to the existing bus terminus would provide adequate safety for users, or capacity improvements.

Main points of the case for the Highways Agency (The A1(M)) 27.121 Although the applications do not require direct access onto A1(M), HA is involved

because it considers that the development of either 3,600 dwellings or 5,000 dwellings would have a material impact on traffic entering or leaving A1(M) at junctions 7 and 8

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 127

•

•

•

•

[HA/PRO/1A, appendix 2 and HA/PRO/2A, appendix 2]. These junctions are already heavily used during the morning and evening peak periods. HA has no objection in principle to PA3 or PA5, but permission should not be granted without careful consideration of the likely traffic impact and suitable mitigation has been proposed. The appropriate mitigation measures need to be decided before the grant of permission so that they can be secured by planning condition, S106 planning Obligation or Section 278 (Highways Act) Agreement.

27.122 Traffic modelling and forecasting exercises for Stevenage West have been divided

among the various regulatory authorities as follows:

Local Model (traffic generation and distribution) - undertaken by SBC consultants, KBC.

Saturn Base Model - undertaken by SBC consultants, KBC.

Saturn Base Year assignment - undertaken by HCC consultants Faber Maunsell.

Saturn Forecasting Model - undertaken by HA consultants Faber Maunsell.

27.123 The first three of these work areas form the foundation for the fourth. For this reason,

HA’s case is dependent upon that of HCC and SBC, and all should be considered together.

27.124 The policy framework against which HA has considered the proposals includes PPG13

[CD/PPG/10a], A New Deal for Transport [CD/TRAN/6] A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England [CD/TRAN/2] and Highways Circular 4/2001 [CD/GOV/17]. In essence, the main policy requirement of relevance to PA3 and PA5 is to ensure that developers provide sufficiently improved junctions at the point where traffic generated would first meet the trunk road network to accommodate all traffic fifteen years after the development is first occupied. Further policy context is provided by the London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study [CD/TRAN/18]. This concludes that M1 and M11 should be identified as the key strategic routes through the study area, with A1(M) serving movement primarily to and from its immediate hinterland including Hatfield, Welwyn, Stevenage, Hitchin, Letchworth and Baldock. A such, Government funded widening of A1(M) between junctions 6 and 8 is no longer to be taken forward and peak hour congestion problems are to be addressed instead by making more efficient use of existing road space.

27.125 Discussions continued with WSC during the course of the Inquiry with a view to

reaching agreement on the mitigation measures necessary to accommodate Stevenage West traffic. However, WSC has not been able to satisfy HA that the Local Model outputs can be regarded with any confidence for use in future year junction capacity assessment. For this reason a more pragmatic way forward has been suggested by HA, in two parts.

27.126 The first part is to maximise the capacity of the existing A1(M) exits. This would go

some way to addressing the main safety concern of traffic leaving the A1(M) queuing back down the slip road onto the A1(M) “mainline” carriageway. WSC proposals to maximise capacity at junction 8 [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA appendix 7 (full scale plans) drawing 7.0/31S revision A] are considered acceptable to HA in this respect without

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 128

modification. The proposals for junction 7 [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA appendix 7 (full scale plans) drawing 7.0/30S revision C] are also considered generally satisfactory but there remains concern over capacity of the southbound egress arising mainly from the unreliability of the traffic modelling data available. However, it is acknowledged that there are physical and safety constraints at this junction that would be difficult to overcome. HA further accepts that even with the most robust scenario of traffic flows [CD/HA/PRO/2A appendix 2 table 13 test D], the longest predicted queue would be 33 vehicles (effectively 17 vehicles per lane, equating to an average queue length of about 90 m). Traffic on this slip would not therefore be likely to queue back onto the “mainline” carriageways. In those circumstances, safety concerns would not be significant enough to warrant alterations to WSC’s proposed scheme.

27.127 The second part would be to use modern technology to optimise traffic safety. This

would require the placing of queue detectors on the slip roads to warn of traffic build up. The operation of the traffic signals controlling traffic entering the roundabout junctions at the top of the slip roads would also need to be co-ordinated from an appropriate Urban Traffic Management Control Centre and/or the HA’s Regional Traffic Control Centre. A SCOOT/MOVA system should also be introduced at the junctions, so that if queue build-up is detected, the timing of the traffic signals can be adjusted to give priority to traffic entering the roundabouts from the slip road concerned. Lastly, there should be CCTV monitoring of the junction from the selected Control Centre. It follows, however, that giving priority to traffic on the slip roads in this way would inherently delay traffic already on the roundabouts or their other approach roads. While this proposed solution would thus involve compromise, it would not in any way represent a relaxation of development control policies applied by HA on behalf of the Secretary of State.

27.128 Taken together the two parts of the proposals suggested by HA should ensure that the

junctions would be flexible enough to cope with peaks in demand while ensuring safety and creating sufficient capacity to accommodate future additional traffic more effectively. The works required are of relatively small scale and could be completed within a timescale of about 12-18 months, so should not delay Stevenage West development.

Main points of the case for the Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion 27.129 Stevenage West is advanced not on the basis of District need but of County-wide need.

This implies that future residents would undertake longer travel distances than would otherwise be the case. The likelihood is that regional commuting patterns would become established between Stevenage, Peterborough, Cambridge and London encouraged by proximity to A1(M). Coupled with the fact that new residents are unlikely to be elderly, it can reasonably be assumed that levels of car ownership and use would be high. Existing bus services in Stevenage are well patronised because of the economic profile of residents, which is unlikely to be duplicated in Stevenage West. Equally, the existing footpath and cycle network is relatively little used despite it quality and there is little likelihood of train connections being improved. There are, therefore, good reasons to question the assumptions underlying the transport modelling process employed by WSC. That process is acknowledged by WC to be innovative and relatively untried elsewhere.

27.130 In order to encourage new residents at Stevenage West to walk or use public transport

instead of private cars crucially depends upon a bus service being provided that is sufficiently competitive and extensive enough to offer an attractive choice. However, in

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 129

order to forecast bus usage, the modelling process applies a formula based on a combination of travel time and cost, which is highly sensitive to the cost factor. It also assumes only a single mode of travel will be used for each journey. The predictions are therefore unreliable and substantially biased towards non-car modes of travel.

27.131 The traffic modelling process should also be completely open and developed on a

transparent basis with HCC and HA if there is to be any confidence in its outputs. That is not the case here, the Local Model effectively being a “black box” with input and outputs but no knowledge of the formulae and equations that translate one into the other. Formulae and equations can be changed to get more favourable results and, for example, bias the Model’s outputs towards bus use.

27.132 In particular, no time penalty has been applied in the Model calibration process to any

bus journey (albeit an earlier Model did so). Such penalties reflect the fact that a range of factors may dissuade people from using a specific mode of transport. Bus usage may, for example, be affected by weather conditions or by parents’ fear for the safety of their children travelling alone. Such omissions do not lend confidence to the modelling process, an impression reinforced by the so-called “education mistake” which was not disclosed until the Inquiry and, among other thing, resulted in the predicted modal shift to bus reducing to 5%. That figure (which is not accepted) would be a very poor result.

27.133 It is also now apparent [CD/HCC/PRO/4/SUPP] that calibration of the Local Model has

been based on the 1991 Census insofar as the distribution of work trips is concerned. The 2001 Census shows, however, that fewer people live and work in the Stevenage Area and that travel to work patterns are now more dispersed. By thus over-estimating local trip retention the prediction of mode share other than private car will be over-estimated. Out-commuting in the area is already high at 43% of the working population according to 2001 Census and calibration on out-of-date 1991 Census data is a further reason for casting doubt on the Local Model’s predictions for modal split.

27.134 A further matter to bear in mind in considering how much bus use might be substituted

for car use and how much walking might be substituted for car use is the actual walking distances on the ground to bus stops and other major centres. Close analysis shows that true walking distances to the public transport spine and to schools, for example, [CD/TRAN/37/12] can be much longer than crow fly radii portray [CD/PA3/19 and CD/PA/5 figure 8 on page 47A]. One must bear in mind for shopping purposes easy walking distance is only 200 to 300 metres according to PPG6 [CD/PPG/5]. Local experience is that driving from Dyes Farm to town centre shops (Tesco and Asda) or to the railway station is very convenient because of the ample parking available.

27.135 CASE is of the view that the Master Plan fails to apply the best access strategy in order

to optimise bus use. The main access via Meadway is not the most direct link to the town centre whereas a crossing of A1(M) at Six Hills Way as envisaged at the time of the visioning conference would have given a really good and direct bus route to the town centre. It would have connected directly with the settlement at Norton Green and avoided Bessemer Drive which is often impeded by HGVs associated with the industrial uses that border it [CD/GS/PRO/1(2), photographs 3, 7 and 11]. WSC is not proposing any buses that would serve any destinations outside Stevenage so quick access by bus to the town centre/bus station would be paramount. A Six Hills Crossing was, in fact, rejected primarily on cost grounds but perhaps this was a false economy because with the routes currently proposed it would still be quicker to get to the town centre by car

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 130

from Stevenage West than to take the bus [CD/TRAN/35]. Development would also extend too far to the north, since those living in that part of Stevenage West would have to travel a long way southwards first before continuing their journeys to places such as Hitchin, Baldock, the Lister Hospital or to join the northbound carriageway side of A1(M). A further vehicular crossing of A1(M) would be needed to adequately serve that northern end of the applications site.

27.136 There would also be no dedicated public transport spine. Rather, the proposed CTS

would have to serve the high density housing along it. There would be service vehicles using it (such as dust carts) and there may be parking along it. In total, there would be some 51 separate points of vehicular access to it over a length of about 3 km. All vehicles entering Stevenage West via Bessemer Drive that want to access any of the development to the east of the CTS would have to cross over it at some point. Similarly everyone living to the west and south sides of the CTS would have to cross it at some point whether using either the Bessemer Drive access or the Meadway access. There is therefore serious potential for delay of the buses.

27.137 The only true bus-only sections would be the bus ‘gates’ [coloured yellow and labelled 1

to 3 and 8 to 11 in CD/TRAN/37(12]. Almost half of the total length of the CTS [coloured red] would in effect be just normal stretches of road open to all traffic. That would also have substantial potential for interference with bus movement. Furthermore, it would be notoriously difficult to stop cars using the CTS merely by putting up access only signs.

27.138 The sustainability credentials of Stevenage West are thus seriously dented by the

proposed design of the CTS. The flaws are too numerous and too fundamental to say that they can be put right merely by traffic management measures. Real time information would also be of little benefit if it indicates that a bus will arrive in 20 minutes when the same journey by car would take half the time. Rather, a significant change to the Master Plan is called for, through the creation of a dedicated CTS offering real journey time advantages.

27.139 It is surprising that the certainty of bus service provision was not tied up by WSC long

before the exchange of proofs of evidence. Normally in a development of this scale bus routes, frequencies and likely patronage would have been agreed with potential operators and written confirmation received from them that the necessary services would be provided. There is no such certainty in this case and WSC rely on bus patronage typical of large conurbations rather than a free-standing town like Stevenage while advancing the bus proposals through a unilateral undertaking rather than by agreement.

27.140 Whatever Traffic Regulation Orders are in place, there is also obviously going to be a

strong desire on the part of some residents of Stevenage West to get direct access to the B656 as a way of avoiding peak hour congestion around the A1(M) junctions. Given that the two proposed vehicular crossings of A1(M) both lead eastwards to the town centre, this would particularly be the case for those travelling to and from work in a westerly direction, such as Luton and Hitchin, for example. One such route would be through Dyes Farm [CASE/PRO/1/REB (1)]. Some provision would have to be made, which is acceptable to the occupiers of Dyes Farm, to prevent this route being abused. That would be extremely difficult and while not in itself a reason to reject the PA3 and PA5 proposals, it is illustrative of the constricted access strategy proposed by WSC.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 131

Main points of the case for Gabriel Securities 27.141 Gabriel Securities Limited, or companies under its or the same control, own all of the

land to the south of Bessemer Drive, which for convenience may be described as the ‘Kodak site’ and ‘Caxton Point’ [CD/GS/PRO/1(1) and photographs at GS/PRO/1(2)].

27.142 The Kodak site has planning permissions for two separate development proposals, one

for office development (with vehicular access from Caxton Way and Gunnels Wood Road) and the other for mixed use employment development (with vehicular access from Bessemer Drive and Caxton Way) [CD/GS/PRO/1 paragraphs 3.2 – 3.3 and GS/PRO/1(3)].

27.143 The Caxton Point site is currently occupied by an office building which it is intended to

redevelop in the next two to three years. On 24 February 2004 an outline application for B1 use was submitted to SBC. Negotiations have been taking place with the tenants for some time and it is likely that vacant possession of the entire building will be achieved later this year (2004), but in any event will be no later than September 2007 when the last lease expires [CD/GS/PRO/1(3)].

27.144 Gabriel Securities supports WSC’s application in principle and is both willing and able

to make available the land which is necessary for a high quality access scheme for Bessemer Drive. WSC has not contested this.

27.145 Although the applications are in outline, means of access is to be determined at this stage

and this includes the access details for Bessemer Drive [CD/PA3/8 and CD/PA5/8]. Considerable importance attaches to Bessemer Drive because it would be one of the two main accesses to the development. Indeed, although it had originally been intended that Meadway would be the main access, the SDP2004 Inspector considered that was unjustified. SBC intends to accept his recommended modification that reference to such priority be deleted [CD/DP/9d policy SW7(c) and CD/DP/9e volume 2 of 2 paragraphs 12.142-12.146]. Importantly, unlike Meadway, Bessemer Drive would form part of the CTS, which would be the principal public transport access to and from the development. Connectivity of high quality is therefore important for all modes, but particularly non-car modes.

27.146 Bessemer Drive is also significant in terms of its geographical relationship to Stevenage

West and the existing Town Centre. PPG13 [CD/PPG/10a] refers to journeys of between 2km and 5km as being those for which walking and cycling respectively have particular potential for replacing the car. Using these distances as guidelines, Bessemer Drive would in all likelihood be the most attractive walking and cycling route between Stevenage West, the town centre, railway station, and the town’s main employment areas. The importance of Bessemer Drive would increase still further should a second phase of 5,000 dwellings go ahead and a high quality access should therefore be sought from the outset, rather than relying upon incremental improvement in the future.

27.147 A wide range of policies make clear the high development standards to be expected of

Stevenage West [CD/GS/CLOSE, appendix 1, table 1.1] including promotion of measures outside the applications site boundary to help promote sustainability [CD/DP/9d, paragraph 12.8.2]. It should also be noted that the SDP2004 Inspector considered objection to clause (c) of policy SW3 and SBC’s own proposed change that Stevenage West should “have regard to” the locational advantages of the site in relation

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 132

to the town centre, rather than “optimise” that relationship. He rejected that proposed change on the basis that the requirement should not be so weakened [CD/DP/9e volume 2 of 2 paragraph 12.73 –12.75]. These policy requirements have led to high expectations for this development, and public support for this controversial development (including that of SBC) has no doubt been forthcoming on that basis. This is understandable, as every opportunity has been taken in the Local Plan to emphasise high quality as a requirement that would be sought and achieved, in creating a “model” development. WSC itself also claims that its proposals would meet and deliver the high standards expected, and its claims are neither modest nor made without repetition.

27.148 Specific requirements are given voice in the Transport and Access Topic Group

[CD/TOP/1] and the Cycle and Pedestrian Sub-Group [CD/WSC/PRO/14RA, appendix 15]. These include off-site connections and improvements, the integration of alternative means of transport to car usage and, in recognition of the fact that the overall quality of a journey may be judged by its weakest link, a footway and cycleway network that engenders personal safety and security. SBC’s Cycling Strategy [CD/SBC/1] states that the existing Stevenage cycleway network was designed primarily for cycles [paragraph 1.1], not for cycles and mopeds as was suggested during the Inquiry, and includes measures formulated to ensure that development in general encourages people back onto bicycles as a means of reducing reliance on the motor car [paragraphs 2., 2.4, target 1, policies 1 and 6]. In particular, it requires that where a cycleway is to be segregated from the carriageway the standard will be based on best practice guidelines [policy 9].

27.149 GSL’s objections fall into two related categories:

(1) in a number of important respects the scheme’s design standards are either the minimum, or below minimum, and therefore cannot be said to meet the policy demands for “high quality”;

(2) for other reasons that cannot be expressed in terms of technical standards, the

scheme is simply not, as claimed, “high quality”, “exemplary” nor does it “optimise” the site’s locational advantages, as required by policy.

27.150 GSL has a great many criticisms of WSC’s proposals for the Bessemer Drive access and

related highway works for failing to meet the requisite design standards. These criticisms may best be illustrated by comparison of WSC current proposals [CD/TRAN/57] with alternative proposals advanced by GS [CD/GS/PRO/1/REB appendix R1]:

Footway/cycleway width 27.151 The optimum width for a combined footway/cycleway would be 5 m [CD/GS/CLOSE,

appendix 3 tables 3.1 and 3.2]. This is a dimension intended to allow two-way flow of pedestrians and cyclists with comfortable passing distances and is the width that has been proposed at the Meadway access. That proposed by WSC would typically be about 3 m wide whereas the GS scheme would achieve 5 m, which is still narrower than most existing cycleway/footways in the surrounding area [CD/GS/PRO/1(5)]. The WSC scheme would also require users of the footway/cycleway to turn into Caxton Way to reach a crossing point between the eastern and western limbs of Bessemer Drive. This would involve an excursion of some 40 m along Caxton Way, which the GS scheme would avoid. It should further be noted that the existing Caxton Point building extends right up to the highway boundary, and is only separated from the cycleway/footway by a

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 133

narrow verge of approximately 1.2m. This not only reduces the quality of the journey but the doors on Caxton Point (which open outwards) render it hazardous.

Buses 27.152 GS’s scheme has bus lanes running both eastbound and westbound. The westbound bus

route is acknowledged by HCC to be “critical” [CD/HCC/PRO/4A, appendix 15]. This is preferable to WSC’s proposal for ‘priority’ measures (rather than a bus lane) in the westbound direction, both in terms of delivering actual advantages, and the perception people will have about the advantages of travelling by bus.

27.153 The design of the GS scheme also means that bus stops can be accommodated

comfortably whereas in the WSC proposals they would take up all of the narrow verge, leaving them very close to the road and the cycleway/footway. Providing attractive waiting areas for buses is part of the requirement for a high quality bus service [WSC/PRO/14RA appendix 15 paragraph 5].

Verges 27.154 The WSC scheme provides for as little as 0.5m separation between the

footway/cycleway and the carriageway for most of the south side of Bessemer Drive, which would degrade the quality of cycling and walking trips, as well as being less than the minimum standard for verge width. It also means that other aspects of the design, such as siting of lighting columns, signs and trees within the verge, would be below minimum standards. The GS scheme shows wide verges on the south side of Bessemer Drive, which would provide a safe and comfortable separation for pedestrians and cyclists from the road, enhancing the quality of the journey along it.

Trees 27.155 The WSC scheme would result in the loss of a number of trees on the north side of

Bessemer Drive, and it would be impossible to have trees in the southern verge at all. The GS scheme would avoid any trees having to be cut down, and the verge on the southern side of Bessemer Drive could be planted with trees to enhance the separation of the cycleway/footway and therefore its quality.

Yellow box junction 27.156 The WSC scheme would have a yellow box junction at Bessemer Drive/Caxton Way,

which is longer than the maximum allowed [CD/GS/CLOSE appendix 3 table 3.6]. There would be no need for a yellow box junction in the GS scheme.

27.157 SBC, HCC and their traffic consultants variously agree with many of these points

[CD/GS/CLOSE appendix 2 table 2]. They are compelling concerns that suggest WSC’s proposals have been designed to fit within the land available rather than to achieve optimum highway design standards. In particular, the proposals for Bessemer Drive have been designed to a significantly lower standard than that currently existing nearby [CD/GS/PRO/1(5)] and it is clearly open to dispute whether the expected significant modal shift from car to more sustainable means of transport would actually be achieved.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 134

28. Travellers’ Site Policies 28.1 SP1998 policy 12 says that provision will be made for gypsies who reside in or resort to

the County [CD/DP/1]. This will be achieved through support for the development of permanent gypsy caravan and transit sites in satisfactory locations. A similar but much expanded policy 12 is included in SP2003 [CD/DP/2f]. It embraces travellers as well as gypsies and militates against provision in the Green Belt, while also drawing attention to the need for access to a range of facilities and services adding, in particular, that the loss of existing gypsy/traveller sites should be resisted. There is no specific policy reference to the subject in NHDLP1996 or NHDLP2000 or in SDP2004.

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 28.2 The existing travellers’ site bordered by the Stevenage West proposals was established

by HCC in 1995 [plan at CD/MISC/12] and CD/WSC/PRO/19C, foreground of photograph I]. It extends to some 0.8 ha and contains 14 pitches together with a warden’s office and amenity hut. Although the site itself is outside the applications site, the existing access road to it, which leads northward then westwards from the existing Bessemer Drive underpass along Chadwell Lane and Dyes Lane, lies within the applications site.

28.3 It is proposed that part of this existing route (effectively the eastern limb of Dyes Lane)

would be closed to vehicular traffic. The proposed replacement route would instead lead from the CTS into the western end of the travellers’ site along a widened section of the western limb of Dyes Lane. It would thus pass through proposed residential areas in the southern part of the applications site and would add about 1.9 minutes to the journey time into the travellers’ site from Bessemer Drive. This would not be a material inconvenience. Detailed design of the access would also include measures to prevent trespass by travellers onto areas of open space and the Transco gas compound site [CD/PA3/12e and CD/PA5/12e volume 4 of 4 plan 9.0/5]. There would be playing pitches to the north and south of the travellers’ site, considerably improving its surroundings [CD/PA3/16b and CD/PA5/16b]. Stevenage West would also have the benefit of bringing schools, shops and other services and facilities within easy reach of the travellers’ site, in accordance with SP2003 and Circular 1/94 objectives.

28.4 A minor modification to the proposed access is proposed to accommodate HCC concern

that lorries or vehicles towing large caravans may need to enter the travellers’ site [WSC/PRO/3REB(1), drawing J505-1025]. While it may be possible for amended details to be submitted at a later stage to include provision of a separate access, as suggested by HCC, this would be at the expense of 2 playing fields. It is also a matter that HCC no longer seems to be pressing for, presumably for that very reason. There would be a separation distance of some 22 m from the perimeter of the travellers’ site to the nearest proposed building, so ensuring adequate standards of privacy should not be problematic. This is, in any event, also a matter for later detailed design.

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council 28.5 Although the Dyes Lane travellers’ site is outside the applications site, it would be

almost entirely surrounded by the proposed development. SBC believes, however, that

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 135

HCC concerns could be suitably addressed either through detailed design prior to reserved matters applications, or through the imposition of suitable planning conditions.

Main points of the case for Hertfordshire County Council 28.6 Dyes Lane is a 14 pitch permanent travellers’ site, developed with 100% ODPM grant in

1995. There are no surplus sites for travellers in Hertfordshire, and the waiting list includes 100 families, so it is important not to diminish the attractiveness or utility of this site for travelling families. Equally, an important factor in site design is to include measures to prevent activities such as fly-tipping, unlawful camping on adjoining land, inappropriate parking of commercial vehicles and anti-social behaviour, whether or not it is the travellers themselves that cause the problem.

28.7 The present site access is a single carriageway road extending off Bessemer Drive

through an industrial area to the east before passing under A1(M). It follows the line of the A1(M) for about 200m and then turns west to pass along the northern side of the travellers’ site, the existing entrance to which is via a bellmouth at the eastern end. This represents the shortest possible route, and there is high and steep bunding along the edge of carriageway to avoid incursion onto neighbouring land.

28.8 The proposed new access would be from the opposite end of the site, increasing both

journey time and length. This is unacceptable in that it would create opportunities for flytipping, unauthorised camping, vandalism and areas that would be difficult to manage environmentally. Maintaining access to the proposed playing fields and Transco High Pressure Gas Main compound would also be problematic. In effect, the proposed access and disposition of proposed land uses would make large areas of recreation and leisure land accessible to travellers, bring them through residential areas, and give opportunities for their lorries to be parked in residential streets giving rise to potential conflict between the different communities.

28.9 In order to avoid these potential problems, the proposed development should provide a

dedicated road to the travellers’ site, intersecting with the original road access route. Moreover, having consulted the travelling families themselves, none want to be overlooked from proposed high density housing bordering the site, not least because they live much of their lives in the open. Privacy is important to their family culture. If this site were to become unpopular for this reason or simply less popular, there would be knock-on effects elsewhere. The proposed houses need to be further away, and separated from the site by a suitable buffer zone. These are matters that can be dealt with by planning conditions [CD/HCC/PRO/3/WR].

29.Utilities Policies 29.1 RPG9 includes policies to make optimum use of existing buildings and infrastructure

and to ensure adequate infrastructure provision in new development [CD/RPG/1b policies Q2 and Q6]. Draft RPG14 promotes local policy formulation that requires developers to maximise energy efficiency through design and construction and achieve energy efficiency that exceeds minimum standards, including through community heating and combined heat and power schemes [CD/RPG/6, policy ENV8]. New development is to be located and planned in such a way as to enable sustainable

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 136

provision of water supply and enable timely investment in sewage treatment and discharge systems to maintain the desired standard of water quality. Among other things, rates of development are not to exceed the capacity of existing water supply systems or proceed ahead of essential improvements that will increase supply [policy ENV9].

29.2 SP2003 would introduce policy to avoid development resulting in over-exploitation of

ground or surface water and providing for development only where adequate and sustainable water resources already exist and can be provided [CD/DP/2f, policy 39]. It would also include policy supportive of energy conservation and use of renewable sources of energy in new developments [new policy, page 109].

29.3 SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d and CD/DP/9h, volume 2] includes policies to promote water

conservation and energy conservation measures in new development [policies EN36 and EN39]. In the Stevenage West Chapter of SDP2004 policy SW3 requires, among other things, the provision of infrastructure, services and facilities to serve the development.

29.4 In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)] it is a requirement of

MP4 that the land use pattern and urban form reduces the need for energy use, particularly from non-renewable sources, a theme repeated in MP31. MP29 requires the development to make efficient use of water resources and provide opportunities to minimise water consumption. MP30 seeks sustainable drainage systems for the development. MP35 requires necessary telecommunications to be in place to enable a “wired community”.

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 29.5 From the earliest conceptual stages the infrastructure and services required for the new

residents has been discussed and developed through the Infrastructure and Resources Topic Group, which met monthly from December 1998 until June 2000. The main objective has been to procure the effective infrastructure servicing of the development with minimum off-site impact and disruption, utilising existing infrastructure as the origin for all new distribution plant wherever practicable. Indeed, as an urban extension the site is ideally placed to take advantage of connections to existing utilities servicing Stevenage itself. There is now substantial agreement between WSC, the Local Authorities and the relevant regulatory bodies as to the infrastructure and services both required and proposed. Codicote Parish Council’s concern about the adequacy of infrastructure is not supported by the views of the utility companies themselves or by the Health Authority with regard to the Lister Hospital [CD/WSC/PRO/5A appendix 2].

Surface water drainage 29.6 Stevenage West lies within the catchment areas of Thames Water and Anglian Water and

is situated above a major chalk aquifer. The ability of the aquifer to provide a reliable source of water supply and to maintain springs feeding the rivers depends on recharging through infiltration. The approach to be taken to drainage at Stevenage West would fully accord with PPG25 advice on sustainable drainage systems. There are only two areas where sustainable drainage is not practical. The first is in the vicinity of Langley Brook where there is impermeable clay, so it is proposed there that the run-off would be discharged into the brook via a balancing facility. The second is near Norton Green Landfill Site where it is necessary to avoid potential for ingress of leachates. This area

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 137

would therefore have a piped system. Existing leaching would thus be minimised, to the benefit of groundwater protection generally. Stevenage West would not be at risk to flooding and its development would not exacerbate risk of flooding elsewhere. There is support from the Environment Agency for measures proposed [CD/WSC/PRO/5A, annexed to appendix 1 hydrology report].

Sewerage 29.7 Thames Water operates an extensive sewerage network in Stevenage with foul water

discharging to Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works in Hoddeston some 28 km to the south of the site. This works has adequate capacity to handle waste water from the site, and sewerage already extends up to the site boundary. To accommodate possible flow surges in the trunk sewer, WSC proposes to construct a balancing tank at Elder Way. This would represent an improvement to Stevenage’s existing drainage system of benefit to the wider community.

Electricity 29.8 The site is presently traversed by a 33kV dual overhead line, parallel to A1(M), with 11

kV lines crossing the north and southern parts of site connecting into it. These would be diverted underground. The proposed S106 planning Obligation would provide for developer subsidy for 1 year for connection of the proposed dwellings to a green energy provider. Eastern Electricity raises no objection [CD/WSC/PRO/5A, appendix 2].

Gas 29.9 British Gas has three strategic mains within the site – a high pressure National Feeder, a

regional Feeder and a medium pressure main parallel to A1(M). The site would thus be easily served by gas. British Gas has raised no objections to the scheme [CD/WSC/PRO/5A, appendix 2]. “No build” corridors have been incorporated in the Master Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive and Transco [CD/WSC/PRO/5A, appendix 2].

Telephones 29.10 The existing Stevenage telephone exchange has adequate capacity, and connection to the

development is likely to be by fibre optic cable. British Telecom has raised no objection [CD/WSC/PRO/5A, appendix 2].

Water supply 29.11 The strategy for water supply has been agreed with Environment Agency and the water

companies. Three Valleys Water plc have trunk water mains in close proximity with sufficient capacity. All dwellings would be fitted with suitable water conservation measures in accordance with CD/PA3/14 and CD/PA5/14. There is no substance in suggestions from third party objectors that local water resources are already stretched and would be insufficient to meet the demand of such an expansion [CD/WSC/PRO/5A, report at appendix 2].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 138

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council Electricity 29.12 There are three overhead lines across the site. The first, at 132 kV passes through

Lucas’s Wood and across the proposed northern playing field, leaving the site westwards over Fishers Green before crossing the proposed Meadway access. This line would be left unaltered, and maintenance access and safeguarding strips would therefore need to be provided among any landscaping proposals. The other two lines, at 33kV and 11kV are to be re-laid underground.

Gas 29.13 The development can be served from existing mains in the area. A 36 inch National

Feeder runs to the north west of the site, a 12 inch Regional Feeder crosses the south of the site and a 15 inch medium pressure main runs parallel to A1(M). It is envisaged that the latter two pipelines would be re-laid to urban standards, thus reducing any existing development restrictions to within 6 m of each.

Telephones 29.14 British Telecom and NTL have confirmed that they can service Stevenage West from the

existing Bedwell Crescent and Leydon Road exchanges in Stevenage. The bulk of the services, including high speed cabling, can be provided below ground with the junction boxes integrated into the design for the area. SBC therefore regards the telephone service proposals as acceptable.

Drainage 29.15 Thames Water has confirmed that there would be no difficulties in connecting a new

surface water drainage system to the existing network within Stevenage to cope with times of “dry flow”. However a balancing tank is proposed under the Elder Way flood meadows to deal with storm flows. That is the subject of a separate planning application accompanied by its own Environmental Impact Assessment.

30.Waste Management Policies 30.1 SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d and CD/DP/9h, volume 2] introduces policy to secure re-use of

construction materials and promote recycling including by ensuring that space is provided for the separation, storage, handling, bulking and collection of waste generated within development [policy EN40]. In the Master Planning Principles SPG [CD/SPG/1(i), (ii) and (iii)] MP32 requires the development to maximise waste recycling opportunities and MP33 seeks appropriate and efficient solutions to address waste arising from the development. MP34 promotes resource efficiency in the construction of the development.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 139

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage consortium 30.2 Facilities would be provided for separation and storage of waste by individual

householders, and there would be recycling facilities within each of the three centres. Waste collection would be by conventional refuse vehicles and transferred to a household waste site/refuse transfer station to the east of Stevenage. WSC would make a household waste contribution for this collection and transfer operation. A 1 ha site for green composting would also be provided in the southern part of the applications site, this being the Topic Group’s preferred solution to waste recycling. It would be made available by WSC for leasing to a suitable operator. No objections have been raised to the operational aspects of these collection and recycling proposals. There are concerns expressed by the Local Authorities concerning the ownership and management of the proposed Green Composting Site in the event that no potential operator came forward, but there is no reason to believe that this would not be marketable.

31.Strategy/Urban capacity/Section 38(6)/Prematurity Policies 31.1 RPG9 includes a list of the main principles that should govern the continuing

development of the South East Region [CD/RPG/1b, paragraph 3.5]. These include urban areas being the main focus for development [policy Q1], with greenfield development taking place only after other alternatives have been considered. A less dispersed pattern of development is to be achieved and sufficient housing, especially affordable housing, is to be provided. The region’s biodiversity and cultural heritage is to be protected. Access to jobs, services, leisure and cultural facilities is to be secured, with reduced reliance on longer distance movement and car use. Supplementary text to policy Q4 acknowledges that areas of “urban fringe” may be selected for urban extensions, but only where required and subject to the sequential approach in PPG3 and protection of Green Belt pursuant to PPG2 [paragraph 5.11]. Potential Growth Areas are also signalled, including the London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub-Region, a strategy for which is to be taken forward in future Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England [paragraphs 4.24, 12.66 and 12.67, and map 2 on page 104].

31.2 The housing requirement for the Rest of the South East (ie. excluding London) is set in

RPG9 at an annual average rate of 39,000 net additional dwellings in the period 2001-2006. Beyond that period, the requirement is to be reviewed in the light of monitoring and the findings of the urban capacity studies and studies of potential growth areas [CD/RPG/1b, policy H1]. In the interim, the annual average rate for Hertfordshire to 2006 is set at 3,280 dwellings [policy H2]. RPG9 further promotes full use of opportunities for increasing housing development within urban areas. It requires the adoption of a sequential approach to the allocation of land for housing and sets a target of at least 60% of all new housing being built on previously developed land (PDL) or through the conversion of existing buildings [policy H5].

31.3 In draft RSS/RPG14, the Spatial Planning Vision is to sustain and improve quality of life

for all by developing a more sustainable, prosperous and outward-looking region while respecting its diversity and enhancing its assets [CD/RPG/6, paragraph 3.2]. Among its 15 objectives are increasing prosperity and employment growth, increasing the regeneration and renewal of disadvantaged areas, making more use of previously developed land, protecting the environment and minimising the environmental impact of

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 140

travel [paragraph 3.3]. The starting point for the spatial strategy is to achieve sustainable development, by aiming to secure a sustainable relationship between jobs, homes and services, focussing development in or adjacent to major urban areas and adopting a sequential approach to development location. These are to be complemented by measures to deliver an “urban renaissance” [policy SS1]. The draft guidance provides for greenfield development adjacent to urban areas where this represents the most sustainable option. It cautions that such releases should be appropriate in scale to the adjoining urban area with significant urban extensions being large enough to provide a sustainable form of development in relation to employment, public transport provision and social, health, education and community facilities provision [policy SS3]. Priority areas for regeneration are also identified and these include Stevenage among those currently with high levels of deprivation. New development in both urban and rural areas is to be of high quality [policy SS16]. While more detailed policies seem to exclude Stevenage from the Stansted/M11 Sub-Region [paragraph 5.115] and place the town in the “London Arc” [Key Diagram and policy LA1], a Ministerial statement on 2 February 2004 made clear that the London-Stansted-Cambridge growth area had been extended to include North Hertfordshire and Stevenage. Within this area it is intended, among other things, that housing development be phased in accordance with employment growth, that there be substantial provision of affordable housing and accommodation for key workers, and that passenger transport services be improved [policy ST1].

31.4 Draft RSS/RPG14 also restates the PPG9 target for 60% of all development to take place

on PDL. For the period 2001-2021 it establishes a housing requirement for strategic growth locations (which do not include Stevenage) of 27,700 dwellings [CD/RPG/6, policy ST4] and of an annual average rate of 23,900 dwellings for the East of England Region as a whole. Of the latter, the Hertfordshire requirement is 3,600 per annum, with North Hertfordshire District contributing 665 per annum and Stevenage Borough 340 per annum [policy H1]. The requirement is subject to two closely related studies. The first is an investigation of the potential of the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough corridor to accommodate up to 18,000 additional dwellings in “sustainable urban extensions or new settlements” in accordance with the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan. The second is to a study of potential housing supply in Hertfordshire itself [policy H1A, and paragraph 7.9]. The release of land for housing is also to be carefully managed [policy H3].

31.5 Like draft RSS/RPG14, SP1998 also includes a Vision statement, among the most

relevant parts of which are that development would be concentrated in Hertfordshire’s main urban areas and directed to previously used or redundant land and space, thereby protecting greenfield land. Population and employment in each settlement would be balanced to allow people more chances of working close to where they live, this also reducing reliance on car usage. A network of “green corridors” would link open spaces in the towns with surrounding countryside, giving ease of access and aiding and enhancing biological diversity [CDDP/1d, pages 23 and 24]. Similar themes are developed and affirmed in the Plan’s objectives for land use planning [page 26]. The general aim of the Plan’s policies is to enable activities and development to be carried out consistently with the principles of sustainable development [policy 1]. Clause (ii) of policy 1 in particular seeks to make provision for the housing and social needs of people in ways that minimise the need to travel and otherwise exploit the sustainability advantages of urban concentration, with the prime emphasis on regeneration in the County’s main towns.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 141

31.6 Accordingly, the main development strategy in SP1998 is to bring development forward

through planned regeneration in specified towns (including Stevenage). Limited peripheral development will only be acceptable where planned regeneration opportunities have been fully explored, where this can provide demonstrable sustainability benefits to the town and where development is planned within the context of the town as a whole. All such proposals are to be progressed through the Local Plan process [policies 6 and 7].

31.7 The housing requirement for the County for the period 1991-2011 is set at 65,000

dwellings and the distribution to the Districts provides for 10,400 in North Hertfordshire and 5,700 in Stevenage Borough. The North Hertfordshire figure includes 2,600 west of A1(M) at Stevenage, and the Stevenage figure includes 1,000 west of A1(M) [policy 9]. These 3,600 dwellings are identified as a “strategic location for supplementary housing development” and are to be brought forward through review of the relevant local plans [policy 8]. The policy adds that Master Planning briefs are to be prepared and negotiated with the developers with the Master Plan providing for an initial phase of 5,000 dwellings, some of which are to be completed after 2011 and, in the longer term, a possible second phase of a further 5,000 dwellings.

31.8 SP2003 repeats SP1998 policy 1 but seeks to reduce rather than contain traffic growth

and adds a supplementary policy requiring submission of “sustainability statements” with development proposals [CDDP/2f, policy 1 and New Policy on page 10]. Again, the main development strategy is based on planned regeneration within specified towns, including Stevenage, and limited peripheral development [policies 6 and 7].

31.9 The need for any strategic scale greenfield housing development (such as Stevenage

West) is, however, expected to be addressed by the Regional Planning Body for the East of England (RPB) after it has considered a range of emerging studies. These include that for the London-Stansted-Cambridge area presaged in PPG9, the Regional Transport Strategy, the Regional Economic Strategy, Regional Annual Monitoring Reports and the Airports White Paper, together with the outcome of the current applications. Before the RPB concludes its review, no strategic scale housing allocations are to be identified in the review of Local Plans in the County and no further strategic scale housing developments are to be permitted anywhere in Hertfordshire save as may be permitted by the Secretary of State [new policy, page 32].

31.10 In terms of dwelling numbers, SP2003 sets the requirement at 3,280 net additional

dwellings per annum from April 2001 onwards, with North Hertfordshire District’s requirement being 430 per annum and Stevenage Borough’s being 180 per annum [policy 9]. In effect, the County requirement thus reflects that in RPG9 but does not include a specific date of 2006 for review. Rather, policy 9 notes that the scale and distribution of housing development is expected to be reviewed by the RPB as part of the same process already identified [ie. in the new policy on page 32]. There is also a firm commitment to monitoring housing land supply and managing the release of sites allocated for housing [new policy on page 35].

31.11 In NHDLP1996, the overall strategy is one of development restraint [CD/DP/6, policy

1]. Development is generally to be permitted in the District’s main towns of Baldock, Hitchin, Letchworth and Royston, as well as within the then proposed new neighbourhood at North East Stevenage [policy 8]. Provision is also made for

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 142

development within the identified confines of selected villages [policy 7] but development in the rural parts of the District will generally require some special justification [policy 6]. Quantitative housing provisions in NHDLP1996 are of little relevance, however, as these are for the period only 1986-2001 [policy 26].

31.12 The overall strategy in SDP1994 is to maintain the existing urban structure of the New

Town, to welcome proposals that support and enhance the role of Stevenage as a sub-regional shopping and leisure centre, to prevent inappropriate development in the Green Belt that surrounds the town and generally to protect the quality of the local environment [CD/DP8a, policies TW1-TW7].

31.13 In SDP2004 the development strategy for Stevenage is based firmly on the principles of

sustainability and meeting local needs [CD/DP/9d, paragraphs 2.1.5 and 2.1.6, policies TW1, TW2 and TW3 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1]. The role of the town as a sub-regional centre for shopping, employment and leisure is also to be fostered [policy TW5 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1] and the Green Belt around the town maintained [policy TW6 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1]. The quality of the local environment is also to be protected [policies TW7-TW10 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1]. In the Housing Chapter, policy H1 records existing commitments and policy H3 [with recommended modifications in CD/DP/9h volume 1] lists new housing allocations to meet the residual SP1998 requirement for Stevenage Borough to 2011 (without Stevenage West). Policy H2 refers specifically to Stevenage West. While the deposit wording for this policy simply allocates the site, in accordance with SP1998 policy 8, for 1,000 dwellings [CD/DP/9d], the Local Plan Inspector recommended additional wording, which the SBC proposes to accept [CD/DP/9e volume 1 of 2, paragraphs 3.51-3.67 and recommendation on page 90 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1]. This says “The allocated land is safeguarded from development pending reconsideration and acceptance of its strategic justification”. Consequential modifications, by way of explanation, would also follow the Inspector’s recommendation. All of the Plan’s housing allocations are subject to phased release and monitoring of the adequacy of supply [policies H4 and H5]. Stevenage West is identified in the deposit version of SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d] as contributing no dwellings in phase 1 (2001-2004), 500 dwellings in phase 2 (2004-2008) and a further 500 dwellings in phase 3 (2008-2011). On the Local Plan Inspector’s recommendation [CD/DP9h, volume 1], this phasing would be modified to 400 dwelling in phase 2 and 600 dwellings in phase 3. Further policies seek to ensure that “windfall” development takes place only on PDL and that development densities outside the town centre fall within the 30-50 dph range [CD/DP/9d, policies H7 and H8 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1]. Two policies in the Stevenage West Chapter of SDP2004 are also relevant to strategy. Policy SW1 [with modification proposed in CD/DP/9d and CD/DP/9h, volume 2] says that the development area for about 1,000 dwellings is shown on the Proposals Map and policy SW2 requires a Master Plan for 5,000 dwellings to be submitted as apart of the outline planning application.

Other relevant background 31.14 It is important to an understanding of the allocation of Stevenage West in SP1998 policy

8 to be aware of the way in which the development strategy voiced in SP1998 emerged. 31.15 The deposit version of SP1998 [CD/DP1p] includes discussion of the housing

requirement for Hertfordshire drawing on a number of sources before settling upon the figure of 65,000 for the period 1991-2011 [pages 27-29]. As at 31 March 1995 at least

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 143

44,000 of these had either been built or were committed, leaving a residual requirement of 21,000 [page 30].

31.16 It was expected that a proportion of this residual requirement could be met through

“planned regeneration”. This is explained in the deposit Plan to mean, in effect, making more efficient use of previously developed land [page 30]. Disagreement is recorded in the draft Plan between the County and the Hertfordshire Districts over the quantum of dwellings that planned regeneration could deliver [page 31]. Two studies had at that time already been jointly commissioned to help give an answer [CD/DP/1l – the Chesterton Report, and a study of employment land needs undertaken by PEIDA and Cambridge Econometrics]. A range of potential figures resulted, from which the Districts came to the view that only about 10,000 dwellings could be delivered in this way. HCC held to the view, however, that with the support and commitment of the Government and the District Councils a strategy based on urban concentration [draft policy 5] together with planned regeneration and limited small-scale peripheral development [draft policy 6] should be able to provide the 21,000 dwellings required [page 32]. Nonetheless, in order to secure the broadest support of the District Councils, HCC reluctantly accepted the need to include an element of “strategic development” in greenfield locations [page 32 and draft policy 7].

31.17 After carrying out a County-wide study of potential sites [CD/DP/1j] and considering

responses to consultation, the preferred locations advanced in the deposit Plan for this “strategic development” were at Hemel Hempstead and Stevenage West [page 33]. The draft Plan’s explanatory memorandum says that during the Plan period no more than 5,000 dwellings could be provided at Stevenage West, but on its own a development of this size would not provide sufficient economies of scale to finance necessary planning benefits for the town overall, which would have to bear the impact of such development. The scheme would therefore be expected to provide 1,000 dwellings in Stevenage Borough and 4,000 in North Hertfordshire District [draft policy 7] during the Plan period and continue beyond 2011 growing to 10,000 dwellings [pages 33 and 34].

31.18 The strategic allocations were, however, proffered in the deposit Plan on a contingent

basis, to be taken forward only if it proved necessary to make up any shortfall in provision through the regeneration and limited peripheral development strategy [pages 34 and 35]. In this respect, the deposit Plan recognised that there would be a long lead-in process to development of the scale envisaged, and suggested that some preparatory planning and consultation stages could be undertaken before a final decision need be made about whether or not to grant planning permission. However, it was acknowledged that adoption of relevant Local Plan Alterations would mark the time by which a firm view must be taken about whether to take an effectively irrevocable decision to proceed with development. The period until about 2001 was therefore put forward by HCC to provide further time in which to better inform judgements about whether a sufficient supply of dwelling commitments and completions was being achieved through planned regeneration and limited peripheral development, with strategic sites commencing after 2004 only if needed [pages 34 and 35].

31.19 The SP1998 EIP Panel [CD/ DP/1b] considered both the overall dwelling requirement

[Issue 3] and the proposed development strategy [Issue 4]. On the first of these matters, the Panel noted that slight variations in assumptions about such factors as household size could give rise to large uncertainties in the forecast requirement but observed that the only reasonable expectation was one of substantial growth in numbers of households in

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 144

Hertfordshire, above the level implied by the deposit Plan [paragraph 3.15]. Weighed against that were “formidable” environmental constraints in the way of accommodating anything up to another 9,000 dwellings above the deposit Plan’s provision which, even with an optimistic view of the development potential of brownfield land, would require “painful” choices to be made [paragraph 3.16]. The Panel further observed that failure to raise the development requirement would carry the implication of potential export of growth to other areas of the south east and outside, a matter that fell squarely within the remit of the then current SERPLAN review of RPG9. After considering these and related matters, the Panel concluded that adoption of a low vacancy rate assumption would to some extent be self-fulfilling in reducing the overall requirement and on that basis affirmed the 65,000 requirement in the draft Plan, rather than any higher figure [paragraphs 3.18-3.23].

31.20 Turning to strategy for meeting the 21,000 residual requirement, the SP1998 EIP Panel

concluded that there were overwhelming grounds in the light of Government policy, general considerations of sustainability and the mix of medium sized towns in Hertfordshire for pursuing draft policy 6 of urban concentration [paragraph 4.26]. On the planned regeneration and limited peripheral development strand of the proposed strategy (policy 7) the Panel records Government policy pointing firmly in the direction of giving first priority to using brownfield land, but cautioned that this would get harder as the easier options become used up [paragraph 4.42] and observed that the Chesterton Report [CD/DP/1l] included a number of limitations [paragraphs 4.43 and 4.44]. After assessing the potential from surplus employment land [paragraph 4.46] and the Green Belt constraints on peripheral development, the Panel came to the view that the combined contribution from policies 6 and 7 would be likely to be about 15,000 dwellings [paragraphs 4.50, 4.51 and 4.52].

31.21 With regard to “strategic development”, the SP1998 EIP Panel noted that HCC’s general

approach had followed through stages of environmental appraisal and had been a systematic and hierarchical one in accordance with Government guidance in “Environmental Appraisal of Development Plans – a Good Practice Guide”. This pointed decisively to the sustainability advantages of concentrating development mainly at the larger towns rather than promoting a more dispersed pattern of development [paragraphs 4.56 and 4.57]. However, the Panel rejected the contingency basis on which the draft plan advanced strategic development for a number of reasons. These included a need to demonstrate firm commitment to development of the scale envisaged [paragraph 4.61] and the lack of any realistic prospect of regeneration removing or diminishing the need for 6,000 dwellings over and above the 15,000 anticipated from policies 6 and 7 if the 21,000 residual requirement was to be met [paragraph 4.62].

31.22 As far as Stevenage West itself was concerned, the SP1998 Panel found that there was

no other sizeable town in Hertfordshire where there would be equivalent capacity to take substantial development while avoiding urban coalescence and concluded that the choice of location was well founded [paragraphs 5.13 – 5.20]. On the basis that completions could realistically be achieved at a rate between 250 and 400 dwellings per annum [paragraph 5.27] starting in 2004 [paragraph 5.28], the Panel further concluded that 3,600 dwellings would be a testing target with some risk of shortfall [paragraph 5.29]. It added that there was every prospect of 5,000 dwellings being required in the years immediately following the Plan period and that a better balanced development would be achieved if the scheme was seen to be of that order of size from the outset, while there

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 145

should also be allowance for the possibility, but not the certainty, of provision for a further 5,000 dwellings in the long term [paragraph 5.30].

31.23 To bring matters up to date as at the close of the Inquiry on 25 October 2004, the parties

produced at the resumed session on that day an agreed statement on the position relating to draft RSS/RPG14 and SDP2004 [CD/REG/17]. This indicates the currently anticipated timetable leading to adoption of RSS/RPG14 with publication of a deposit version expected on 8 December 2004, public examination in September 2005 and adoption in Summer 2006. Of the three supporting documents referred to in the note, the Roger Tym Housing Development and Spatial Strategy Audit for the County [CD/REG/16] is referred to in RSS/RPG14 policy H1A [31.4 above], in WSC evidence [paragraphs 31.54 and 31.55 below] and in HCC evidence [paragraphs 31.90, 31.91 and 31.96 below]. It indicates urban capacity of 52,310 dwellings in Hertfordshire in the period 2001-2021 [paragraph 10.1]. The Stevenage/Hitchin area is identified as a location with “good potential” for contributing to additional greenfield capacity [paragraphs 8.16-8.24 and figure 8.2]. It also includes commentary on the potential contribution to urban capacity from employment land and surplus education sites [paragraphs 9-15]. The “agenda” document for the Regional Planning Panel meeting on 15 October 2004 [CD/REG/15] identifies at sections 6(b),(c), (d), (g) and(h) proposed changes to the so-called “banked” version of RSS/RPG14 that are relevant to Hertfordshire, including to policy ST4 [paragraph 5.2 on page 34]. The Buchanan Study [CD/GOV/36] is the second of the two documents referred to in RSS/RPG14 policy H1A[31.4 above], in WSC evidence [paragraphs 31.54 and 31.55 below] and in HCC evidence [paragraphs 31.90, 31.91 and 31.96 below] but makes specific reference to Stevenage only in non-committal terms [paragraphs 10.11.13-10.11.18 and 11.8.1]. Lastly, the up-dating note [CD/REG/17] affirms the intended progress of SDP2004 towards approval in December 2004.

Main points of the case for the West of Stevenage Consortium Status of the respective development plans: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (formerly Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) 31.24 The crucial development plan in this case is SP1998 [CD/DP/1d], not least because it is

a recently prepared Plan and covers the period to 2011. It also provided the basis for SDP2004 [CD/DP/9b with CD/DP/9h], which has been certified to be in general conformity with SP1998 [CD/DP/9j].

31.25 SP1998 policy 8 makes clear what Stevenage West is intended to secure at strategic level

in terms of housing provision. That is the identification of suitable land at Stevenage West for 5,000 dwellings, of which 3,600 are to be built by 2011, as indicated in the SP1998 Key Diagram. The applications site accords with that allocation, and the Local Plan and Master Planning processes to which both policies 8 and 9 refer are concerned not with the principle of the allocation but with the procedures and details of its implementation. The 65,000 dwelling requirement in SP1998 policy 9 is not a maximum limit on provision but a minimum or near minimum requirement [CD/DP/1b paragraph 4.62]. It is also plain that the HSP strategy, taken as a whole, embodies current sustainability principles and a sequential approach to the distribution of development allocations. Despite preceding the publication of PPG3, SP1998 is entirely consistent with the advice contained in it. This and other objections raised by NHDC, CASE and LLAOL were advanced in similar terms at the EIP [CD/DP/1b paragraphs 5.31-5.96]

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 146

and it is inappropriate for objectors to now seek to re-open debate over strategic policy framework that was fully deliberated upon and determined by the SP1998 EIP. It should also be borne in mind that CASE has no formal membership, having only a committee of some 16 members and has no mandate to speak for the wider public. From cross-examination, it would also seem that the views expressed at the Inquiry by CASE do not fully reflect those which had been expressed during the formative stages of the proposals [CD/CASE/PRO/1/REB, appendix 1].

31.26 Stevenage West was, in fact, identified as the most suitable location for strategic scale

development following widespread consultation during the formulation of SP1998 [CD/DP/1j, paragraphs 4.39-4.41 in particular]. Supporting information considered by the SP1998 EIP included a Master Plan in substantially the same form as now [CD/PA5/16b Master Plan 8059-10-Aa (April 2004)], a planning appraisal, and reports on agriculture, visual amenity, recreation, rights of way, Listed Buildings, archaeology, and nature conservation, transportation and landscape [see, for example, CD/DP/1b, annex G and paragraphs 5.82, 5.83, 5.84, 5.85, 5.86 and 5.87]. Stevenage town was itself referred to in the EIP report as a settlement with great economic potential and the prospect of attracting new jobs [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 5.17]. A range of other site specific options was considered on a similar basis [CD/DP/1b, paragraphs 5.14, 5.15 and 5.97-5.114] but none found to be superior. The importance of making a firm commitment to Stevenage West was recognised in the EIP Panel report as vital in the interests of public credibility, addressing the general extent of the Green Belt at the appropriate stage and preparing the long lead-time for development of the scale required [CD/DP/1b, paragraphs 4.61 and 4.62]. Many of the considerations were also re-visited by the SDP2004 Inspector, who found no reason to disagree with the EIP report’s conclusions [CD/DP/9E, volume 2 of 2, paragraphs 12.179-12.215].

31.27 In responding to the proposed consequential modifications following receipt of the

SP1998 EIP report, GOER accepted the housing requirement of 65,000 and strongly supported the strategy of regeneration coupled with a sequential approach to site selection and the choice of Stevenage West as a strategic site. GOER concluded that the proposed modifications represented the best balance for achieving an adequate supply of housing land while retaining and protecting the countryside and other environmental assets [WSC/PRO/10(9), paragraphs 4, 5, 7 and 10]. HCC itself responded to other objections in its statement of reasons and decisions on objections to the proposed modifications [CD/DP/1c]. There, HCC expresses the view that it would be “irresponsible” to regard a possible second phase of 5,000 dwellings as a “bolt-on extra” that need not be included in the Master Planning process referred to in policy 7 [page 23]. Alternative sites were rejected [page 30] and the “contingent” approach to strategic sites abandoned [page 30, response to Hitchin Society].

31.28 On this latter point, shortly before approval of SP1998, the Deputy Prime Minister

announced a new approach to planning for the communities of the future [WSC/PRO/10/Sup/Reb, appendix 32]. It signalled the end of “predict and provide” as a means of determining house building needs and emphasised the need to make the best possible use of previously developed land and buildings. This prompted the then HCC Chairman to write to the Deputy Prime Minister seeking reinstatement of the “contingent” approach and deletion of Stevenage West as a strategic allocation [WSC/PRO/10A, appendix 24]. The Deputy Prime Minister replied on 23 April 1998 to the effect that there was no reason to depart from the EIP conclusions [WSC/PRO/10A, appendix 24]. SP1998 accordingly became operative on 30 April 1998 with Stevenage

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 147

West included in policy 8 as a strategic allocation, and not on a contingency basis. It is submitted that this demonstrates that SP1998 strategy was specifically examined in the light of what was to become the Government’s policy approach to residential development that became encapsulated in PPG3.

31.29 The precise wording of SP1998 policy 8 also warrants scrutiny. In the opening

paragraph of the policy, use of the words “Land suitable for strategic housing allocations…will be identified…” conveys a mandatory requirement not a discretionary proposition, in much the same way as “…will make provision” in policy 9. Requirements are expressed in similar fashion in policies 10, 13 and 14, and there are numerous other examples in SP1998. The substance of policy 8 is not therefore dependent upon Master Planning or Local Plan processes to determine whether or not Stevenage West is a suitable location for development, but rather to bring forward the proposed development in suitably planned form in the period to 2011. Stevenage West has the distinct advantage of identification through a rigorous and comprehensive strategic planning process which has since been carefully carried forward and evolved to an advanced stage through Master Planning and local planning processes with related public involvement. The proposals thus have accepted credentials for both sustainability and deliverability. Although HCC continues to question the need for strategic development in quantitative terms, that point in itself does not amount to a fundamental objection to the development and its location in principle. Other objections may be generally categorised as relating to development control matters rather than to questions of principle.

31.30 In quantitative terms, Stevenage West has always been regarded throughout the strategic

planning process as an urban extension of at least 5,000 dwellings [CD/DP/1d, paragraphs 169-173]. Indeed, it is open to a development plan to make commitments beyond the plan period, as is the case with Green Belt boundaries for example. Equally, it has also been anticipated that less than 3,600 dwellings may be completed by 2011 [CD/DP/1d, paragraphs 181 and 186]. Given the planning delays from the originally intended 2004 start, it is probable that only between 1,500 and 2,000 dwellings would now be completed by 2011 [WSC/PRO/1, paragraph 2.13.11]. Nonetheless, that would still accord with the objectives of the strategic allocation under policy 8 and it may thus be concluded that the proposals are in conformity with SP1998 strategy.

31.31 SP2003 [CD/DP/2f] was produced following a change in political control of HCC in

1999 [CD/WSC/PRO/10a/SUP/REB, appendix 39]. Deposit stage objections, of which there are many, express a considerable range of views about the development strategy it promotes [CD/WSC/ PRO/10, paragraphs 7.60 – 7.72 and CD/HCC/PRO/5 paragraph 3.15]. In the light of those, and with a future EIP in abeyance, HCC has accepted that SP2003 may now be regarded as superseded [CD/HCC/PRO/5/REB page 10, sub paragraph (iii)].

31.32 Turning to the position with regard to the respective Local Plans, SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d

with CD/DP/9h proposed modifications] is now at an advanced stage. It has Certificates of General Conformity with SP1998 at both first and second deposit stages [CD/DP/9i and CD/DP/9j respectively] and carries forward the planning principles and other proposals for Stevenage West in policy H2. Importantly, the supporting report by HCC officers on the first statement of conformity specifically endorses Stevenage West and does not in any way suggest that this strategic allocation is contingent upon the continuing demonstration of need [CD/DP/9j, paragraphs 5.10 and 5.12].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 148

31.33 Nonetheless, the Inspector’s report into objections to SDP2004 recommends that policy

H2 be modified to include the words “The allocated land is safeguarded from development pending reconsideration and acceptance of its strategic justification”. Reasoned justification is recommended for modification to explain this by incorporating a reference to current review of the Structure Plan in the light of material changes that have occurred since 1998, including the need to take account of PPG3. The recommended modification would add that only if that review or an alternative form of reconsideration of the strategic need for development determines that Stevenage West is required to meet the County’s development need to 2011 can the site be considered as allocated and available to be released for development [CD/DP/9e, pages 83-91 and CD/DP/9h, pages 27-29]. There had been no such qualification in the preceding deposit versions of the Borough Plan, so there had been no reason or opportunity to question that caveat before it had been imposed. WSC submits that the caveat is directly contrary to the requirements of SP1998 policy 8 that provides for 3,600 dwellings to be built by 2011 in the first phase of Stevenage West, and policy 9 which requires 1,000 of these to be built in Stevenage Borough. Within the strategic framework as adopted, the proposed modification would not therefore make the provision required in SP1998 and to that extent is not in general conformity for the purposes of Section 36, sub-section 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) [CD/WSC/CLOSE, paragraph 41]. This gives rise to a number of scenarios among which are that it will be for the ODPM to consider the question of conformity and in that light to decide whether to exercise the power of call-in of SDP2004 under Section 44 or Direction under Section 43(4) of the Act. Alternatively, if SDP2004 with the proposed modification progresses to formal adoption as anticipated in Autumn 2004, WSC would challenge what is seen as the plain illegality of the proposed modification in the courts [CD/WSC/CLOSE, paragraph 42]. In either case it is impossible to conclude that there is a strong possibility of the modification being included as policy in the adopted Plan. In the context of paragraph 48 of PPG1, no great weight should therefore be placed upon this caveat.

31.34 NHDLP2000 [CD/DP/7] was withdrawn after its first deposit stage, so has no direct

bearing in terms of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (formerly Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). It should be noted, however, that like SDP2004 it sought to carry forward SP1998 policy 8 and the Master Planning work for Stevenage West that had already been carried out. Its proposed policy framework fully supported the current applications (both PA3 and PA5) in appropriate terms [CD/DP/7, policies SP11, W1 – W15, proposals WOS and WOSS and paragraph 3.1.31]. The Plan was certified by HCC as being in general conformity with SP1998 [CD/DP/7a]. Thus, taking SDP2004 and NHDLP2000 together, it can be seen that all of the Local Planning work required by SP1998 policy 8 has already been carried out. Although there is no longer any intention to progress NHDLP2000, that in itself does not amount to conflict with strategic policy.

31.35 Both North Hertfordshire and Stevenage Borough Council conceded in cross-

examination that NHDLP1996 [CD/DP/6] and SDP1994 should be given little weight because both have end-dates of 2001 and are thus time-expired. To the extent that the point may not be accepted, particular attention is drawn to the terms of the statement issued in accordance with Section 35C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) by HCC on 17 July 1998 as regards conformity between those Plans (and other then extant Hertfordshire Local Plans) and SP1998 [CD/WSC/PRO10A, appendix 7]. This affirmed that the Plans were in general conformity, but not fully in conformity

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 149

in certain respects. The latter related particularly to the differences in Plan periods and to SP1998 introducing new approaches to sustainable development, transport and other activities that had not been countenanced in pre-1998 Local Plan preparation. It is submitted [CD/WSC/CLOSE paragraphs 49-51] that a Local Plan may be in general conformity for the early part of the SP period but not for the remainder (and much the same point applies to Green Belt designation). The HCC statement [CD/WSC/PRO10A, appendix 7] says that continued general conformity will depend upon early review, meaning that without such review the plans would fall out of general conformity. In effect, the HCC statement is thus saying that NHDLP1996 and SDP1994 insofar as strategic proposals like Stevenage West and the SP1998 policy 7 sequential test are concerned, were not in general conformity and required review. In the meantime, SP1998 prevails.

31.36 Permission for the proposed developments (both PA3 and PA5) would be in accordance

with the development plan in terms of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (formerly Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). It follows that there would need to be other material considerations sufficient to outweigh the general presumption in favour of development if permission is to be refused.

31.37 The other material considerations advanced by HCC and NHDC focus on two main

points. The first is the availability of previously developed land which, in accordance with the sequential approach outlined in PPG3, should be developed before greenfield sites. The second is prematurity in the context of PPG1 advice and emerging strategic guidance.

Urban capacity 31.38 Although SP1998 pre-dates PPG3, it is fully compliant with it. For example, each of the

6 steps for promoting sustainable development listed in paragraph 21 of PPG3 was undertaken during SP1998 formulation. The 65,000 dwelling requirement flowed from RPG9 in accordance with paragraph 28 and the systematic approach to site identification described in paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 was followed [CD/DP/1j and CD/DP1b]. Stevenage West accordingly emerged as the most suitable and sustainable location for strategic development. The selection criteria have not since changed and no demonstrably superior site has been suggested. Thus, the argument of principle advanced against Stevenage West by HCC and NHDC is not that the wrong locational choice has been made. Put simply, it is that there should be no release of land for development of strategic scale in Hertfordshire at this time anywhere.

31.39 Stevenage West was plainly a strategic proposal of the Plan intended to give confidence

to developers, public authorities and the community at large in bringing forward the Master Planning for 5,000 dwellings. It was not intended by those making or approving this strategic allocation that the Master Planning process should subsequently be aborted or put on hold if monitoring revealed a different rate of previously developed land coming forward.

31.40 The distinction between the development planning process and development control in

PPG3 is of importance in this respect. Paragraphs 37 to 39 deal with the latter. They do not suggest that development control decision making should be delayed pending production of a PPG3 compliant Local Plan, nor that conclusions reached in extant

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 150

development plans should be discarded, provided the relevant criteria were met and the systematic approach to site selection followed when allocations were made. Rather, paragraph 38 says that the decision-maker should have regard to the policy contained in PPG3 as material considerations that may (not do) supersede policies in the development plan. There is no suggestion in this case that SP1998 is not PPG3 compliant. The tests that paragraph 38 applies to pre-PPG3 policies are contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 and relate to the availability of previously developed land, the sequential approach and the application of standards on design, density and parking. Developments are to be judged on whether they meet those tests, not on whether a particular proposed development plan allocation remains the most sustainable.

31.41 PPG3 further draws attention to good practice advice in a range of documents including

“Planning to Deliver” [CD/GOV/8]. Of particular relevance is Section 3, which deals with managing the release of sites. Page 14 concerns strategic sites which are “building blocks” “critical to the delivery of strategy”, adding that the broad location of these may have been signalled in the Structure Plan. This is the same approach that was taken in the EIP report [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 4.62]. Importantly, the advice on page 14 continues by saying “the presumption should be that strategic sites should normally be unaffected by any review of the assignment of sites between phases in a plan (that arose for example because of unexpectedly high rates of windfalls)”. It adds that such development might cross over between phases or extend beyond the life of a development plan, especially in the case of urban extensions. All this precisely reflects the process followed in the case of Stevenage West and it is fundamentally misconceived to seek to postpone or delay its implementation on grounds of urban capacity monitoring or reassessment. The advice on pages 17, 18 and 19 which relates, respectively, to non-strategic sites, the importance of the plan-led system, and circumstances in which local plan alteration or replacement might be warranted, is also pertinent. There is no emerging proposal to revoke the Stevenage West proposal, nor any basis for such revocation, at National level [CD/GOV/28 and WSC/PRO/10(2)], Regional level [emerging RSS/RPG14], strategic level [SP2003 - CD/DP/2f and HCC/PRO/5/REB page 10, sub paragraph (iii)] or local level [CD/DP/9d with CD/DP/9h and CD/DP/7]. Before considering the capacity arguments put forward by HCC and NHDC, the underlying point that WSC wishes to make is that there is thus no reason to revisit either the site selection process or the question of urban capacity at all.

31.42 Two further general points on urban capacity are also relevant. The first is the

distinction between comparison with previously developed sites called for in paragraph 38 of PPG3 (relating to development control decision making) and the assessment of urban housing capacity (relating to development plan formulation) in paragraphs 24 –27. In this context, the comparison called for in paragraph 38 with available previously developed sites is not a requirement to undertake an urban capacity analysis every time an application comes forward. It is also apparent from a decision on development south of M4 at Reading that the Secretary of State does not consider that the search for alternative urban capacity at development control stage should, in any event, go beyond the district (or in this case districts) within which a development of strategic scale is proposed [CD/WSC/PRO/10(10) paragraph 7]. The second is that inasmuch as land availability may be regarded as a material consideration in this case, the continuing implementation of approved Structure Plan policy should only be set aside on urban capacity grounds if there is robust evidence demonstrating real likelihood that foreseeable requirements for development could all be met from previously developed land. That would not simply be to 2011, but also for the periods to 2016 and 2021. It is

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 151

inconceivable that there would not be a need for the release of greenfield land within this growth area, the region and the county in the period to 2021. It would be little short of an abuse of the planning system to now “turn off “ this plan-led strategic allocation to which so much resource has been committed only to try to “turn it back on” again later.

31.43 Turning then to the assessment of capacity, it is appropriate to start with past

performance [CD/WSC/PRO/10A, appendix 14]. This shows that from 1991-1995, a total of 14,780 dwellings had been completed out of the SP1998 requirement for 65,000 to 2011 [CD/HCC/PRO/5, table 2 on page 62]. That amounts to some 3,695 dwellings per annum. Commitments as at April 1995 were for 29,580 dwellings. The latter figure may be translated into an expectation of some 3,697 dwellings per annum over the period 1995-2003. However, actual completions over that period [CD/HCC/PRO/5, table 10 on page 72 – 42,280 minus 14,780 = 27,500] have in fact amounted to 3,438 dwellings per annum. That is consistent with what the monitoring statistics also show [CD/WSC/PRO/10A, appendix 14, “totals” in third row up from the bottom], and reflect a significant body of commitments together with a high level of completion rates during the earlier part of the Plan period. Moreover, a significant proportion of completions in those earlier years had been on greenfield sites, being some 42% in 1994 compared with 24% in 2003 [CD/WSC/PRO/10A, appendix 14, comparison of bottom two rows for non-PDL and PDL]. With the effect of PPG3 on development plan allocations and development control decisions, a high level of contribution from greenfield sites cannot be expected to continue.

31.44 Moving on to future supply, of all the Districts in the County, it is only in North

Hertfordshire District and Stevenage Borough that anything approaching an urban capacity assessment can be seen to have been undertaken [CD/WSC/PRO/10/SUP/REB, list at paragraph 3.5]. Indeed, the only assessment of urban capacity to supersede that undertaken to inform the SP1998 EIP has been for Stevenage Borough, when HCC propositions regarding urban capacity were tested during the Local Plan Inquiry. Twenty sites were advanced by the County [CD/WSC/PRO/10A] which, it was suggested, would render unnecessary the proposed development of green field sites in the Borough. The Local Plan Inspector rejected all twenty [CD/DP/9e, volume 1 of 2, paragraphs 3.108-3.111]. That is a good indicator of the lack of robustness of the HCC assessment.

31.45 Indeed, the HCC approach somewhat too simplistically applies a non-implementation

allowance of 5% to existing permissions (for 9,906 dwellings) and PDL allocations (for 5,541 dwellings) as at 1 April 2003 [CD/NHDC/PRO/1, table 3 on page 25]. HCC thus assumes a total contribution of 15,445 dwellings from “existing commitments” to the end of March 2011. Moreover, given the status of the various development plans in the District as at the 1 March 2003 [CD/HCC/PRO/5(1), appendix 1], the expected contribution from PDL allocations is plainly most uncertain and unreliable. The significance of this element of capacity also tends to be magnified because of an assumed 25% uplift in density applied by HCC generally, and the further assumption that in town centres there will be a doubling of all identified capacity [CD/DP/2c, paragraph 4.72 and table 4.4 on page 59].

31.46 The assessment of potential housing capacity on employment land is also questionable,

there being nothing to support the suggestion of a considerable surplus of employment land [see paragraphs 12.1-12.15 above]. Some 6.2 ha of employment land has already been released in North Hertfordshire alone and permission for a further 1.62 ha granted,

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 152

so further releases must be highly unlikely [CD/NHDC/PRO/1REB, page 22, table 2]. HCC anticipates 100% completions on land converted from employment use in the period to 2011, but that is unrealistic as the District Councils have themselves pointed out [CD/WSC/PRO/10a/SUP/REB, appendix 29, table 2].

31.47 Contrary to advice in “Tapping the Potential” [CD/PPG3/c], North Hertfordshire

District Council’s capacity study [CD/NHDC/8] has not been subject to any public consultation. It also did not seek to assess the actual development potential and availability of the capacity sites on which it relies [CD/NHDC/8, paragraphs 6.2 and 7.5]. The study itself expects over 30% of identified urban housing to come from employment land in the period 2003-2021, with over 45% in the 2003-2011 period alone [CD/WSC/PRO10A, appendix 16, table at paragraph 3.10]. However, given the more restrictive policy regime promulgated in draft RSS/RPG14, outline permission that has been granted for residential development of the Walsworth Road employment site cannot be regarded as indicative of the outcome of decisions on other sites in the District from which a housing contribution is expected [CD/WSC/PRO/10(5), page 17]. Sites at Pixmore Avenue (130 dwellings), Cadwell Lane (78 dwellings), Cooks Way (124 dwellings), Birds Hill (36 dwellings), Neosid (121 dwellings) and Ling Dynamics (44 dwellings) should therefore be discounted [CD/WSC/PRO/10a/SUP/REB appendix 26, sites 250, 193/194, 195/196/197, 273/274/275, 276 and 360 respectively]. The distribution of employment land also makes much of it unsuitable for residential use in terms of sustainable travel patterns [CD/WSC/PRO/10a/SUP/REB, appendix 27]. A further 260 dwellings were assumed to be contributed from surplus education land, a figure based entirely on an HCC estimate that had not been justified and was not site specific [CD/WSC/PRO/10A, appendix 16]. In effect, of the 1,469 total assumed capacity in North Hertfordshire District, 918 dwellings (62%) represent suggested capacity on employment and education land, both of which sources are thus open to serious doubt.

31.48 Furthermore, both HCC and NHDC analyses assume 8/18ths (approximately 40.5%) of

the assessed capacity for the period 2003-2021 will result in completions in the period 2003-2011 [CD/NHDC/PRO/1, paragraph 6.16]. However, the capacity assessment, carried out by Halcrow Group Ltd on behalf of NHDC suggests that only 32% would be delivered by 2011 [NHDC/8, paragraph 7.1]. Equally, in Stevenage Borough an accepted “mid-figure” for dwelling completions suggests that the 8/18ths approach would represent a 23% overestimate of completions by 2011 [CD/WSC/PRO/10/SUP/REB, paragraph 3.12 and, repeating the exercise for NHDC with similar result, paragraph 3.13]. In effect, the HCC/NHDC approach inherently leads to a considerable “front-loading” in the expected delivery of available capacity (3,294 dwelling per annum in the first 8 years compared with 1,368 per annum in the ensuing 10 years). Normal delays between capacity sites receiving planning permissions and then those permissions being implemented would suggest the reverse would be the case. A completions rate of some 2,202 dwellings per annum [CD/WSC/PRO/10/SUP/REB, paragraph 3.10, 39,985 ÷ 18 years] would more closely reflect monitoring of completions on PDL [CD/WSC/PRO/10A, appendix 14 average rate 1992-2003 = 2,217], which is in itself very much in line with SP1998 assumptions. WSC does not, however, accept the Councils’ figures that underpin this analysis and puts this figure forward only as a better and more realistic rate of implementation to assume. Indeed, HCC’s figure of 3,200 completions per annum is some 50% greater than that forecast by the Districts [CD/DP/14].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 153

31.49 A comparative tabulation of WSC submissions on assessed capacity and those of NHDC has been compiled [CD/WSC/PRO/10(8)]. The figures for Stevenage are not in dispute and are included in the conclusions at the end of the tabulation. In sum, the figures show a combined shortfall for the two Districts of between 2,213 and 3,908 dwellings and, for NHDC alone, of between 1,290 and 2,747 dwellings. That is entirely consistent with the basis on which the SP1998 strategic allocation of Stevenage West was originally made. It should especially be borne in mind that the approach to identifying Stevenage West in SP1998 was as a comprehensive and sustainable urban extension, in respect of which the actual numbers that came forward by 2011 was not of critical importance [CD/DP/1d, paragraph 187].

31.50 In WSC’s submission, even disregarding the various shortcomings in the HCC and

NHDC’s capacity assessments, 724 out of 802 dwellings on so-called PDL allocations sites in North Hertfordshire District are open to question [CD/WSC/PRO/10/SUP/REB, paragraph 3.7 and CD/WSC/PRO/10A/SUP/REB, appendix 26 and summary in CD/WSC/CLOSE, paragraphs 124-148]. HCC relied upon the Districts’ assessments of capacity rather than its own but it should be noted that contrary to repeated assertions in HCC evidence [CD/HCC/PRO/5] GO EAST does not accept that the County’s housing requirement to 2011 can be met form PDL and existing commitments. Acceptance may well have been its initial stance [CD/GO/2] but it was followed by a number of responses [for example, CD/WSC/PRO/10A/SUP/REB appendix 40]. These resulted in the more recently expressed concern with SP2003 and the suggestion that SP2003 be progressed no further [CD/GO/4].

Prematurity 31.51 Advice in paragraphs 47 and 48 of PPG1 is straightforward. In effect, paragraph 48 says

that other than in the circumstances described in paragraph 47, refusal of permission on grounds of prematurity will not be justified other than as an exception. Under paragraph 47, a development plan must be either in preparation or under review with proposals issued for consultation. SP2003 has little if any significance in this respect, firstly because HCC concedes that the process of review will now take place at regional level [HCC/PRO/5/REB, paragraphs 6.1(iii) and 5.1(iv)] and secondly because of the range and force of objections to the SP2003 proposed strategy and policies [CD/HCC/13, paragraphs 3.2 and sections 2 and 4]. Draft RSS/RPG14 also does not fall within the provisions of paragraph 48 because it has not reached deposit stage and nor is it a document that has been issued for consultation.

31.52 Rather, the overall commitment to a plan-led process in paragraph 41 of PPG1 applies

particularly, as here, where the SP1998 strategic framework has involved substantial public involvement and scrutiny through the EIP process and consultation stages and has since progressed a long way towards implementation.

31.53 In any event, Stevenage West accords with and supports such emerging indications as

there are of future regional strategy and national policy for the area. This follows from a reading of “Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future” [CD/AFF/4] and the Deputy Prime Minister’s regeneration statement of 24 July 2002 [CD/GOV/18]. The latter specifically names both Stevenage and Stevenage West, with Stevenage West representing the very type of “step change” in both quantity and quality of development sought in areas that are facing acute demand pressures. The development is immediately ready to deliver, in a way that has attracted scant objection to proposed details or to the

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 154

framework of development itself. In a more local context, the proposal would provide affordable housing including homes for key workers as well as infrastructure investment for which there are agreed and pressing needs [CD/NHDC/PRO/1A/REB, appendix 3, paragraph 10(e) and CD/SBC/20]. Notably, Stevenage West does not rely at all on public funding for infrastructure provision and would add to and enhance existing infrastructure for the benefit of the whole community.

31.54 The question as to whether it is right, as an exception to the general approach in PPG1 to

place an embargo on this strategic development because a decision has not been reached in the regional context is one of great importance so far as the development industry and the provision of housing is concerned. It should have to have regard not just to any political considerations, but particularly whether there is in reality any coherent or identifiable objection or detriment that has been demonstrated. It may well be necessary to take into account whether there is any likely indication of fundamental conflict with regional strategy that may justify putting an embargo on this well established strategic proposal. Also whether in reality it is likely that this development will not in fact be required at least over the present regional planning period. In these respects, the relevant aspects of emerging spatial strategy in draft RSS/RPG14 (policies SS1, SS2, SS3, SS6, SS10, SS11, SS13, T2 and H1) closely accords with SP1998 strategy, which the Stevenage West proposals seek to fulfil. Draft RSS/RPG14 policy H1, in particular, requires 72,000 dwellings to be provided in Hertfordshire at a rate of 3,600 per annum over the period 2001-2021. Some 13,300 of these are to be provided in North Hertfordshire District and 6,800 in Stevenage Borough. Both requirements are consistent with the proposal for 5,000 dwellings at Stevenage West and imply significant further release of land for housing [CD/WSC/PRO/10/SUP/REB]. Policy H1A further requires study of the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough growth area to assess the potential for up to 18,000 additional dwellings in response to an undertaking sought by the Government. It also calls for a study of potential housing supply in Hertfordshire [CD/RPG/6, paragraphs 7.4, 7.5 and 7.9]. These studies are to look at what additional provision should be made having regard to the needs of the County as a whole and of the relevant part of the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough growth area. They are also to take account of the views if interested stakeholders, which include WSC [CD/WSC/PRO/10A/SUP/REB, appendix 30, paragraphs 1.11(ii) and 3.4(i)].

31.55 The background to policy H1A is explained in the report to the Regional Planning Panel

(RPP) on 23 January 2004, prior to the submission of draft RSS/RPG14 to the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) [CD/REG/10, paragraphs 4.4(iv), 4.7 and 4.9]. This was then considered by EERA at its meeting on 5 February 2004 [CD/NHDC/PRO/1A/REB, paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7]. In submitting draft RSS/RPG14 to ODPM, EERA stated that it was being presented as a “banked” version pending these further studies, effectively giving voice to the undertaking that had been requested by the Government [CD/WSC/PRO/10A/SUP/REB, appendix 37]. This is plainly not indicative of any intention to review the existing strategic allocation already in place for 5,000 dwellings at Stevenage West [see, for example, CD/WSC/PRO/10A/SUP/REB, appendix 30]. On the contrary, what is being sought is a “banked” step change in provision as in the present version of draft RSS/RPG14 [CD/RPG/6] with an undertaking for further contribution. Multi-modal studies covering the A1(M) also do not diminish the importance of Stevenage as a development location and regional transport interchange, and refer only to inter-regional movements for which A1(M) was not regarded as appropriate in preference to M11 and M1. Neither these studies nor any other changed circumstances alleged by objectors in any way call into question the strategic

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 155

commitment at Stevenage West. Not only is the case of prematurity simply not made out, but there is considerable and identifiable public benefit to be secured in encouraging and supporting development here without further delay or impediment.

Sustainability 31.56 The proposed development would be an urban extension of Stevenage, of a type that

PPG3 recognises to be the next most sustainable option after building on appropriate sites within urban areas [CD/PPG/3, paragraph 67]. This is because such development can utilise existing physical and social infrastructure, public transport, jobs, schools, shopping and leisure facilities, all of which are offered within Stevenage. Development at Stevenage West would also reinforce investment in transport infrastructure particularly given the role of Stevenage Railway Station as a regional interchange centre [CD/RPG/6, policy T2] and the high quality transport links proposed between Stevenage West and the station. The proposed footway and cycleway links would be fully integrated with the town’s existing network, and the town’s existing highway network has ample capacity to accommodate the traffic generated.

31.57 All of these opportunities have been fully recognised in the development of the Master

Plan, with the emphasis on creating a mixed community with high quality opportunities for travel other than by car, and avoiding the inefficient use of land. Stevenage West is a key site in the Government’s sustainable communities agenda, in which English Partnerships is paying an important supporting role [CD/GOV/18, site 10]. There is certainly nothing to warrant departure from the conclusion reached in the EIP report that “[the alternatives] are noticeably less conveniently located than the area to the West of Stevenage in relation to the town centre and the main lines of communication. None of the other strategic locations suggested…comes near to rivalling its strategic advantages” [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 5.16].

31.58 Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council Status of the respective development plans: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (formerly Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) 31.59 For present purposes (leaving aside waste and minerals) the development plan for the

purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 includes SP1998, NHDLP1996 and SDP1994. It is SP1998 that (on any view) identifies land west of the A1(M) as land suitable for a strategic housing allocation for 5,000 dwellings, 3,600 of which are to be completed by 2011 [CD/DP/1d policy 8].

31.60 It is very likely that by the time that the decision concerning these applications is made,

SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d with CD/DP/9h modifications] will have been adopted and will thus have supplanted SDP1994 (subject to any legal challenge).

31.61 From the outset it is important to distinguish between what comprises the development

plan on the one hand and what weight is to be given to the development plan and/or its constituent parts when applying Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 on the other hand. It is also important to distinguish between the question as to whether a local plan policy prevails over an inconsistent Structure Plan policy (section 46(10) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). The question also arises as to

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 156

what weight is to be given to such a local plan policy in the light of more recent policy documents as “material considerations” for the purpose of Section 38(6).

31.62 Both HCC and NHDC concur that not only should considerable weight be placed upon

SDP2004 (as proposed to be modified) but that more weight and importance should be placed upon it than on SDP1994. This is a highly relevant “material consideration”. SBC itself accepts that SDP1994 is not in general conformity with SP1998 and it is plain from the statement of general conformity issued in 1998 that HCC did not intend that it should be considered to be so in 2004 [CD/WSC/PRO/10A]. In effect, that statement says that unless an early review of SDP1994 is carried out in line with SP1998, the Local Plan will not be in conformity. The fact that statements of general conformity have since been issued in respect of both the first and second deposit versions of SDP2004 and the first deposit version of the now withdrawn NHDLP2000 [CD/DP/9j] shows that the earlier plans cannot still be, and were expressly not intended still to be, regarded as in general conformity with SP1998. For the purposes of section 46(10) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, therefore, the Structure Plan prevails over any inconsistent policies of the adopted local plans.

31.63 Insofar as a contrary view may be taken, and entirely without prejudice to the force of

this point, it would be necessary to identify a conflict of policies before section 46(10) could apply in favour of the local plan. Since SDP1994 provides for development only for the period to 2001, a Structure Plan policy in favour of Stevenage West in relation to the period up to 2011 is not in conflict with a Local Plan which is silent as to the period beyond 2001. Moreover, assuming that a conflict could be established, the weight to be given to the Local Plan may still be less than that given to the Structure Plan because the adopted local plan has become even more out of date since the statement of conformity in 1998.

31.64 It is SBC’s view, therefore, that SP1998 Plan prevails in case of conflict with SDP1994

and NHDLP1996, that more weight should in any event be given to SP1998 than to either of these adopted Local Plans and that more weight should be given to SDP2004 than to SDP1994.

31.65 The planning applications accord with SP1998. Both HCC and NHDC argue that

pursuant to SP1998 policy 8, no permission can be granted for PA3 (or PA5) in the absence of adopted local plans giving effect to that policy. HCC made the same point at the SDP2004 Inquiry in contradiction of advice given by its own officers in November 1999 [CD/DP/9i paragraph 5.12 on page 6] and, in the absence of relevant policies other than SP 1998 policies 8 and 9, of written evidence to this Inquiry [CD/HCC/PRO/5 paragraph 9.4].

31.66 It would plainly not be right that NHDC could thwart the purpose and intention of

SP1998 policy providing for PA3 by 2011, simply by refusing to pursue Local Plan review and arguing that such review must be undertaken first. The fact that NHDLP2000 (or similar review) has not progressed to adoption does not mean that policy 8 of SP1998 precludes the grant of permission for Stevenage West.

31.67 Master Planning briefs have been prepared and negotiated by both Councils and

SDP2004 is now very close to adoption. In SBC view, both PA3 and PA5 accord with SP1998 policy 8 and with the dwelling figures for both districts as required by policy 9.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 157

31.68 So far as the Deposit Alterations to the Structure Plan are concerned [CD/DP/2f], SBC accepts that neither PA3 nor PA5 would accord, but little weight can be placed upon SP2003 given that there has been no opportunity for independent scrutiny of its policies and proposals and that no further progress on it is proposed.

31.69 As regards SDP2004, SBC has resolved to accept the recommendation of the Local Plan

Inspector that permission will be subject to the reconsideration and acceptance of the need for the development at a strategic level. That is presently proceeding. However, it is important to bear in mind that the allocation in the Local Plan, as put forward by SBC and endorsed by the Inspector, is for development in accordance with SP1998. The applications before this inquiry therefore accord with the allocation.

Urban capacity 31.70 SBC has serious reservations about HCC’s Urban Capacity study [CD/SBC/19]. The

study represents a mixture of partial survey work and projections, assumptions and assertions. For example, HCC uses a 1:1 allowance that arbitrarily doubles the number of dwellings identified in what are termed the “most accessible areas”. The SDP2004 Inspector was also unconvinced by HCC evidence on the subject presented to the Local Plan Inquiry. He considered it very unlikely that any of the 20 sites assumed by HCC to have development potential in Stevenage could be developed for housing within the plan period [CD/DP/9e paragraphs 3.109-3.110]. He also did not agree that employment land in Stevenage could be released for housing [CD/DP/9e, paragraph 3.132]. The study is therefore much less robust than the urban capacity study undertaken on behalf of SBC by Chesterton to inform SDP2004 [CD/SBC/7]. It is also now being independently reviewed as part of the RSS/RPG14 process, so very little weight should be attached to it. SBC’s view is that only 2,200 dwellings could be accommodated on PDL within the Borough [CD/SBC/17 paragraph 2.30].

Other quantitative matters 31.71 The context for these applications is not only the SP1998 period to 2011, because

SP1998 anticipates development at Stevenage West extending beyond 2011 [CD/DP/1d, policy 8]. The requirements of RSS/RPG14, which will necessarily cover the period to 2011 as well as beyond is also highly material.

31.72 RPG9 states that a higher than past rate of dwelling provision is likely to be necessary to

meet long term needs in the rest of the South East, expected to be in the order of 43,000 dwelling per year [CD/RPG/1b, paragraph 47]. HCC also indicated in a letter to WSC as recently as August 2003 that a main reason for not pursuing SP2003 was the likelihood that Hertfordshire could be required to take much more housing development as a result of emerging RSS/RPG14 to 2021 [CD/WSC/PRO/10A, appendix 9].

31.73 More specifically to Stevenage, the Chelmer population projections to 2021 suggest that

Stevenage needs to build almost 6,000 new homes to meet the demands of natural change in the local population, rising to over 8,000 dwellings if recent migration patterns are taken into account. It is therefore inevitable that some of the growth that cannot be accommodated in Stevenage Borough would need to be accommodated in neighbouring Authority areas on greenfield land [CD/SBC/17appendix 3, paragraphs 3.3-3.4]. This is before identification of Stevenage as a growth area in the Ministerial statement of 2 February 2004 [CD/WSC/PRO/10(1).

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 158

Sustainability 31.74 Sustainability principles underlie the selection of Stevenage West as a strategic

development location [CD/DP/1b] and advice in PPG3 (including on density) has been followed.

Main points of the case for Hertfordshire County Council Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (formerly Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) 31.75 Given the status of the relevant development plans, it is important in the context of

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to appreciate that none of the applications can be severed between the parts that lie within the area of North Hertfordshire District and those that lie within the area of Stevenage Borough. Thus, if the case is made out for the proposals in Stevenage Borough but not North Hertfordshire District (or vice versa), there can be no question of a split decision granting permission for one part while refusing it for the other. Equally, there is no suggestion by WSC that the development would only be viable if permission is granted only for PA3 and not for PA5.

31.76 WSC’s argument that SP1998 allocates Stevenage West for 3,600 or 5,000 dwellings

and that those who oppose the proposal must therefore demonstrate material considerations that would warrant a decision other than in accordance with the development plan is simple, but wrong. The development plan for the purposes of Section 38(6) comprises both Structure Plan and Local Plans. Where there is conflict between the provisions in these various plans, Section 46(10) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) governs which should prevail. The relevant question raised by Section 38(6) is not whether the proposal accords with SP1998 or with any particular policy in it, but rather whether the proposal accords with the development plan taken as a whole.

31.77 SP1998 provides only for Stevenage West to be brought forward through the plan-led

system via reviews of the two local plans, not through the ad-hoc promotion of individual planning applications, as here. This policy approach reflects the pivotal role of Local Plans in the formulation and implementation of development proposals, a point recognised by the SDP2004 Inspector in recommending that provision for Stevenage West should be contingent upon re-affirmation of need at strategic level [CD/DP/9e volume 1 of 2, paragraphs 3.51-3.67 and recommendation on page 90 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1].

31.78 It is also clear from the wording of SP1998 policies that the grant of planning permission

for Stevenage West unless and until the LP reviews have taken matters forward is not envisaged. Thus, policy 8 provides that land will be (not is) identified, and that can only mean identified in some future document or document not in existence when SP1998 was adopted, namely Local Plans. Indeed, the policy continues by affirming that development “will be brought forward through the review of the relevant local plans” and that the split in dwelling numbers between North Hertfordshire District and Stevenage Borough “will be determined in the relevant Local Plans”. Policy 9 follows a similar pattern in its wording (“Local Plans will make provision….”). This is entirely

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 159

consistent with the two part nature of a development plan in a non-unitary area whereby under Section 31 of the 1990 Act Structure Plans are to set out general policies with a (generalised) key diagram and, under Section 36, Local Plans are to set out detailed policies with reasoned justification and a (detailed) Proposals Map. Thus, while the general location of a major strategic development can be referred to in a Structure Plan, it is for Local Plans to establish the detail of any such strategic location including, for example, “specific development site boundaries” (JS Bloor-v-Swindon BC[High Court][2002]PLCR404 at 448, paragraph 122).

31.79 Clearly therefore, SP1998 does not refer to, nor does it provide for, the grant of planning

permission for PA3 in advance of, or in the absence of, Local Plan reviews, and certainly not for PA5 [CD/IPD/4/page 4 bullet point 5]. Since neither the North Hertfordshire nor Stevenage Local Plan Reviews are in place the applications cannot be held to be in accordance with the development plan. It follows that it falls to WSC rather than the respective Local Planning Authorities to demonstrate, under Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, material considerations that would warrant a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

31.80 On this basis, HCC acknowledges that a Local Plan-making Authority that is hostile to a

strategic allocation could seek to frustrate development by failing to bring forward a Local Plan review. However, in this case the High Court has ruled that it was open to North Hertfordshire District Council to decide not to progress, and to withdraw, NHDLP2000 because of a need to assimilate PPG3. In any case, a deliberate and unjustified failure by a Local Planning Authority to progress a Local Plan review could at best be relied upon as a material consideration under Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act and would not change the plain meaning and effect of the words in the statutory development plan or the respective roles of the Structure Plans and Local Plans in such cases.

31.81 All of these points apply with even greater force to PA5. This is because SP1998 does

not earmark Stevenage West for 5,000 dwellings in any event, because the SP1998 period is 1991-2011. While there is nothing to prevent a Structure Plan from indicating an anticipation that development of a strategic site may continue after the plan period, it is not the role of the Structure Plan to allocate land for development in an extended period. Policy 8 identifies Stevenage West only as a site for 3,600 dwellings in the period to 2011, but says only that the Master Plan is to show how 5,000 dwellings could be accommodated. Contemplation as to whether the additional 1,400 dwellings should be provided for in order to meet strategic requirements beyond 2011 is for consideration at the Structure Plan review stage. The non-statutory explanatory memorandum can be relied upon as an aid to interpretation in this respect (CD/DP/1d paragraphs 169,173,181 and 186). Thus for PA5, there is a need for SP review in addition to the LP review required for PA3. SP1998 does not allocate 5,000 dwellings at Stevenage West and the Secretary of State would be wrong in law to hold that it did. Under Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, it accordingly falls to WSC to demonstrate why material considerations indicate that a decision other than in accordance with the development plan should be made at this stage in relation to this point as well.

31.82 With regard to Local Plans, NHDLP1996 and SDP1994 both pre-date SP1998. The

second step upon which SP1998 is based upon as a pre-requisite to the grant of permission for Stevenage West (namely that Local Plans will translate the identification of Stevenage West in SP1998 into detailed allocations) has thus not occurred. Neither

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 160

PA3 nor PA5 would therefore be in accordance with the respective Local Plans and it follows that they would not be in accordance with the development plan taken as a whole (SP and LPs) either. Again, it falls to WSC to demonstrate material considerations that would warrant a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

31.83 There is a further point of law concerning the Local Plans. By virtue of Section 46(10)

of the Town and Country Planning Act 190 (as amended) “The provisions of the Local Plan prevail for all purposes over any conflicting provisions in the relevant Structure Plan unless the Local Plan is one stated under Section 3C not to be in general conformity with the Structure Plan”. Both NHDLP1996 and SDP1994 are subject of Certificates of General Conformity with SP1998 [CD/WSC/PRO/10A, appendix 7]. Consequentially, even if the view is formed that the SP does “allocate” Stevenage West, the respective Local Plans do not. Given that Stevenage West would breach several of the policies in these Local Plans (including those for protection of the Green Belt) [see paragraph 14.5 above], the provisions of SP1998 and of the Local Plans would be in conflict one with the other and the Local Plans must prevail. This is yet another clear basis upon which it must be concluded that the grant of permission for Stevenage West would not be in accordance with the development plan.

31.84 Turning then to the other material considerations, HCC acknowledges that emerging

plans are a material consideration in the context of the second limb of Section 38(6) of the Act. SP2003 has reached second deposit stage and although it has become stalled following GO East intervention [CD/IPD/4] it has not yet been formally withdrawn [memorandum annexed to CD/IPD/4]. SP2003 would erase the proposals for Stevenage West. In consequence of enactment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, HCC accepts that SP2003 is unlikely to progress any further but this leaves draft RSS/RPG14 [CD/RPG/6] as the only means by which the strategic case for Stevenage West can be examined and either endorsed or rejected.

31.85 In North Hertfordshire District, NHDLP2000 [CD/DP/7] has been withdrawn, the High

Court has confirmed the legality of doing so and NHDC now proposes to bring forward a Local Development Framework which would follow in the wake of draft RSS/RPG14. Given that the Local Planning Authority for the larger part of the applications site has decided to await fresh strategic advice this does not support the grant of planning permission as a material consideration. Rather, it militates against the grant of permission unless the strategic case for development at Stevenage West is accepted at the appropriate level of policy making in due course.

31.86 In Stevenage Borough, the smaller part of Stevenage West (approximately 1,000

dwellings of the PA3 scheme) is subject to SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d with proposed modifications in CD/DP/9h]. Given how close this emerging Local Plan is to adoption, it is clearly a material consideration of significant weight and in all likelihood will have become part of the statutory development plan by the time PA3 and PA5 are determined. As matters currently stand, however, it is important to note that SBC intends to adopt the recommendation made by the Local Plan Inspector that Stevenage West should be contingent upon the reconsideration and reaffirmation of the need for the proposed development at a strategic level [CD/DP/9d policy H2, CD/DP/9e volume 1 of 2, paragraphs 3.51-3.67 and recommendation on page 90 and CD/DP/9h, volume 1]. There can therefore be no question of granting permission for Stevenage West on the basis that it would accord with the emerging Local Plan and perfectly correctly SBC does not regard consideration of PA3 and PA5 as the appropriate forum for strategic

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 161

consideration and nor could it be. The only candidate to be such a forum is draft RSS/RPG14. To the extent that the emerging Local Plan is a weighty material consideration, its weight therefore counts against the proposals rather than in favour of them.

31.87 Should SDP2004 be adopted before PA3 and PA5 are determined, the contingent nature

of the Stevenage West allocation would conflict with SP1998 in which the allocation is not contingent. SDP2004 is the subject of a Statement of General Conformity [CD/DP/9J] and on adoption it would therefore prevail over SP1998 in accordance with Section 46(10) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Stevenage West would thus also be in breach of this very up-to-date statutory development plan.

31.88 HCC and SBC do not accept the contention of WSC that it would be unlawful to include

the SDP2004 Local Plan Inspector’s caveat in the Local Plan for adoption, but even so the Local Plan with that caveat would still remain valid unless and until quashed in the High Court (Corbett-v- Restormel BC, Court of Appeal). It would thus be unlawful for the Secretary of State to treat the contingent aspect of the Stevenage West allocation in SDP2004 (in its adopted version) as anything other than valid until WSC has successfully litigated the point. In any event, if WSC is successful in persuading the High Court that the caveat is unlawful, it would be wrong to assume that the Court would simply excise the “offending” words and leave the rest of the allocation to stand. In short, and applying the so-called “blue pencil” test, the whole allocation may be struck out if the basis underlying it is found wanting.

31.89 In sum, matters have moved on considerably since the SP1998 allocation was made.

Neither of the anticipated Local Plan reviews are yet in place and all three Local Planning Authorities involved have concluded that there should be no question of development unless the strategic need is confirmed anew through the RSS/RPG process. Until then, both PA3 and PA5 must be refused.

Prematurity 31.90 There can be no credence in the WSC contention that strategic re-evaluation of the need

for Stevenage West has already been carried out on the basis of the “banked” version of draft RSS/RPG14 [CD/WSC/PRO/10A/SUP/REB appendix 37]. This is because that version has never been put on deposit for public consultation, so has not begun its path towards eventual adoption. EERA itself refers to the housing requirement for the County currently expressed in draft RSS/RPG14 as “interim”, “illustrative” and “indicative” and the consultation version will follow only when the outcome of a number of studies that are currently under way is known [CD/RPG/6 policy H1A]. The so-called “banked version” is not, therefore, even the version that will be put out for consultation at some future date, and what it will contain is thus at present no more than idle speculation. A more plausible interpretation of the word “banked” would be that it was meant simply to enable bids to be considered for the provision of public funds for the infrastructure EERA considers to be pre-requisite to the delivery of development in the region as a whole in the context of this year’s spending review [CD/NHDC/PRO/1A/REB appendix 3 minute of motion based on option 3, sub-paragraph six and appendix 4 fourth paragraph]. Whatever may thus be meant by a “banked” version, draft RSS/RPG14 certainly should not be regarded as settled or as some form of “done deal”, and it cannot be the case that the figures are “banked” in the sense of being only subject to increase. So far as HCC is concerned, it would be

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 162

unlawful for the Secretary of State to agree with WSC that the “banked” version of RSS/RPG14 has already concluded the strategic re-evaluation process. In reality, draft RSS/RPG14 can at this stage be given little, if any, weight.

31.91 It also cannot be the case that this call-in Inquiry can resolve strategic issues in any

event. Issues concerning the appropriateness of a particular location to meet County-wide (or growth corridor or regional) needs and whether development should be brought forward in one time-scale rather than another require the involvement of all relevant parties in the process. However, only two of the 10 Districts in Hertfordshire have been participants in the Inquiry and it is not the task of the Inquiry to settle strategic planning issues in any event. Even SBC, which is supportive of WSC, has made representations to EERA that the RSS/RPG14 process should examine the strategic case for Stevenage West [CD/RPG/3] and acknowledges that it would not be appropriate for this Inquiry to seek to undertake this task. Indeed, the appropriate body is EERA and the process has already been embarked upon through the studies that have recently been commissioned in accordance with draft RSS/RPG14 policy H1A [CD/RPG/6, CD/REG/14]. The terms of reference for the Roger Tym study, for example, include consideration of which of HCC’s or the District Councils’ estimates of Housing Capacity are the most robust [CD/WSC/PRO/10a/SUP/REB, appendix 30]. Once those studies are complete, the results will be fed into a revised draft of RSS/RPG14, the document will be debated at an EIP and the Panel’s report will in turn inform the final decision on the content of RSS/RPG14. The report of this Inquiry will not be fed into that process, but it may be regarded as a certainty that if Stevenage West is countenanced in draft RSS/RPG14, HCC (and others) will object and that it will be a subject debated at the EIP. This further reduces the weight attaching to the emerging strategy/guidance. In effect, EERA, HCC NHDC and SBC all advocate strategic review of the need for and appropriateness of Stevenage West and that process of review still has some considerable way to go before any firm conclusions can be reached. It simply cannot be concluded now, in advance of completion of the RPG process, and through the consideration of PA3 and PA5, that Stevenage West is still required and appropriate to meet strategic needs, whether in what remains of the SP1998 period, or the RSS/RPG14 period or any phase of it. Moreover, draft RSS/RPG14 refers to developments of sub-regional scale and sites far smaller in terms of units than PA3 or PA5, so it cannot be right for WSC to argue that Stevenage West falls below the eyeline of the RSS/RPG process [CD/RPG/6 paragraphs 5.1, pages 48 and 51, policy HG3, page 73, paragraphs 5.128 and 5.130]. In all these circumstances, the Secretary of State would be wholly wrong to pre-empt the outcome of the RSS/RPG14 process by granting permission for either pair of applications.

31.92 PPG1 [CD/PPG/1] contains further advice on the subject of prematurity. It says that if a

proposal is so substantial that to grant planning permission for it would prejudice the outcome of the policy-making process by pre-determining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of development which ought properly be taken in the context of preparing the policy document in question, then permission should be refused. While this does not refer, in terms, to RPG, that is unsurprising because PPG1 pre-dates enactment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. This now lends statutory development plan status to RSS. There can be no doubt, for example, that had PA3 and/or PA5 been submitted when SP1998 was in its formative deposit stage, it would have been held to be premature in PPG1 terms. Likewise, the RSS/RPG14 process would be fundamentally undermined by granting permission for Stevenage West before it has been decided at strategic level whether the development is needed to meet County-wide, sub-regional or regional needs and, if so, when.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 163

Urban capacity 31.93 Identification of Stevenage West in SP1998 was based upon the EIP Panel’s conclusion

that “there is no reasonable prospect of progress with regeneration removing or diminishing the need for supplementary provision” [CD/DP/1b, paragraph 4.62]. However, evidence shows that the Panel’s conclusion has turned out to be hopelessly wrong. This is not least because of the far better than anticipated performance of the Districts in delivering development on PDL since the SP1998 base date of 1991. There is every likelihood that this will continue through what remains of the SP1998 period to 2011. In those circumstances, Stevenage West is neither essential nor critical to delivery of the SP1998 housing requirement. Indeed, even if PA3 or PA5 were to be permitted expeditiously (that is to say in early 2005) WSC accepts that the site could only be expected to contribute 1,700 dwellings by 2011[CD/WSC/PRO/1, paragraphs 2.13.6 – 2.13.11]. That would represent less than half the 3,600 originally earmarked by SP1998 policy 8 [CD/DP/1d, page 55]. Even lower figures may actually be delivered, which hardly makes it imperative to short-circuit the RSS/RPG14 process.

31.94 It is also the case that Stevenage West has only ever been advanced as a strategic site to

meet County-wide needs. There has never been any suggestion that it is required to meet the needs of any particular District and in fact SP1998 clearly indicates the reverse to be the case [CD/DP/1d, paragraphs 186 and 187]. Similarly, to the extent that the housing requirement for the County is being considered through the RSS/RPG14 process, the Secretary of State should not be drawn into the debate on housing capacity through this Inquiry [CD/IPD/2, CD/IPD/5]. All that needs to be noted is that the evidence before the Inquiry that contrary to the EIP Panel’s pessimistic predictions, it is at the very least arguable that Stevenage West is not required to meet the County’s needs to 2011 (or beyond). In particular, HCC is able to draw on the District Council’s estimates of capacity to demonstrate that Stevenage West is not required, even though these are lower than HCC’s own estimates [CDHCC/PRO/5, table 7 and paragraph 6.10, table 8 and paragraph 6.14, table 9 and paragraph 6.17, table 10 and paragraph 6.20, paragraph 6.23, table 11 and paragraph 6.25, table 12 and paragraph 6.27, table 13 and paragraph 6.29 and table 14 and paragraph 6.36].

31.95 There is no substance in the suggestion that the SP1998 housing requirement for 65,000

dwellings [CD/DP/1d, policy 9, page 56] is a minimum or near minimum requirement. In fact the EIP Panel considered that there would be significant environmental risks posed by even an additional 1,500 or so [CD/DP/1b, paragraphs 3.16, 3.21 and 3.22]. The reality is that Stevenage West was identified in SP1998 to make up the 65,000 dwelling requirement and not to act as some form of extra over-provision. Such a massive green field development should not therefore be released on the basis of an argument that it would provide some form of cushion. Indeed, experience in Hertfordshire has shown that over-provision in one cycle of plan-making is not redressed in the next, but is instead absorbed into ever-increasing housing requirements at Regional level.

31.96 Turning to the figures, housing capacity figures have been put forward to the RPB by

HCC, and HCC considers these robust [CD/HCC/ PRO/5 table 10 on page 72]. They indicate that Stevenage West is not required within the SP1998 period. Alternative figures put to the RPB by the District Councils indicate lower capacity, and the RPB has commissioned a study to identify which estimate is the most reliable

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 164

[CD/WSC/PRO/10A/SUP/REB]. Even on the District’s figures, however, development of Stevenage West would not be required during the period to 2011.

31.97 In order to meet the SP1998 requirement of 65,000 dwellings over the period 1991-2011

(20 years) there would need to be an average of 3,250 completions per annum. In fact, there have been 42,282 completions in the first 12 years of the SP1998 period [CD/HCC/PRO/5 paragraph 6.3], equating to an annual average of 3,523 dwellings. This overshoots the requirement, which for the same 12 year period amounts to 39,000 dwellings, by about 3,200 completions or about the same number as PA3 would provide at Stevenage West. For the remaining 8 years of the SP1998 period, completions would only need to be achieved at a rate of 2,840 per annum to meet the residual housing requirement [CD/DP/13]. Thus, even if completions dropped by some 20%, the SP1998 requirement would still be met.

31.98 Monitoring of housebuilding in the County further shows that 28,044 dwellings were

completed in the period 1991-2003 on PDL [CD/WSC/PRO/10A, table at appendix 14, figure in bottom right hand corner]. That equates to a rate of 2,337 per annum over the first 12 years of the SP1998 period. WSC suggests, however, a sizeable impending shortfall [CD/WSC/PRO/10/SUP/REB, paragraphs 3.10 and 3.11] which arises from a suggestion that the HCC approach to future forecasting is not appropriate [CD/HCC/PRO/5/REB paragraphs 14.1 –14.4]. In essence, HCC calculates anticipated housing provision for the period 2003–2011 firstly by counting all existing commitments as at 1 April 2003 and then adding estimated capacity to 2011. The latter is derived by dividing the District Council’s estimated capacity figures for the 18 years 2003-2021 by eighteen before multiplying by eight to apportion this to the eight years 2003-2011 (the 8/18ths formula). A 5% non-implementation rate is applied both to commitments and forecast capacity. WSC instead advocates applying the 8/18ths formula to both commitments and capacity, rather than applying the 5% discount used by HCC. On this latter basis, PDL commitments would, in WSC’s estimation, contribute 13,673 dwellings [CD/WSC/PRO/10A appendix 22, tabulation at end as appendix 1, foot of column 5, less “greenfield and 5% adjustment]. The contribution from estimated future capacity would be 24,543 dwellings [CD/HCC/PRO/5 table 10 with footnote 36]. After applying the 8/18ths formula this would give an anticipated rate of 2,123 dwellings per annum.

31.99 Moreover, sites totalling 724 units in North Hertfordshire District have been contested

by WSC [CD/WSC/PRO/10/SUP/REB, tabulation on page 13]. None have been questioned in Stevenage and WSC says that details for the other eight Hertfordshire Districts are not available. So, deducting 724 from the total of allocations and capacity (38,216) would give 37,492 as a revised total and applying the 8/18ths formula to that would give an expectation of 2,083 completions per annum over the period 2003-2011, representing about 89% of the rate achieved in the period 1991-2003. If a similar reduction to that for North Hertfordshire District were to be made arbitrarily for the other eight districts, WSC suggests that the figure may reduce to about 2,000 per annum or about 86% of the rate achieved in 1991-2003. This compares with HCC’s own figure anticipating 3,300 completions per annum (15,444+10,908÷8yrs) [CD/HCC/PRO/5, paragraphs 6.3, 6.4 and 6.21 and table 10]. In effect, application of the 8/18ths formula in the manner suggested by WSC results in a considerable distortion of the figures amounting to a non-implementation rate of some 56% on a capacity assessment to 2021.

31.100 There is no reason why completions should dry up or tail off to the extent forecast by

WSC, and their means of calculation would appear to have started with an end result and

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 165

then worked backwards to try to justify it. Indeed, “Tapping the Potential” [CD/PPG/3c page 34] advises that there is no evidence of PDL performance dropping off even in areas of high and sustained development pressure. The lowest rate of completions in the first 12 years of the SP1998 period was 1,958 dwellings, and no explanation is proffered by WSC as to why this pessimistically low rate should be the norm from now on.

31.101 The District Council’s own predictions of capacity on PDL suggest 26,352 completions

in the remaining 8 years of the SP1998 period [CD/HCC/PRO/5 table 10 15,444+10,908], equating to 3,294 dwellings per annum without Stevenage West and would result in the requirement being overshot by some 3,634 dwellings. In order to make a case for Stevenage West the District’s estimates would need to drop to some 73% of their projections or to some 68% of the annual average rate of completions to date.

31.102 All of these points should be considered in the light of the SP1998 EIP Panel’s

conclusion that the District Councils had considerably understated capacity [CD/DP/1b, paragraphs 4.43 and 4.46].

31.103 While the SP1998 EIP Panel declined to accept HCC’s suggested “contingent” approach

to Stevenage West [CD/DP/1b paragraphs 4.61 and 4.62], that pre-dated the “plan, monitor and manage” approach to planning for housing, introduced by PPG3 [CD/PPG/3] supplanting the former “predict and provide” approach. Under the now prevailing PPG3 regime, there would be no question of allocating Stevenage West regardless of PDL performance over the ensuing years of the development plan. HCC was ahead of its time in this regard. With the introduction of PPG3, Stevenage West should not be regarded as sacrosanct and immune from the process of strategic review. SDP2004 treats Stevenage West on a contingent basis and is now nearing formal adoption. In strict terms, it may therefore be held that the advice in paragraph 38 of PPG3, which relates only to the interim period before Local Plans (not Structure Plans) are reviewed, only applies directly to the part of Stevenage West that lies within the purview of NHDLP1996. To the extent that the pairs of applications cannot be severed between the two Local Planning Authorities’ areas, this alone would suggest that given the caveat included in SDP2004 (requiring strategic review of the Stevenage West allocation), the only decision that can be made at present would be refusal of permission. That point aside, the underlying requirement of paragraph 38 of PPG3 is that the decision maker should apply the policies in PPG3 when considering whether or not to grant planning permission. Before completion of the RSS/RPG14 process it is clear that even on the District Council’s own capacity estimates, combined with the fact that Stevenage West can only now deliver less than half the 3,600 dwellings originally anticipated by 2011, there is no longer a case for granting PA3 (let alone PA5).

31.104 The interpretation that WSC seeks to have applied to paragraph 38 of PPG3 is entirely

incorrect. Firstly, it is argued by WSC that strategic green field sites are immune from PDL performance, while sub-strategic sites are not. That is tantamount to suggesting that a lot of green field sites collected together in one location do not need to be reviewed against the availability of PDL while individual greenfield sites scattered far and wide do have to be. Secondly, it is suggested by WSC that the need to grant permission for strategic sites can be assessed by comparison against non site-specific capacity. However, it cannot be the case that reference in paragraph 38 to comparison with “available” PDL is intended to make urban capacity estimates irrelevant and a non site specific comparison cannot form the basis of a review of the allocation in

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 166

determining a planning application. Thirdly it is submitted by WSC that PDL outside North Hertfordshire District or Stevenage Borough should be disregarded. It is impossible to understand how that could be the case with a strategic site that was included in SP1998 in order to address county-wide issues. It is the County Council’s submission that not only would WSC’s approach be contrary to that taken by the Secretary of State in the case referred to by WSC at Grazeley in Reading [CD/WSC/PRO/10/10 paragraphs 7 and 9], but that it would also be unlawful to approach the decision in any of these ways advanced by WSC.

31.105 WSC’s point that urban capacity assessments cannot be used in development control

decision-making while agreeing that they can be used in plan formulation (including the formulation of RSS/RPG) is illogical. If that were to be the case, a strategic site could be retained in or removed from a Structure Plan or RSS/RPG on the basis of capacity assessment, but when it comes to deciding whether or not to grant permission some years later on, the decision maker’s hands are tied. It is wrong as a matter of first principle to seek to restrict the range of material considerations that can be taken into account when it comes to determining planning applications, especially for a development as huge as Stevenage West.

31.106 “Planning to Deliver” [CD/GOV/8] cannot alter the meaning of PPG3, whatever it

intends to advise. It refers to strategic sites as being “essential” and “critical…..building blocks” in delivering the strategy for an area. So that there is no doubt about HCC’s position, it is submitted that it cannot be right to read the advice as meaning that, when it comes to making a decision as to whether or not to grant permission for development of a strategic site, that such sites are immune from an assessment of whether under a plan, monitor and manage regime, the development is still necessary and appropriate to fulfil the original objectives.

Main points of the case for North Hertfordshire District Council Strategy 31.107 It is an agreed position that this case is concerned with the application and not the

formulation of policy. Consideration of the applications must therefore focus on whether Stevenage West is needed to meet SP1998 housing requirements to 2011 and not be concerned with the period post 2011 for which there is no current development plan policy framework [CD/GO/5]. The emerging regional strategy will in due course provide the policy framework beyond 2011.

31.108 It is also now over 6 years since the adoption of SP1998 and over 7 years since its EIP.

There have been significant changes over that period of time in the approach to be taken to planning for housing, voiced for example in PPG3 [CD/PPG/3a], published in March 2000. These changes make it appropriate and necessary to revisit the question of whether Stevenage West is the right way forward in the light of up to date monitoring information. Furthermore the emerging regional planning context, which places Stevenage and Hertfordshire in the East of England region rather than in the South East Region, means that decisions made 6 or 7 years ago may no longer be the correct or appropriate ones in the light of a changing regional framework.

31.109 The main element of the development strategy of SP1998 is “planned regeneration”

within the existing urban areas coupled with limited peripheral development where

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 167

planned regeneration opportunities have been fully explored [CD/DP/1d policy 7]. A significant issue at the EIP was the extent to which the County’s housing requirement could be achieved within that strategy and without the need for major greenfield releases. The EIP Panel had a wide divergence of views before it on this issue relating to the residual requirement for 21,000 additional dwellings (65,000 requirement less 44,000 completions). The County’s view was that not less than 15,000 would be achieved by planned regeneration [CD/DP/1d paragraph 4.3] and that there was some prospect of meeting the balance of 6,000 from planned regeneration and surplus employment land [CD/DP/1d paragraphs 4.4 and 4.35]. The District Councils’ position (supported at that time by North Hertfordshire District Council and changing to opposition only when it became apparent that land within North Hertfordshire would be required to make up the strategic shortfall) was that land for only 10,000 dwellings could be delivered through planned regeneration. The District Council’s did, however, emphasise a willingness to exploit whatever potential appeared [CD/DP/1d paragraph 4.28]. The Panel took a position midway between that of the County and the Districts, concluding that it would be reasonable to plan on the basis of 15,000 dwellings coming forward from regeneration and surplus employment sites including 1,000 dwellings from peripheral development [CD/DP/1d paragraphs 4.46 and 4.50]. In relation to the balance of 6,000 dwellings (21,000 residual requirement less 15,000) the Panel concluded that “there is no realistic prospect of progress with regeneration removing or diminishing the need for supplementary provision for 6,000 dwellings” [CD/DP/1d paragraph 4.62]. It was on the basis of this conclusion that the EIP Panel recommended a range of sites for major housing development among which Stevenage West was included as an allocation for 3,600 dwellings to be provided in the period to 2011[CD/DP/1d, annex E].

31.110 Thus the allocation is entirely based upon and justified by the judgement of the Panel

that there was no prospect of these housing numbers being achieved through planned regeneration, including on employment land. If that judgement can now be seen to have been wrong then there can be no good reason to persist with this huge greenfield and Green Belt housing allocation. Indeed, there is now available considerably more up to date information, including monitoring data, which was not available to the EIP Panel in 1997, showing precisely this.

Urban Capacity 31.111 County wide housing completions data is now available for the period 1991 – 2003, and

demonstrates that there has been good progress towards the attainment of the Structure Plan requirement of 65,000 dwellings. Based on a constant annual build rate over the period, some 39,000 dwellings would have been provided (65,000 x 12/20). In fact 42,282 net completions have been achieved, which is 3,282 in excess of the annualised requirement. If this rate were to continue through to 2011, which GoEast accepts is likely to happen [CD/GO/2 page 2 second paragraph], it would result in Hertfordshire providing 70,480 net additional dwellings in the plan period. This would be well in excess of the Structure Plan requirement of 65,000 [CD/NHDC/PRO/1 Table 2 on page 24].

31.112 By more detailed calculation, the effect of taking into account existing planning

permissions and PDL allocations in Local Plans, both discounted by a 5% non implementation allowance would result in commitments of 15,445 dwellings [CD/NHDC/PRO/1 table 3 on page 25]. Adding these to the completions that have already occurred gives a total of 57,727 against a requirement of 65,000; a shortfall of

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 168

just 7,275 assessed as at the 1st April 2003 when there was still 8 years of the Structure Plan period yet to run.

31.113 Account must then be taken of the available urban capacity in the County in the period to

2011. Estimates of urban capacity are given by both the County and the Districts in the context of the emerging regional guidance covering the period 2003-2021. The County’s figure for urban capacity is 34,856 dwellings, while that of the Districts is 24,540 dwellings [CD/NHDC/PRO/1 tables 5 and 6 on pages 28-29]. For the purposes of this Inquiry it is sufficient if the lower District wide figure is correct; in reality the actual figure for urban capacity is likely to be higher than that estimated by the Districts who historically have considerably understated capacity. What is the “correct” figure for urban capacity will be examined through the emerging regional guidance, where the figures for individual districts can be analysed. This Inquiry is not equipped to undertake any such critical analysis given that only 2 of the 10 individual districts are represented. However, it may be asserted with some confidence that the final figure for the urban capacity of the County will be at least the District Council figure and is very likely to be higher. Whether it proves to be as high as the figure put forward by the County Council remains to be seen. However the resolution of that difference does not affect the outcome in this case.

31.114 The next step in the calculation is to adjust these figures relating to the period 2003-

2021 to reflect the period 2003-2011. The approach of the County Council and the North Hertfordshire District Council to take 8/18 of the total is a reasonable one, 8 years being the number of years to 2011 and 18 years the number of years to 2021. It is likely to be an underestimate not least because it is obviously easier to identify urban capacity in the near future than it is to identify it over a longer time period. The urban capacity figures are likely to be front loaded such that the effect of using 8/18 will mean the resultant figure is in the nature of a minimum figure. The analysis undertaken, which has used minimum figures at each stage of the calculation, is therefore soundly based and robust. The result demonstrates that, on the basis of the County’s assessment, 73,220 dwellings are likely to be provided by 2011, while the equivalent figure is 68,635 on the basis of the Districts’ estimations [CD/NHDC/PRO/1 tables 7 and 8 on page 30]. In either case the 65,000 dwellings required by SP1998 would easily be achieved; the surplus being over 8,000 dwellings on the County figures and over 3,630 dwellings on the District figures.

31.115 The picture does not change if regard is had to the slightly higher dwelling requirement

arising from applying the RPG9 (2001) annual average rate of 3,280 [CD/RPG/1b policy H2 on page 48] equating to a total of 32,800 dwellings over the period 2001 – 2011 [CD/NHDC/PRO/1 tables 9 and 10 on page 36]. The dwelling requirement figure is comfortably exceeded on the basis of the County’s figure (37,307) while on the basis of the District figure an almost exact match is achieved (32,722). The small deficit of just 78 dwellings would in reality be more than compensated for by the fact that the District figures are, as already explained, likely to be minimum figures. Furthermore there will inevitably be dwelling completions on small scale sustainable greenfield sites in the period to 2011. The submission to EERA includes 3,143 dwelling units on greenfield allocations within local plans likely to come forward before 2016. Even if this figure were heavily discounted 32,800 dwellings would easily be achieved on the basis of the District figures.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 169

31.116 Turning to the position in North Hertfordshire District, the SP1998 requirement is for 10,400 dwellings. This includes 2,600 dwellings at Stevenage West, being the District’s share of the strategic allocation of 3,600 [CD/DP1d, policy 9]. SP1998 makes clear, however, that North Hertfordshire should not come under pressure to provide land for the 2,600 dwellings other than at Stevenage West; any shortfall in performance at Stevenage West can only be re-assessed on a county wide basis [CD/DP1d, paragraphs 186 and 187]. Thus the overall dwelling requirement of 10,400 is made up of two separate and independent components. Effectively, 7,800 dwellings represents the District’s own requirement, while the 2,600 represents its share of the county wide strategic housing requirement. The SDP2004 Inspector recognised that the strategic allocation is “ring-fenced” in the sense that any “under-performance in dwelling completions at Stevenage West in either district would not be a ‘local problem’ but an issue to be addressed County-wide through alterations to the Structure Plan” [CD/DP/9e volume 1, paragraphs 3.123 and 3.124 on page 112].

31.117 Analysing in detail the individual urban capacity of North Hertfordshire District is of

limited assistance in this case and is relevant only in so far as it helps establish that North Hertfordshire will (or will not) by 2011 deliver more houses than are needed to achieve the 7,800 dwellings required by SP1998 policy 9. To the extent that it can be demonstrated that the District will be able to deliver in excess of 7,800 dwellings then it follows that a contribution equal to that excess would be made towards meeting the strategic housing requirement of 3,600 dwellings. The position in North Hertfordshire is, nonetheless, only relevant to assessing the situation in North Hertfordshire and tells nothing about the position in any of the other Districts in the county.

31.118 For the record, the housing land supply position in the District is as follows:

District dwelling requirement 7,800

Completions 1991- 2003 5,454

Completions 2003 - 2004 506

5,960

Residual requirement 1,840

[These are agreed figures per CD/NHDC/PRO/1 paragraph 6.25 on page 34, CD/NHDC/PRO5(2) and WSC/PRO/10(8)].

31.119 Thus, in the first 13 years of the Structure Plan period 76% of the dwelling requirement

has been met at an annual average completion rate of 458 dwellings. In the remaining 7 years just 1,840 dwellings need to be provided equivalent to 263 dwellings per annum. This rate is only 57% of the historic rate actually achieved. It is a rate that has been exceeded in every year but one (1999) since 1991 [CD/NHDC/PRO/4/REB/1 and CD/WSC/PRO/10A appendix 14]. Furthermore, the percentage of completions on PDL have been increasing year on year since 2000 – 2001:

2000 – 1 19% 2001 – 2 30% 2002 – 3 51% 2003 – 4 70%

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 170

PDL completions have also exceeded the rate of 263 p.a. required for the last 3 years, and significantly so in the last 2 years [CD/NHDC/PRO/4/REB/1].

31.120 In terms of existing commitments, there were 1,004 greenfield sites with planning

permission as at 1 April 2003 [CD/WSC/PRO/10A Appendix 17 final page, column P]. Allowing for 5% non-completion means that 954 dwellings would be provided on greenfield sites. Assuming that all the 150 greenfield completions in 2003-4 [CD/NHDC/PRO/4/REB/1] come out of the 954, there would be 804 completions on greenfield sites in the period 2004 – 2011. Thus of the residual requirement of 1,840 completions and once 804 greenfield commitments have been deducted, sites for just 1,036 dwellings would be needed on PDL to achieve the District’s 7,800 dwelling requirement. This is equivalent to an annual rate of 148 per annum, which is significantly below the average PDL completions rate since 1991 of 255 per annum, and just 58% of the historic rate. Moreover, in the post PPG3 world one would expect the PDL completion rate to be higher than the historical rate given both the policy encouragement to bring forward PDL coupled with increased densities on those sites which do come forward.

31.121 WSC’s revised housing calculations as at 1st April 2003 themselves show that land is

available to secure 2,199 dwellings by 2011 (7,563 – 5,454) [CD/WSC/PRO/10(8)]. That equates to 275 dwellings per annum (2,199 ÷ 8), which is also significantly below the historic rate of 458 p.a. This analysis of itself demonstrates the implausibility of the figures and shows that the WSC analysis cannot be relied on.

31.122 Even on the WSC analysis (as at 1st April 2003) North Hertfordshire District would

produce 7,653 dwellings by 2011 [CD/WSC/PRO/10(8)]. This would be just 147 dwellings short of the 7,800 District requirement. However in order for the supply to be restricted to 7,653 dwellings WSC would have to be correct on all the matters where issue is taken with the NHDC figures [CD/WSC/PRO/10a/SUP/REB, appendix 26 column V] including the contributions from education land and employment land [CD/WSC/PRO/10(8) comparison of the two columns]. By contrast the NHDC analysis [CD/WSC/PRO/10(8) right hand column] shows 9,110 dwellings, a surplus of 1,310 that would contribute towards the 2,600 strategic requirement otherwise anticipated by SP1998 to come from Stevenage West. It should also be noted that the 9,110 dwellings figure is not one that North Hertfordshire District Council regards with any accuracy, the actual figure in the Council’s submission being 9,204 dwellings [CD/NHDC/PRO/1 paragraph 6.25 on page 34 and CD/NHDC/ PRO/1(2) REB page 43]. This has since been up-dated to give a figure of 9,459 dwellings as at 29 February 2004 [CD/NHDC/PRO/4/REB tabulation on page 43 and paragraph 5.4], the increase arising mainly from an increased out-turn on commitments relative to the town centre and homogenous residential area allowances. It is acknowledged, however, that the base date for calculation agreed with WSC is 1 April 2003.

31.123 Indeed, WSC now accepts that there will be 204 dwellings on “allocated” PDL sites

[CD/WSC/PRO/10(8), third row, left hand column]. That is well below the comparable figure advanced by the District Council [CD/WSC/PRO/10(8), third row, right hand column], but would mean that even on the WSC analysis the District will exceed the 7,800 requirement (7,653+204=7,857]. To the extent that WSC is wrong on any of the individual components, the excess would be greater.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 171

31.124 For example, as to employment land (for which WSC makes no further allowance) there are bound to be further planning permissions leading to dwelling completions by 2011 and the position adopted by WSC in that respect is obviously untenable. There is, in fact, a number of employment sites in the pipeline which are likely to become re-used for housing. These include the Ransome’s site (100+ dwellings by Bellway) [CD/WSC/PRO4/REB paragraph 3.20] and the Brooker site (40 dwellings) [CD/WSC/PRO4/REB paragraph 3.22], which have emerged even since 1 April 2003. Employment sites have historically made a material contribution towards dwelling completions in the District providing an average of 94 units per annum at mainly pre- PPG3 densities [CD/NHDC/PRO/1/REB page 22 tabulation]. The same average applied to the period 2003-2011 would give 752 completions, which is well in excess of the County Council estimate of 656 additional dwellings on employment land. The figures relied on by WSC are 100 at Walsworth Road and 47 at Pixmore Avenue giving a total of 147 dwellings (just 20% of the historic average) or 247 with the Ransome’s site (just 33% of the historic average) [CDWSC/PRO/10(5) page 17 (Walsworth Road) and CD/WSC/PRO/10a/SUP/REB (Pixmore Avenue)].

31.125 NHDC submits that 9,459 dwellings will be completed in the SP1998 period 1991-2011

[NHDC/PRO/4/REB]. This figure is itself bound to be an underestimate because it no longer includes any explicit element of unidentified sites. The new figures for increased capacity allowance, town centre allowance, homogenous residential area allowance and rural areas merely reflect the permissions granted since 1st April 2003, discounted by 5%. Thus NHDC’s position is that not only will the District achieve the SP1998 requirement of 7,800 dwellings, but it is likely to be able to contribute in excess of 1,659 dwellings towards the countywide strategic requirement of 3,600 without relying on Stevenage West.

31.126 Although WSC has sought to criticise the urban capacity work carried out by Halcrows

and NHDC Herts, it is generally in accordance with Tapping the Potential [CD/PPG/3c]. Any differences are explained in Appendix A of the Halcrow Final Report [CD/NHDC/8]. Moreover Government advice is that “the guide is not intended to be the ‘final word’ on assessing urban capacity nor indeed does it attempt to prescribe how urban capacity studies should be carried out” [CD/PPG/3c]. The guidance further makes it clear that it is important “that all potential sources of housing capacity are considered”. That is precisely what NHDC has sought to do, albeit that individual landowners have not yet had the opportunity to bring other sites to the attention of the Council.

31.127 WSC has also suggested in evidence that under paragraph 38 of PPG3 [CD/PPG/3a]

regard can only be had to identified and available previously developed sites when assessing an application relating to a greenfield site. As a matter of language that is not what the paragraph says. The concluding words of paragraph 38 are that such comparison “will be particularly relevant”. What needs to be assessed is whether the evidence demonstrates that the dwelling requirements can be met from completions likely to occur on previously developed land. In making this assessment regard must be had to all the strands of urban capacity identified in the urban capacity work that has been carried out, both specific site based work and trend based analysis.

31.128 Lastly on this subject it is evident that there is now no prospect of Stevenage West

providing 3,600 dwellings by 2011. The likelihood is that no more than about 1,700 dwellings will be completed by 2011 [CD/WSC/PRO/1 pages 42-44 as amplified by

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 172

WSC in oral evidence]. Numerically this means that only about 44% of PA3 will contribute to the SP1998 requirements to 2011, with the balance of 2,000 dwellings (56%) contributing to the post 2011 period. In relation to PA5 the corresponding figures are 32% in the period to 2011 and 68% in the post 2011 period. None of the balance between 3,600 and 5,000 dwellings (1400 dwellings) will be provided until well after 2011. Given that the development will therefore contribute primarily to the period post 2011 and not to the period up to 2011 there needs to be a particularly clear case on the issue of housing numbers to justify the release of this large greenfield and Green Belt site now on the basis of the contribution it can make to housing requirements to 2011. It is clear that there is more than adequate urban capacity to absorb the limited contribution that Stevenage West can be expected to make in the period to 2011. In reality the grant of a planning permission would fetter decisions yet to be made as to the proper direction and quantum of housing growth in the post 2011 period, the options for which are yet to be determined in forthcoming regional guidance.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (formerly Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) 31.129 It is a requirement of SP1998 that the planning of Stevenage West be brought forward

through the review of both the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan and Stevenage Borough Local Plan [CD/DP/1d policies 8 and 9]. That has not happened and because these applications seek planning permission in advance of the reviews of the local plans they are not in accordance with SP1998.

31.130 Moreover, policies 8 and 9 allocate land at Stevenage West only for 3,600 dwellings in

the period to 2011. There is no allocation for 5,000 dwellings, which are only referred to in Policy 8 in the context of the Master Plan providing for an initial phase of 5,000 dwellings and in the longer term a possible second phase of a further 5,000 dwellings. Thus PA5 is not supported by, and is not in accordance with, SP1998.

31.131 Nor are the applications in accordance with the policies of either of the adopted Local

Plans. NHDLP1996 [CD/DP/6] shows the site as lying within the defined countryside, in the approved Green Belt and partly within a Landscape Conservation Area. The site is similarly shown in SDP1994 [CD/DP/8a].

31.132 In the light of all of these factors and upon a proper analysis, it is thus apparent that these

applications are not in accordance with the policies of the development plan such that in the context of Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act planning permission should be refused unless material circumstances indicate otherwise. The grant of planning permission in this case thus depends upon “other material considerations.”

31.133 That this is the correct analysis of the formal development plan situation is confirmed by

having regard to the certificates of general conformity issued by the County Council in July 1998 [CD/WSC/PRO/10A appendix 7]. This constitutes the formal statement required by Section 35C of the 1990 Act (as amended) stating whether or not earlier adopted Local Plans are or are not considered to be in general conformity with the more recently approved structure plan. The letter (in this instance the one to North Hertfordshire District Council) states in terms that “All ten adopted district local plans, including that of North Hertfordshire District are, in so far as they are able to be, considered to be still in general conformity with the Structure Plan Review 1991 – 2011”. The consequence of that clear statement of general conformity is that, by virtue

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 173

of section 46(10) of the Act “the provisions of the Local Plans prevail for all purposes over any conflicting provisions in the relevant Structure Plan.”

31.134 The emerging Stevenage District Plan Second Review 1991 – 2011 is at an advanced

stage of preparation, Proposed Modifications have been published following receipt of an inspector’s Local Plan Inquiry report, and adoption is anticipated late in 2004. It is a document to which considerable weight can be attached. There was considerable debate at the Local Plan Inquiry as to how Stevenage West should be dealt with. The Inspector reached clear conclusions on this issue which are set out at paragraph 3.64 of his report as follows:

“Firstly, in order for this Local Plan to be in general conformity with the adopted Structure Plan it must satisfy Policy 8 of that Plan and identify land west of the A1(M) for the development of about 1,000 dwellings. Secondly, there is considerable uncertainty over the strategic justification for that development, particularly given the national policy guidance introduced by PPG3. Given that uncertainty, the Local Plan should make it clear that the identified land cannot be granted planning permission for the proposed development until and if the strategic justification for it has been reconsidered and accepted. If the strategic justification for the development is not made, either in the emerging structure plan or within some other framework, then this Local Plan will need to be the subject of a review to delete that part of the proposed new settlement west of the A1(M) at Stevenage or otherwise to respond to the revised strategic policy framework. Finally I consider this approach would ensure the Local Plan remained in general conformity with the adopted Structure Plan whilst reflecting the changes in circumstances, such as the publication of revised PPG3, that have occurred since the Structure Plan was adopted. It would therefore most appropriately respond to the current situation.”

31.135 This recommendation has been accepted by Stevenage Borough Council and is the

subject of a proposed modification to the draft Plan [CD/DP/9h volume 1 of 2, policy H2 on page 27 of 111] which proposes that “the allocated land is safeguarded from development pending reconsideration and acceptance of its strategic justification.”

31.136 The 2nd Deposit draft Plan has been certified as being in general conformity with the

adopted Structure Plan (see DP/9J). Therefore by virtue of Section 46(10) of the 1990 Act, once the Plan is adopted (likely to be in the autumn 2004) its policies, including the caveat to H2 above, will “prevail for all purposes over conflicting provisions in the relevant structure plan”. Thus, far from being a material consideration in favour of the grant of planning permission, a consideration of the soon to be adopted Stevenage Local Plan review reinforces the case that the planning applications should be refused.

Prematurity 31.137 SP1998 runs to 2011 as does SDP2004. There is no development plan document

(adopted or draft) which addresses development requirements post 2011. This was to be addressed through the Structure Plan Review to 2016 but is now to be addressed through the emerging RSS/RPG14 to 2021. RSS/RPG 14 [CD/RPG/6] is at a very early stage; it

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 174

has not yet been published for consultation and the consultation draft is unlikely to be published before October 2004. In the so-called “banked” version, housing Policy H1 [CD/RPG/6 page 169] is expressly caveated by policy H1A which says that the proposed county and district dwelling figures for Hertfordshire are interim pending a study of potential housing supply in the County, which is expected to be published for consultation in Autumn 2004 [CD/RPG/6 paragraph 7.9 on page 112].

31.138 In these circumstances, WSC clearly cannot rely on draft RSS/RPG14 as providing any

justification for the release of the site now. In terms of the soon to be adopted Stevenage District Plan 2nd review, it is the formulation of this new regional guidance which constitutes the “reconsideration … of its strategic justification” within the terms of SDP2004 policy H2 [CD/DP/9h volume 1 of 2, policy H2 on page 27 of 111]. Such reconsideration has not yet occurred, and this is recognised by Stevenage Borough Council in their submissions to EERA [CD/SBC/17 paragraph 2.22] in the following terms:

“It is unambiguously clear from this that in the absence of a structure plan EIP – the reconsideration of the issue of the strategic need for Stevenage West can only occur within the strategic context of the emerging regional planning guidance where there are the same or similar opportunities for public involvement in the decision-making process. The Inspector’s comments rule out any alternative mechanisms, such as the impending call-in inquiry on the planning applications for the Stevenage West development.”

31.139 GOEast similarly recognises in their October 2002 representations [CD/GO/2] on the

first deposit version of SP2003 [CD/DP/2a] that the forthcoming EIP into draft Regional Guidance is the appropriate forum to resolve the current disagreements over what is the urban capacity of the County. In particular, those representations affirm GOEast acceptance that there is no evidence of a significant shortfall in housing provision in the County. They add that concentration on PDL in urban areas identified in capacity studies, the reluctance to release greenfield sites for development until there is a clearly identified need, and adoption of the “plan, monitor, manage” approach are all in accordance with PPG3 and should be encouraged. GOEast’s reluctance to accede to an SP review that provided for the deletion of Stevenage West was based on concern that this may not represent the best approach to longer term planning for the County’s housing needs or give the degree of certainty that a plan covering 15 years up to 2016 should provide.

31.140 GOEast’s views on the appropriate process for strategic policy formulation was further

expressed in its response to the Second Deposit Structure Plan Review [CD/DP/2f]. This indicated that uncertainty over urban capacity was a matter that should be fully debated at EIP if SP2003 was to be taken forward, but that the approach in SP2003 is premature “given the uncertainty about the housing numbers and distribution in RPG14 and the unresolved differences between authorities on the urban capacity that exists”.

31.141 Moreover, the regional framework for both Hertfordshire and Stevenage is now different

from that which prevailed when the SP1998 EIP Panel reported in March 1997. At that time current regional guidance was RPG9 [CD/RPG/1a], subsequently reissued in 2001 [CD/RPG/1b], when both Hertfordshire and Stevenage formed part of the South East Region. Hertfordshire and Stevenage are no longer part of the South East Region; they now form part of the East of England Region and will fall to be considered as part of RSS/RPG14 [CD/RPG/6]. The East of England Region inevitably has different

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 175

strategies, problems and priorities than the South East Region. Whether, and if so how much, major development at Stevenage on the A1(M) corridor fits into the strategy for the East of England is not yet clear.

31.142 It is of note that the sub-regional studies that have evolved so far do not identify

Stevenage as an appropriate growth point [CD/REG/11 (September 2003 Stansted/M11 Corridor Development Options Study) and CD/REG/12 (July 2002 ECOTEC London-Stansted-Cambridge Sub-Regional Study)]. There are obviously considerable pressures for growth in the M11 corridor which are likely to increase following the SERAS White Paper in December 2003 [CD/AIR/10] with its proposal for a second runway at Stansted. Equally there are identified growth pressures to the West in the M1 corridor associated with Luton, Bedford and Milton Keynes. It may or may not be appropriate to continue to promote major growth in the A1(M) corridor at Stevenage. These are all issues which need to be, and will be, resolved through the emerging Regional Guidance.

31.143 On the current timetable RSS/RPG14 will be approved during 2006 well before any

dwelling completions at Stevenage West. Indeed, given that the majority of the development will contribute only to the post 2011 period, planning permissions granted now in advance of the adoption of RSS/RPG14 would carry the very real risk that the Region would be saddled with a major development proposal that no longer fitted comfortably with the new regional guidance. Clearly the better solution and indeed the only sensible way forward is for these applications to be refused on the grounds of prematurity.

The Case for the Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion Section 36(8) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (formerly Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) 31.144 The statutory development plan consists of SP1998, NHDLP1996 and SDP1994. Taken

as a whole, the development does not provide a clear guide either in favour or against the proposals. The two constituent Local Plans contain policies that guard against such development, including those that seek to protect the Green Belt, the countryside, the best and most versatile agricultural land, existing rights of way together with the landscape and views of it. All would be seriously compromised. Conversely, SP1998 specifically provides for 3,600 dwellings at Stevenage West and intimates that in the future this land might be excluded from the Green Belt [CD/DP/1d policies 5 and 8].

31.145 Whatever the case may be with regard to PA3, SP1998 contains absolutely no

presumption in favour of, or allocation for PA5. Indeed, although WSC has promoted development of 5,000 dwellings at Stevenage West from the formative stages of SP1998, its battle was lost when SP1998 did not allocate that number. Reference to the proposed Master Plan making provision for 5,000 dwellings is accepted but any attempt by the EIP Panel to allocate housing land beyond 2011 is outside its powers and those of HCC. It would not therefore be safe for the Secretary of State to put any weight on WSC’s case that SP1998 makes such an allocation without fear of challenge.

31.146 In the absence of authoritative guidance in the statutory development plan the

applications should be determined in the light of all other material considerations, in accordance with the advice in paragraph 55 of PPG1 [CD/PPG/1].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 176

Housing Strategy 31.147 Approval and adoption of SP1998 predated publication of PPG3 [CD/PPG/3a] by 2

years. PPG3 introduced a sea change in Government advice on planning for housing provision, signalling a switch away from “predict and provide” to “plan, monitor and manage” with greenfield sites being released only if monitoring shows there to be an insufficiency of brown field land. Stevenage West can no longer be regarded as more sustainable than other options as it was in SP1998. Rather, “strategic” sites like Stevenage West, are now very much in the background and must take their place at the back of the queue.

31.148 It follows that SP1998 policy 8 cannot now attract much weight because it was written

when PPG3 did not exist. The strategy of “planned regeneration” in SP1998 is a world away from the rigorous process required by PPG3 involving comprehensive study of urban capacity taking account of detailed advice on the definition of PDL, the consideration of higher densities, and other such matters.

31.149 Indeed, the now completed Hertfordshire Housing Capacity Study indicates the potential

for development on land already used for housing, currently in employment use, currently in educational use and currently in health care use, as well as through increased densities and in villages from 2001-2016 and beyond. From this, it is apparent that SP 1998 underestimated capacity by some 32,000 dwellings and that Stevenage West is no longer required to meet the County’s housing requirement of 65,000 dwellings in the SP1998 1991-2011 period. Moreover, WSC is wrong to suggest that only 6/18ths of estimated capacity would be completed by 2011 rather than 8/18ths advanced by HCC because HCC has taken account of non-implementation separately in its calculations.

31.150 The exercise of comparison with available previously developed sites in paragraph 38 of

PPG3 does not strictly apply to PA3 and PA5. This is because that paragraph refers to planning applications on greenfield sites that are allocated for housing in an adopted Local Plan or UDP. SP1998 signals only 3,600 dwellings, but does not formally allocate that number, or 5,000 dwelling as suggested by WSC. In any event, judgement must be applied as to whether a site is genuinely available (or likely to become available) and it would be wrong to accept WSC’s proposition that only vacant PDL should be taken into account. Again, HCC’s capacity estimates (based even on the District Councils’ lower estimates of capacity) take non-implementation into account and may therefore be taken as robust in undertaking the comparison exercise that PPG3 requires. Monitoring figures submitted by NHDC [CD/NHDC/PRO/1A table 2 on page 22 and paragraph 3.23] when up-dated at the Inquiry show that in the 11 month period from 1 April 2003 to 29 February 2004 there had been 362 completions. This would be sufficient to ensure that HCC’s capacity estimate for the District of 656 dwellings to 2011 would comfortably be met.

31.151 From all of these factors, it is readily apparent that the effects of PPG3 are beginning to

be seen in North Hertfordshire District in terms of a squeeze on greenfield sites, some greenfield sites being de-allocated and brownfield sites coming forward in true windfall fashion. The Secretary of State would therefore need to be absolutely convinced that he would not be frustrating his own sustainability policy before granting permission.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 177

Prematurity 31.152 There is an overwhelming case for awaiting the Regional planning process to justify a

strategic site like this. All the main protagonists except WSC are united in their view that consideration of the need for Stevenage West must progress through the RSS/RPG14 process. This includes Government Office [CD/GO/5] and SBC [CD/SBC/17]. It would be inconsistent for the Secretary of State to permit either PA3 or PA5 now, especially when HCC was cautioned strongly against pursuing SP2003 having been assured that the regional forum would be the appropriate place to address the County’s housing strategy.

31.153 Great weight should also be attached to policy H2 in SDP2004 as proposed to be

modified [CD/DP/9h volume 1 of 2 page 27 of 111]. Nothing material has changed since the DP2004 Inspector’s report was published and there is nothing that would warrant differing from his view that the development has first to be justified in strategic terms. WSC would be unlikely to challenge SDP2004 with a view to quashing policy H2 in part. That would risk having the whole of policy H2 quashed (because the Inspector’s reasoning is to be taken as a whole and the requirement for strategic re-justification is not therefore severable) leaving no policy at all for Stevenage West in the Local Plan. SBC, having taken advice from leading planning Counsel, also appears confident that the policy as proposed to be modified is intra vires. Moreover, even though there is a requirement for a Local Plan to be in general conformity with the Structure Plan, that does not mean that every policy has to mirror the Structure Plan. It does not preclude consideration of material changes, such as the publication of PPG3, that bear on the relevance of any particular policy or proposal. SDP2004 with policy H2 can thus still be said to be in general conformity with SP1998 in any event.

32. Overall conclusions by the parties to the Inquiry West of Stevenage Consortium 32.1 Stevenage West would represent a highly sustainable form of development offering

significant opportunities for advancing the ambitions of Stevenage Borough Council, English Partnerships and the Government. HCC, SBC and NHDC have considered fully the normal range of development control considerations relevant to the proposed developments. SBC has raised no objections in those respects and NHDC’s objections are limited to landscape, visual and traffic impacts, while HCC’s prime concern is about traffic issues, all others seeming to have been met. It is a matter of considerable significance that, in the context of such major development, the outstanding development control issues and the extent of third party objections are remarkably modest and, in WSC’s view, unfounded. Stevenage West is a committed strategic site, the development of which would accord with the development plan and with the terms of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. To grant planning permission would secure the opportunity to make an early and major contribution towards the Government’s policies for creating sustainable communities and for regeneration on a site that has all the credentials to provide an urban extension that fully integrates the principles of mixed use and sustainability in al is aspects. It would, WSC submits, be deeply damaging to the plan-led system for a strategic site of this character, where there has been so much commitment of public and other resource and time in bringing the proposal forward to this advanced stage, to reject it on the grounds of asserted prematurity – at least without the clearest demonstration that its development would

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 178

seriously conflict with the new emerging spatial policies for the region. Certainly, so far as the evidence at the Inquiry is concerned, there is nothing that would remotely justify such a conclusion or, it is submitted, rejection of the applications on any other ground. WSC accordingly urges that the applications should be granted permission.

Stevenage Borough Council 32.2 In principle, SBC support development at Stevenage West. It has considered the

proposals carefully over a number of years, culminating in its resolution in October 2003[CD/SBC/16]. SBC sees the proposed development as a real opportunity to create a truly sustainable mixed used development of homes and communities, leisure, social and community facilities with open space and landscaping complementing benefiting and integrated with the existing New Town. In short, not a large new uninspiring housing estate but a development fit for the 21st Century.

32.3 In Stevenage’s view, the proposed developments would accord with the development

plan and, if anything, the outcome of the strategic review is likely merely to reinforce the need for them. Subject to (1) the need to add one condition limiting the number of dwellings to no more than 3,600 dwellings for PA3 and 5,000 dwellings for PA5; (2) the need for a satisfactory S106 planning Obligation concerning affordable housing; (3) the fundamental points raised with regard to the S106 planning Obligation concerning community infrastructure provision; and (4) the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that the highways and education issues have been resolved, Stevenage supports both of the proposed developments falling within its administrative boundary.

Hertfordshire County Council 32.4 HCC has restricted its role at the Inquiry to matters only of county-wide significance.

These are three in number, namely strategic planning issues, highways and transport considerations and whether WSC has made sufficient provision for those aspects of community infrastructure that lie within the remit of the County Council. If HCC’s case concerning the first two of these matters is accepted, then permission for both schemes should be refused. In relation to the third it may be that some of HCC’s criticisms of proposed infrastructure provision are accepted and others are not. In that case, it would be for FSS to decide whether or not to issue a “minded to” decision or whether it would be more appropriate to refuse permission. In similar vein, HCC has joined with NHDC and SBC to criticise the mechanisms utilised in the S106 planning Obligation as being wholly inadequate. If the Councils’ submissions are accepted, then a similar choice would need to be made.

32.5 In HCC’s submission the proposals should be refused on a straightforward application of

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The proposals are not in accordance with the development plan, and other material considerations bolster rather than undermine the case against granting permission. To grant permission would be in breach of the soon to be adopted SDP1994 because the strategic assessment of Stevenage West through the RSS/RPG process has not even reached public consultation stage, let alone completion. Until that RSS/RPG process has run its course these applications are premature and to grant them would pre-empt the conclusion of the only process (in the absence of Structure Plan review) which can grapple with the strategic issues that they raise. It is not the task of this Inquiry to carry out that assessment, nor

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 179

would it make any sense for the First Secretary of State to pre-empt its outcome by granting these applications.

32.6 Meanwhile, the previously perceived underlying need for Stevenage West which led to

its identification in the Structure Plan has been, and is likely to continue to be, met without there being a need for Stevenage West. Indeed, rather than there being a good case to justify these applications, as matters currently stand there are coherent and powerful reasons for refusing to sanction the development of this vast greenfield and green belt site.

32.7 Quite apart from these planning policy and strategic issues, the transportation

sustainability credentials of the applications has been shown to be illusory. In similar vein, the proposed community infrastructure is inadequate in several regards and is in any event contained in a wholly unfit for purpose S106 planning Obligation.

32.8 Accordingly, it is HCC’s case that these applications should be refused. North Hertfordshire District Council 32.9 The applications are not in accordance with the Development Plan, nor the soon to be

adopted Stevenage District Local Plan Second Review 1991-2011, and there are no material circumstances to justify the grant of planning permission.

32.10 There is no longer any identified need for major greenfield development at Stevenage

West in the period to 2011. 32.11 There are no very special circumstances to justify major residential development in the

Green Belt. 32.12 In any event it would be premature to grant planning permission in advance of

RSS/RPG14 being finalised. 32.13 There is no development plan allocation to justify the grant of planning permission for

PA5, the balance of which beyond PA3 (1,400 dwellings) only relates to the period post 2011.

32.14 The current proposal for the school site, located at the edge of the applications sites,

would be so harmful to the overall character of the local landscape, and views from the West, that planning permission should be refused for both the PA3 and PA5 proposals.

32.15 There are adverse visual and landscape implications in respect of identified parts of the

PA5 scheme which make the proposal for 5,000 dwellings unacceptable. 32.16 The disposition of uses associated with both the Meadway and Bessemer Drive needs to

be re-examined in the interests of personal security and crime prevention. 32.17 The applications should accordingly be refused.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 180

Highways Agency 32.18 Support of HA in relation to PA3 and PA5 is conditional upon the mitigation proposals

required by HA being agreed and included in any planning permission. London Luton Airport Operations Ltd 32.19 The case made by London Luton Airport Operations Ltd (LLAOL) is a simple one. The

airport is already in existence. It must therefore be taken into account in these planning applications. New development should not restrict the use and likely use (including expansion) of existing development. The airport can only expand where it is. Common sense requires the strong likelihood of its future expansion to be taken into account, a factor that is completely supported by international, national and development plan policies, and by law.

32.20 LLAOL’s case is not that the relationship between Luton Airport and the applications

site on its own justifies refusal of planning permission for Stevenage West. It may be that cumulatively with other factors the land use conflict between the airport and Stevenage West means that permission should be refused, but LLAOL’s case is that, on its own, the land use conflict can be dealt with by the imposition of suitable conditions.

32.21 Large parts of the site are in NEC B for various reasons and a suitable condition is

necessary to deal with that issue. Safeguarding is also important. Bird strike can have serious consequences and the further condition sought in this respect is both clear and necessary. Both should be imposed if permission for Stevenage West is granted.

Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion 32.22 CASE was originally established to oppose earlier proposals for the expansion of

Stevenage New Town and was successful in that respect. It reformed in March 1996 under the auspices of CPRE to oppose the Stevenage West proposals included in the then deposit version of SP1998. CASE in fact disagreed with the EIP Panel’s report on Stevenage West and produced it own alternative report [CD/CASE/PRO/1a]. HCC dealt with that in an unsatisfactory way, deciding in closed session and on the basis of a small sub-committee of supporting members selected on party-political lines, to adopt SP1998 in line with the EIP Panel’s recommendations.

32.23 There is no formal membership of CASE beyond its present 6 committee members and

there is no regular pattern of meetings, but some 7,000 or more objections have been lodged against the present proposals mostly from residents of Hitchin, then Stevenage and others from surrounding villages. Those objections come from individuals who have taken their time to go to the CASE website and fill out and send an objection letter. People usually have better things to do than to make objections to schemes that they are indifferent about. So undoubtedly the objections are deeply felt. Moreover, the number of objectors is enormous and includes objection from the Chilterns Society whose broad sphere of interest extends to the applications site. Of course the number of objections alone is not a sufficient basis to refuse planning permission but it is representative of local opinion and should therefore have a significant bearing on the decision whether or not to impose this development in this location.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 181

32.24 It must also be borne in that over a considerable number of years SBC has made valiant attempts to gain support for Stevenage West. WSC itself employed a public relations company to run public participation days and write press releases to generate support [CD/GAR.C/1, CD/GAR.C/2]. Some of this was, however, misleading and CASE’s partly encouraging response [CASE/PRO/1/REB, appendix 1] was subsequently found not to be supported by many and, at least in the context of the more detailed proposals now submitted, no longer applies. Indeed, among residents of Stevenage and North Hertfordshire generally there is very, very little support for the proposals indeed. One benefit, however, of having extensive press coverage and public participation days is that those who object are able to do so on an informed basis. They cannot be criticised for not knowing the true extent of the development and the mitigation measures offered.

32.25 A third reason for weight to be attached to views of the members of CASE is that many

of them live in settlements that would merge into one with the development of Stevenage West. That would occur with PA5 and of course even more integration would be inevitable should a further 5,000 dwellings be allowed and again when the next 5,000 inevitably follow, engulfing more of the North Hertfordshire countryside. The Green Belt designation is supposed to function to prevent this. It is not surprising that people feel let down by this lack of robustness of policy protection.

32.26 As these applications are in the Green Belt, very special circumstances are needed to

overcome the harm by reason of inappropriateness and all other harm identified. Among other things, there would be harm to the countryside, harm to the rights of way network, harm to best and most versatile agricultural land, harm to wildlife and nature conservation, and likely harm to the new occupiers themselves from aircraft noise. Against that, WSC argues that there is a need for 3,600 or 5,000 houses in the next few years to be built on Green Belt greenfield land. However, it is evident that there is no such need because the District Councils can identify sufficient brownfield land to meet requirements in both SP1988 and RPG9 without Stevenage West, and their capacity assessments tend towards under-estimation. However, even if there were to be a shortage of housing land, that does not amount to the “very special circumstances” needed to overcome the Green Belt hurdle, as the Chelmsford decision shows [CD/CASE/CLOSE, appended to rear]. In the light of that decision, reliance on a shortfall in predicted housing land supply is not enough. There must be something much more than that to constitute “very special circumstances”. In CASE’s view, the harm that would be caused by either PA3 or PA5 would be too overwhelming and the Secretary of State is therefore urged to refuse permission for them.

Gabriel Securities 32.27 WSC’s proposals do not meet policy requirements for development on this site,

including that it be a high quality extension of Stevenage, and one which optimises the locational advantages of the site.

32.28 WSC’s proposals are at best of minimum design standards, and at worst well below

them, and are unlikely to lead people to perceive travel by non-car modes as attractive. 32.29 Achieving the ambitious modal shifts WSC is claiming will be hindered rather than

assisted by its proposals for Bessemer Drive, which will not create an access perceived as being high quality so as to entice people to use non-car modes of transport.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 182

32.30 In comparison, GS’s own suggested scheme has been designed without any artificial land constraint, and as such would comply with the high demands of policy. It would meet or exceed all relevant standards and it would succeed in living up to the high level of expectation created throughout the long consultation process by WSC’s claims for this development.

33. Third Parties 33.1 In addition to CASE, ten third parties appeared at the Inquiry. Other objections were all

in written form, some submitted when the applications were under consideration by the Councils and others direct to the Inquiry. I group the main points of these submissions accordingly below:

Appearances Supporting Barbara Follett MP 33.2 The shortage of housing for key worker both nationally and county-wide has occupied a

considerable amount of time since my candidature in 1995. This is manifested in children sharing bedrooms, over-crowded neighbourhoods and dysfunctional problems in the community. People must have a roof over their head, and the continuing increase in average house prices is making this increasingly costly for many families to achieve. Development schemes over many years have displayed an over-emphasis on executive-style dwellings with too few starter homes and affordable housing.

33.3 While acknowledging that Stevenage West is advanced as a strategic site for the County

as a whole, Stevenage itself has particular need for the proposed dwellings. As a new town of the 1950s, its housing stock is all of similar age and lacks variety in size and type. Much greater variety, of the type Stevenage West would provide, is called for. There needs, for example, to be more high quality housing so that large firms know they will be able to attract skilled personnel, but also bungalows for the elderly together with accommodation for single people. Stevenage is one of the biggest employment areas in the District, but the shortage of suitable housing gives rise to congestion on A1(M) and rat-running through the villages as people commute by car from surrounding towns. More suitable local housing would avoid this.

33.4 There are over 230 people in immediate need of housing in Stevenage (those living in

temporary accommodation, hostels or homeless), a further 2,000 on the housing waiting list and another 2,000 on the transfer list. In all, some 6,000-8,000 houses are needed in the period to 2021. Lack of provision is not the result of lack of money but lack of land. Sites to the east and north of the town are now largely developed or committed, and town cramming within the existing town is not good town planning. The most sustainable way forward is through development of Stevenage West. The proposals show the development would be well-designed with good transport and over 27% of the new dwellings would be affordable homes.

33.5 There would be no net loss of Green Belt since what is proposed is a re-arrangement of

boundaries with some land taken out of the Green Belt but some also added to it. The scheme is strongly opposed by some local people but would be to the benefit of many

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 183

and would disadvantage relatively few. The Barker Report identifies the pressing need for more homes across the nation, Stevenage is located in a growth area and while the loss of greenfield land is never an ideal option, Stevenage West certainly represents the least worst option to contribute towards housing needs. Although the SDP2004 Inspector has recommended strategic review of the Stevenage West allocation, Inquiries have been held into proposals for Stevenage expansion over a period of some 27 years. Although not wishing to pre-empt local people’s rights to be heard, the cost of Inquiries like this is astronomical and raises the question of whether such an “inquiry culture” is a cost effective exercise. It is now time for these applications to be determined.

Objecting Peter Lilley MP 33.6 There have been thousands of letters objecting to these proposals. Stevenage wants the

additional homes and objectors want to retain the Green Belt, but both can be achieved. There is scope for infilling and limited peripheral development and if the choice is between that and losing Green Belt then the former should be the approach selected. It is vital to defend the Green Belt in this area to prevent Stevenage coalescing with nearby historic towns like Hitchin to protect their character and to provide green lungs between settlements. Green Belt boundaries are meant to be permanent and shouldn’t simply be moved whenever development pressure arises simply in return for designating replacement Green Belt elsewhere. Monitoring shows that the County’s housing requirement in the years 1991-2001 has been exceeded and the District Councils have identified sufficient land for 11,000 dwellings without Stevenage West while HCC says that there is sufficient land for 15,000 dwellings. Stevenage West was originally included in SP1998 only as a precaution against shortfall, and it is now clear that it is unnecessary.

33.7 The A1(M) is a significant barrier between Stevenage and the open countryside and this

should not be breached because there would then be no defensible boundary to further development. Residents living at Stevenage West would be physically separated from the town by this barrier and would therefore be likely to look towards towns other than Stevenage for employment, leisure and other facilities with consequent implications for increased traffic on the roads between.

33.8 Although it has been indicated by the Secretary of State that continuance with Stevenage

West reflects the democratic wish of local people, this is not the case. HCC objects and its support at SP1998 stage required a change in procedure and was carried only by one vote among a small cabal of 14 members out of a total of 77. That does not reflect the will of local people. While it is envisaged that the strategic need for this development will be re-considered at regional level through the review of RSS/RPG14, decisions on such matters should be made more locally than by remote Regional Planning bodies.

33.9 Having spoken at every Public Local Inquiry where Green Belt in the area has been

under threat over the last 20 years, it is apparent that housing targets can still be met while retaining Green Belt protection. PPG3 introduced the now prevailing “plan, monitor, manage” approach to housing land supply and this has shown the reality to be that sufficient houses are already being built to meet local and county-wide needs.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 184

Mr and Mrs W S Bowker, Verulam Road, Hitchin 33.10 Mr and Mrs Bowker have an interest in Rush Green Airfield, which contains two

intersecting grass runways, a hangar and an office. It was originally the base for Bowker Air Services Ltd and more recently for Bowker Farm Services Ltd. In April 2003 the latter company together with the principal airfield buildings and equipment were sold to a Mr Parker, who was also granted a lease to continue flying from the airfield. Ownership of the airfield itself was, however, retained privately by Mr and Mrs Bowker.

33.11 The airfield was originally used only by crop-spraying aircraft but conditional

permission was granted in 1990 for change of use of the buildings to maintenance of light aircraft and rebuilding of vintage aircraft. In March 2002 a Certificate of Lawful Use and Development was issued by NHDC. This recognised the use of the site as an airfield for private flying activity on Mondays to Saturdays up to 20.00 hrs with no more than 9 aircraft movements per annum after 22.00 hrs, no more than 170 movements per annum on Sundays and no more than 38 helicopter movements per annum [CD/WSC/PRO/18(i)/A appendix A] (one movement is a landing or a take-off). At present there are about 10 aircraft movements there per week. There is also occasional helicopter usage of the airfield (varying from 1 movement per month to a couple of movements per week).

33.12 In view of the proximity to Luton Airport, aircraft movements to and from the airfield

are subject to a Letter of Agreement with LLAOL [CD/WSC/PRO/18(i)/A appendix C]. Among other thing, the letter provides for aircraft to take off from Rush Green without prior notification to Luton Terminal Control provided that they do not climb above 500 feet and remain east of B656 and A600 roads. After departure, the pilot must obtain clearance to leave the Luton Control Zone, such clearance normally being at not more than 1500 feet and remaining east of B656 and A600 roads. Inbound aircraft must remain clear of the Luton Control Zone until radio communication with Terminal Control has been established, whereafter the flight must be conducted in accordance with the clearance issued, normally following the B656 road. Bowker Farm Services is also required to brief pilots not based at Rush Green on the contents of the Letter of Agreement.

33.13 Development at Stevenage West would place pilots in breach of the Rules of the Air

[CD/WSC/PRO/18(i)/REB appendix B, rule 5(1)(a)(ii)], which say that “congested areas” (which include areas of development like Stevenage West) should not be flown over at an altitude of less than 1,500 feet. This is because it is necessary for pilots of light aircraft (and particularly historic aircraft that do not have modern electronic communications equipment) to fly a circuit of the airfield before landing in order to ensure that the landing strip is clear. The route of the circuit is shown on the safeguarding map agreed with NHDC under Circular 2/92 [CD/BOWK/PRO/1A appendix 4c] and passes over the applications site [plan attached to CD/BOWK/PRO/1A]. It is normally flown at a height of no more than 500 feet. Neither the Civil Aviation Authority nor LLAOL are prepared to countenance a reduction in the 1,500 feet requirement even just for circuit flying [CD/BOWK/PRO/1A, appendices 3, 5, 7,12 and 13]. That stance is likely to become firmer in consequence of any future expansion of Luton Airport arising from the Airports White Paper [CD/AIR/10]. Aerodrome safeguarding is concerned both with maintaining obstacle free airspace around flying sites and protecting locations from the effects of possible adverse

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 185

development [CD/GOV/29]. It is therefore requested that no development be permitted within 500 feet of the circuit flight path [CD/BOWK/PRO/1(1)].

33.14 The alternative flight patterns suggested by WSC are all impractical. A westerly circuit

has already been rejected by the Civil Aviation Authority [CD/BOWK/1 annexes 3 and 3a]. A dumb-bell pattern would give rise to unacceptable risk of collision [CD/BOWK/PRO/1A, appendix 14]. A “straight in-straight out” route would require pilots to fly an inordinately long distance around the Luton Airport control zone [CD/BOWK/PRO/1/SUP]. If this were to be accepted as the only viable proposition it would be the beginning of the end for the airfield because pilots would simply migrate to other nearby airfields where fewer constraints apply [CD/BOWK/PRO/1A, appendix 10a]. The end would come if 10,000 dwellings were ever to be permitted.

Professor Houldsworth, representing the Whitney Drive Residents 33.15 Whitney Drive lies alongside the Hitchin Way/Martins Way Roundabout which is a

major road junction at the north end of Gunnels Wood Road. Other limbs of the roundabout link via Hitchin Road to A1(M) junction 8, Stevenage town centre and Old Stevenage, as well as providing access to and from extensive residential areas on the eastern side of the town [CD/WDRA/PRO/1(1)]. This roundabout is the busiest in Stevenage, currently used by some 42,000 vehicles per 16 hour day. The noise level at the roundabout on the Hitchin Road limb was in excess of 63dBA when measured 3 years ago [noise study appended to CD/WDRA/PRO/1] and thus on the border between NEC C and NEC B in Annex 1 to PPG24. That is even before taking account of noise from ambulance sirens associated with the nearby Lister Hospital. As such, the dwellings here are already exposed to noise levels beyond that at which Government guidance says that mitigation measures are necessary.

33.16 Assuming Stevenage West is developed for 5,000 houses with each house having at least

2 cars, traffic flowing northwards to the roundabout would increase by some 20% to 52,000 vehicles per day. In addition, there would be one construction vehicle every 8 minutes passing around the roundabout throughout the period of development to 2010. In supporting Stevenage West SBC acknowledged that this roundabout is a “pinch point” and that noise mitigation measures should be sought from WSC [press report appended to CD/WDRA/PRO/1].

33.17 Although WSC says that the increase in traffic noise would be insufficient to justify such

measures in Whitney Drive, their estimates are of a qualitative rather than quantitative nature, are not based on peak hour traffic flows. A more realistic estimate of increased traffic noise would be in the region of 2dBA.

33.18 It is also notable that existing Stevenage residents whose properties face onto the

Meadway access (at Cartref), where traffic levels would be only about 20,000 vehicles per day (10,000 each way) are to be provided with a noise bund. Whitney Drive Residents want proportionate treatment and seek provision of an acoustic fence and low noise road surface to protect those who live beside the Hitchin Road/Martins Way roundabout.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 186

Mr Smyth, representing himself as local resident at Todds End and The Greens and Great Whymondley Residents’ Association 33.19 Todds End is a house and farmland to the north of Stevenage West, and The Greens and

Great Whymondley Residents’ Association was originally formed to oppose construction of the Whymondley by-pass on its southern route.

33.20 Stevenage West presents a conflict between the advantages of town centre regeneration

and development, and the disadvantages of the location beneath the flight path to and from Luton Airport and the adverse impact of development on the landscape. The prospect of development at Stevenage West was considered fully in a study prepared by Chestertons in 1997 to inform the then emerging SP1998 [CD/SMYTH/PRO/1C]. While the conclusion was that development would be acceptable, the study considered a much broader area. It would seem, however, that the current proposals have been formulated on the basis of a more limited area of land under the control of WSC than the areas that the Chesterton Report indicated as suitable. A much wider range of options should be considered through the Local Plan process rather than this single suite of proposals advanced through the development control process. Given that Stevenage is in a growth area and can only expand westwards, a much longer term view needs to be taken of development opportunities in the area and the extent of services and infrastructure necessary to service it. A decision must also be made in the light of these factors as to whether now is the right time to breach the Green Belt west of Stevenage. For these reasons the proposals should be regarded as premature.

33.21 In particular, the schemes as submitted would do nothing to relieve the rat-running

problems through the rural communities to the north of the applications site. The CTS junction with the existing road network would be better located to the west of Todds Green than between Lucas’s Wood and Fishers Green [CD/PA3/16b and CD/PA5/16b and plan in CD/SMYH/PRO/10], it having been located as proposed simply to avoid straying from SBC’s administrative area into that of NHDC, the latter being hostile to the proposals. Development should be kept away from the high plateau land and from the Luton airport flight path, with more extensive use being made of the lower land to the north and west, in the area of the Almshoe valley bottom. On a similar theme it is also strange, for example, that proposed infiltration beds have been proposed on relatively high land (97 m contour) rather than where gravity suggests would be more appropriate, on lower land [CD/PA3/16b and CD/PA5/16b]. Background work undertaken on behalf of McAlpine’s who originally had a development interest in the land before disposing of that interest to Wimpey’s confirms many of these points (appendices at pages 37 onwards to CD/SMYTH/PRO/10). The Buchanan Report titled “The relationship between Transport and Development in the London Stansted, Cambridge, Peterborough Growth Area” is also of particular relevance to Stevenage West and supportive of the benefits of appropriately located development here [CD/SMYTH/PRO/1I]. There needs to be provision for executive housing as well as affordable housing, to ensure large firms can attract key personnel and to facilitate commuting by rail into Kings Cross, thereby reducing traffic congestion in London and facilitating the continued economic growth of the capital.

Cllr Morgan, representing Codicote Parish Council 33.22 Codicote lies to the south of the applications site [CD/CPC/PRO/1(1)] and the B656

passes through it on an approximate north-south alignment. There are traffic problems

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 187

every morning and evening rush hour caused by vehicles diverting onto B656 to avoid congestion on A1(M) and in central Stevenage. Junction improvement to A1(M) would do nothing to reduce that.

33.23 There can be no guarantee that residents at Stevenage West would work in Stevenage.

The town has been losing, rather than gaining, employment recently as the closure of a BAe factory illustrated and as shown by the several large vacant warehouse and office buildings in the town at present. The likelihood is that the residents of Stevenage West would either commute for employment to London by train or to other nearby towns by car. This would add further to existing traffic on B656 and through Old Knebworth towards Hemel Hempstead. Eventually there would be irresistible pressure for direct access from Stevenage West to B656.

33.24 It is already almost impossible to park at the Lister Hospital, and development at

Stevenage West would make matters worse. Public transport is not a suitable alternative as there are only 6 buses to the hospital per day. GP surgeries in the area are already over capacity and although a medical centre is proposed at Stevenage West, this would be of no benefit if there are insufficient doctors to staff it.

33.25 Water supply to Stevenage West would be drawn from the same source as for Codicote.

The river Mimram that flows through the Parish has dried up twice in the last two years, on one occasion for 8 months. This suggests that the aquifer would not be able to supply sufficient water even if additional boreholes were sunk. Electricity supplies in the Parish are also prone to cuts two or three times every year, and there is no reason why Stevenage West residents should have any different experience.

33.26 The Green Belt should be regarded as sacrosanct. Its continued protection is important

to the character of towns and to prevent Stevenage merging with Hitchin. The proposals would ruin the side of the attractive Langley valley. Development should take place instead on other areas allocated for development in the existing development plans that have yet to be used and to the east of Stevenage where there is no other town nearby.

33.27 There is no certainty that the development proposed is actually necessary because, with

family size decreasing, population levels are also likely to decrease rather than increase in future years. In effect, building more houses here would simply encourage in-migration from other parts of the Country and be of no benefit to local people at all.

33.28 Construction traffic passing through the Parish would also be most unwelcome. The land

should not be released simply to satisfy developer ambitions or SBC’s aspirations to grow into a Unitary Authority.

Mrs A Palmer 33.29 Mrs Palmer is a resident of Codicote and a member of CASE. 33.30 The applications site is within a Landscape Conservation Area, there are no roads across

it, it is close to an SSSI, it is high quality agricultural land and part of the Green Belt. Ecologists and environmentalists are opposed to its development and despite the spin put on the proposals by WSC, the scheme has minimal support from local people. It is not appropriate to build an estate of executive homes here. To the extent that affordable

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 188

homes are needed, these should be for local people and distributed to parts of the County where demand is greatest, not all stuck in open countryside on the edge of Stevenage.

33.31 Development proposals have been repeatedly advanced to the west of Stevenage since

1972. In 1974, for example, the then Secretary of State for the Environment (Geoffrey Rippon) decided not to proceed with major expansion, a decision supported by Shirley Williams MP. Reasons for opposing the scheme are as firm now as they were then.

33.32 In order to demonstrate the popularity of the area, which WSC questioned at the Local

Visioning Conference [CD/GAR/5], Mrs Palmer undertook a user survey in 1999 [extracts at CD/PALM/PRO/1A]. This was presented to the SDP2004 Inquiry but is presented again here to ensure that it is given fuller consideration. In essence, the survey took the form of questionnaires left in public places such as shops and surgeries for people to complete. About 1200 of these were distributed in batches over a 4 month period. A total of 628 properly completed questionnaires were received. The questionnaire had 8 separate sections. The first 6 of these sections included tick boxes inviting answers to questions such as how frequently the respondent visited the area, why, how they got there and where they had come from. Among other things, the answers disclose that some 21% of respondents visit the area daily, the majority walking for pleasure and others for dog-walking, bird watching and horse riding. Most came by car and some 91% from within Hertfordshire and of those nearly 24% came from Stevenage. Over 96% of respondents said they were opposed to building houses in the area, as did over 91% of the respondent living within Stevenage.

33.33 These results disprove WSC’s own survey findings, which are flawed in a number of

respects. That survey was, for example, undertaken over too brief a period to account for variations in use arising from changing weather conditions. It was also conducted during the 2002 World Cup Finals when matches were played at 07.30 and 12.30 hrs, which would have reduced visitor numbers.

33.34 It is surprising that English Nature does not object to the proposals, especially since they

appear to have made up their mind before obtaining necessary data, rather than the reverse [CD/LET/43]. Nonetheless, it is evident that there would be substantial loss of rural habitat and suburbanisation of the countryside. Some 30 years ago it was acknowledged in the Report of Survey to the Hertfordshire Structure Plan 1975 that “the capacity of Hertfordshire to absorb further growth without serious detrimental impact on the environment may be quite limited”. Much development has taken place since then and continuous erosion of the countryside places increasing importance on those parts that still remain undeveloped. Mitigation measures are not sufficient because even though the severity of damage may in consequence be reduced, damage still occurs. There would, in any event, not be the net gain to the environment that WSC suggests. Rather the surviving green areas of the site would become subject to fly-tipping and pollution. There would also be an adverse impact on wildlife from depredation by domestic pets which, together with squirrels and magpies, would soon colonise the area. Residents and others would not necessarily adhere to the various paths through the proposed areas of greenery and protective fences would easily be climbed over and soon broken down. In particular, there would be a net loss of farmland species such as grey partridge that have long been encouraged to the site by careful habitat management to create a “shootable surplus”. Other species (such as whitethroats) prefer unmanaged and neglected areas, which are the opposite of what WSC proposes. Lapwing, skylark, corn bunting, yellowhammer, linnet and brown hare are all found on the site and, as declining

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 189

species, many are the subject of Biological Action Plans. Our own survey also found 179 species of invertebrate compared with only 39 in WSC’s survey, so the site has importance in this respect too.

33.35 It would be difficult to increase the wildlife holding capacity of other farms in the area as

proposed in mitigation. This is because most large land holdings in the vicinity are already in agricultural stewardship schemes and/or have been managed for wildlife over a long period, while the remaining “unmanaged” farms are of insufficient size or number to make a significant habitat contribution.

33.36 In sum, the implementation of the proposed mitigation strategies [CD/ECO/9 and

CD/ECO/13] would not ensure that ecological benefits would be delivered. Adverse impacts would not be avoided or minimised and the attempt to compensate in whatever form for a “significant impact” is totally wrong. The proposed developments should be firmly rejected.

Mr Pateman JP 33.37 Mr Pateman has lived in the Langley valley area since 1926. For many years he held

shooting rights over land stretching from Todds Green to Norton Green and has kept a diary of wildlife sightings on the land [CD/PATE/PRO/1, extracts appended to rear].

33.38 The mitigation proposals demonstrate a lack of local knowledge of wildlife. The

applications site is one of the most prolific areas for grey partridge in the County [plan of nesting sites bound within CD/PATE/PRO/1]. These birds maintain a single blood line so would not transfer from one breeding location to another, even if as nearby as the other side of the Langley valley. There has been a decrease in mammals on the land in recent years caused by the blight of development, which has given rise to increased usage of the rights of way network and vandalism. It has even become a job to farm in the area with crops being set alight and the like. Even so, brown hare have always been unusually prolific on the land and numbers would soon recover if depredation ceased. There would, however, be no way of mitigating loss of their habitat if the proposed development took place. The existing historic paths and hedgerows are a haven for wildlife whereas the new linear park would become only a haven for fly-tipping. There are enormous variations in habitat across the site. It supports a huge number of lapwing, who would no longer nest with development so close. A programme of mitigation funded over a 10 year period would not be sufficient to redeem environmental damage that would endure in perpetuity.

33.39 Incoming aircraft cause ecological damage to the area by discharging surplus fuel, which

can be seen as an oily film on the pond in High Broomin Wood. With the proposed runway extension, the landing beacon would have to be transferred from the west side of Langley valley to the east side, also in the vicinity of High Broomin Wood. It would only be a matter of time before an aircraft still laden with up to 150 tons of fuel crashed here and the effect of that on new housing or schools would be horrific. It would be folly to place housing at the density proposed directly under the flight path so close to landing or take-off, which are the most dangerous manoeuvres for aircraft to undertake.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 190

Mr Payne, representing the Ramblers Association 33.40 Mr Payne has lived in Hitchin and Stevenage for 45 years, has walked extensively in the

area over the years both as an individual and as a member or leader of group walks and claims to know every public path shown in the plans accompanying the applications [CD/PA3/11 and CD/PA5/11 drawing 8.0/1]. The Ramblers Association has over 4,000 members in Hertfordshire and that represents only a small proportion of people who enjoy countryside walking here.

33.41 The North Hertfordshire Ramblers and Stevenage Rambling Club regularly programme

organised walks across the applications site, as do other groups, and the various paths feature in several local guidebooks, including those published by SBC. There is a higher density of rights of way across this land than there is in most comparable areas of the County with 20 definitive rights of way totalling some 12 km within its borders.

33.42 The proposed development would ruin this part of the network for walkers, cyclists and

horse riders, with about half the routes no longer having any recreational value. Even those designated to become “greenways” would have long sections flanked by buildings, while others would become little more than alleyways between houses and commercial outlets [CD/RA/PRO/1, tabulation appended at rear]. The impacts upon bridleway 22 and byway 38 are representative. The first is an ancient green lane bordered with hedges and trees and is scheduled to become a greenway. In reality it would be bordered by buildings on one side or the other for 700 m. The second, a similar lane to the first at present, would have almost continuous housing along its eastern side. With others these two paths currently form a continuous green route between Lower Titmore Green and Langley and this would, as a result of the proposed development, become too urbanised for walking or riding for pleasure.

33.43 The proposed development would also inhibit access to open countryside from the

present western edge of Stevenage. With development in place, Stevenage residents would have to traverse a mile or more of tedious walking through the new streets of Stevenage West before being able to reach the unspoilt countryside of the Almshoebury, Preeton and St Pauls Walden areas.

Mr Switzer 33.44 Mr Switzer is a resident of Letchworth. 33.45 In the recent past SBC has had substantial residential land earmarked for housing

development but failed to develop it and chose to release it instead for commercial development. That land is now occupied by an ASDA supermarket. While it may have been financially advantageous for SBC to dispose of the land for this purpose, it completely undermines any argument that more residential land is needed. It may well be that SBC has a hidden agenda to become a Unitary Authority that surfaces as support for Stevenage West. Greater weight should therefore be given to the case of NHDC, within whose administrative area the site currently lies and which considers the development unnecessary [CD/SBC/PRO/5].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 191

Main points of the written representations submitted to the Inquiry Objecting Mr and Mrs Bunyan, Beech Cottage, Titmore Green 33.46 Loss of countryside and lack of infrastructure make the proposals totally unsatisfactory. Mrs P Turner, 23 MeadowWay, Hitchin 33.47 The developers do not see the beautiful countryside or bluebell woods, only the profits to

be made by building houses. The Green Belt should not be destroyed. Mr E C Wright, Architect, The White House, Preston Road, Hitchin 33.48 Although demographic changes result in a need for more housing, the site is in the

wrong place. The houses should be built in the centre of communities not on the outskirts of towns where people would be isolated and dependent upon transport. The housebuilders see only profit while SBC wants to become a Unitary Authority and these are not sufficient reasons to justify development. Noise from Luton Airport and A1(M) would render residents’ living conditions unacceptable. The roads are already congested every morning and evening, and traffic jams could only increase. The scheme would give rise to increased pollution, additional strain on water supplies and is not sustainable. There are also problems of ground stability here. Extending Stevenage, which has a poor sociological structure, across A1(M) onto Green Belt land would make no sense. It would lead to a single conurbation with Hitchin, Knebworth, and Langley. Rather, the development should be transferred to East Hertfordshire where depopulation is a problem, noise and air pollution is less, and the benefits for local communities would be greater.

Wood Frampton on behalf of George Wimpey UK Ltd 33.49 The proposals are of very substantial scale and if permitted would pre-determine the

location of a major greenfield land release outside the development plan process. It would prevent alternative Master Plans promoted by other developers being considered and would thus be premature. The proposed site is exposed and development would have a harmful impact on the openness of the Green Belt. It is evident from the SDP2004 Inspector’s report that development of only 1,000 houses (the part of Stevenage West within Stevenage Borough) as proposed by SP1998 policy 8 should be dependent upon strategic review of need, having regard to the availability of PDL.

Development Land and Planning Consultants Ltd, on behalf of Bellway Homes and AMEC 33.50 Bellway Homes/AMEC have an interest in land north of Stevenage and were objectors to

SDP2004 on the basis of its non-allocation for development, the prevailing housing land supply situation in the area and the allocation, role and delivery of Stevenage West.

33.51 The part of Stevenage West that lies within Stevenage Borough cannot reasonably be

expected to come forward other than in combination with the part within North Hertfordshire District as a single entity. The promoters of Stevenage West have consistently over-estimated the rate of development that can be achieved on the site.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 192

This has a material bearing on meeting housing requirements expressed in extant and emerging RSS/RPG and the allocation of sites in Stevenage Borough must be sufficient to ensure requirements are actually met. Stevenage West should in any event be re-assessed against other potential development land as part of a sequential approach to the identification of suitable housing sites. Land north of Stevenage would perform better than Stevenage West in any such re-assessment.

Mr N Scott, 24 Lavender Way, Hitchin 33.52 Objection is raised to the expansion of Stevenage towards Hitchin that would arise from

this proposed development. It would result in unnecessary destruction of the countryside, represents Government interference in the running of local affairs, ignores the current wastage of housing availability and does not answer the question “why does our population need to grow?”

Mr B Worbey, 1 Church View Avenue, Shillington 33.53 Baroness Shirley Williams, when the local MP, said that Stevenage as a New Town

should stop at A1(M). That was not political but common sense. The town was originally planned with factory and commercial areas to the west and residential areas to the east, at least in part with a view to keeping the trunk road clear of local traffic. Recent developments at Baldock, Stotford, Arlesley, Henlow, Biggleswade and Sandy have since added to such traffic on A1(M) and are sufficient to meet the needs of the area. Stevenage West would add substantially (about 10,000 or more vehicles) to congestion on A1(M) caused by these other developments and would not keep the balance between development and open countryside.

The Hitchin Society 33.54 The number and size of unforeseen “windfall” sites, especially in Hitchin, calls the need

for this development into question. The London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study indicates that any increased capacity on the A1(M) would need to be found from traffic management, while the elimination of bottlenecks on the East Coast Mainline railway is no longer realistic. With continuing growth in car usage, there are therefore strong movement and transport arguments against the proposed development. Moreover, with expansion of Luton Airport as presaged in the Airport White Paper, the local road system would be even less able to absorb traffic increase from large scale development at Stevenage West.

Mr T Harcourt, The Clock House, Hitchin 33.55 PPG3 totally negates SP1998 with regard to housing provision on four major counts.

Firstly, SP1998 was founded on “predict and provide” not “plan, monitor, manage” principles. In the event, HCC predicted and SBC volunteered to provide, with other Districts (except NHDC) not trying too hard to identify their own housing capacity because they would be left in peace.

33.56 Secondly, SP1998 did not follow a sequential approach beginning with brownfield,

windfall and conversion sites and no capacity study was carried out at that time. The capacity study since carried out by HCC is more robust than (cumulatively) those carried out for the Districts and plainly shows the lack of need for Stevenage West.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 193

33.57 Thirdly, Beverley Hughes, in her then role in Department of the Environment, affirmed

in May 2000 the retrospective nature of PPG3 advice [CD/MISC/5, appended to rear of Mr Harcourt’s letter], so SP1998 cannot be relied upon as being determinative under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It is no longer applicable and woefully out of date.

33.58 Fourthly, paragraph 30 of PPG3 says that LPAs should not extend the search for housing

sites further than required to provide capacity to meet the agreed housing requirement. The housing requirement has yet to be identified through RSS/RPG14 and Local Plan reviews, after public examination, not through the diktat of any Government department.

33.59 The current applications are thus premature and should be put on ice. Mr A Mills, 19 Lytton Avenue, Letchworth 33.60 Mr Mills writes in a personal capacity, in addition to comments made through DEFRA

[CD/LET/47]. 33.61 WSC has conceded that mitigation and habitat provision for birds and mammals cannot

be achieved within the applications site. The off-site mitigation works relate to areas that have no consistency with the applications site and the present regime of agricultural management of those areas would destroy food sources for over-wintering birds. The areas concerned are also already within agri-environment schemes, and there would be conflict with these.

Written representations submitted when the applications were under consideration by the Councils 33.62 A total of 7,600 separate representations were received in respect of PA5. Of these, 3

were in support and the remainder were objections. The objections include 6,568 in the form of a standard postcard provided by CASE and a further 708 associated with CASE. There were 297 individual letters and e-mails (including 3 supporters), 7 objections from Parish Councils and 20 objections from Interest Groups [list of Consultee responses, Parish Council responses and responses from Interest Groups in file 4 of CD/MISC/4]

33.63 In essence, the “standardised” CASE representations object on Green Belt grounds, the

availability of sufficient housing land to avoid the need for Stevenage West, harm to the local environment and traffic impact.

33.64 The individual objections point, among other things, to failure to comply with PPG3

advice, harm to the Green Belt and a wish to see more effective regional policies to encourage development in less crowded parts of Britain.

33.65 Those supporting the PA5 scheme opined that it would be better to develop in planned

form rather than by scattering small infill developments over a wider area, that the young, divorcees and the elderly would not otherwise have anywhere to live, and that the objectors’ houses were themselves originally built in greenfield land.

33.66 Turning to the PA3 scheme, 153 objections were received and 1 representation in

support. The objections raise similar points to those in respect of PA5 but refer

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 194

additionally to giving limited weight to SP1998, failure to accord with NHDLP1996 and SDP1994, and prematurity pending review of each of these development plans.

33.67 The letter of support for PA3 intimates that local businesses in Stevenage and the

surrounding areas would benefit from additional custom, adding that the sooner the proposals are therefore permitted the better.

34. Planning conditions and Obligations Policies 34.1 Under the heading “Development Contributions”, draft RSS/RPG14 says that the East of

England Regional Assembly will work with partner organisations to establish consistent approaches to the negotiation of planning agreements (and equivalent legal agreements) by developing good practice guidance and fostering best practice throughout the East of England. The Assembly intends to develop innovative approaches to value capture, up-front funding of infrastructure schemes and the establishment of revolving funds to ensure that new approaches are implemented vigorously and consistently across the region [CD/RPG/6 policy IMP2].

34.2 SP1998 makes clear that developers will be required to provide or to finance the cost of

all necessary provision for environmental works, infrastructure and community facilities services and other needs that directly relate to their schemes and are necessary for the grant of planning permission [CD/DP/1d, policy 2].

34.3 NHDLP1996 includes policy to ensure developer contributions towards the provision

and maintenance of facilities “or other aspects” where these are relevant to planning [CDDP/6, policy 51]. SDP1994 includes policy for securing “percent for art”. [CD/DP/8a, policy L27] and SDP2004 [CD/DP/9d and CD/DP/9h, volumes 1 and 2] expands this to include art and craft works [policy L27]. SDP2004 policy TW11 says that facilities and other needs required by development will be secured by S106 planning Obligations, a theme which is further developed in a range of other policies including, for example, policy L18. In the Stevenage West Chapter of SDP2004 policy SW3 requires, among other things, that the development proposals provide land to accommodate existing uses to the east of A1(M) that would be displaced and include a phased programme for delivering necessary community infrastructure, to be agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority and to be linked to specific milestones.

General background 34.4 WSC and the Councils strove throughout the Inquiry to reach agreement on the various

items of community infrastructure proposed and required. Insofar as affordable housing is concerned, the discussions met with success and the Section 106 planning Obligation dealing with this particular aspect is, in consequence, presented in the form of an Agreement.

34.5 However, there remain significant differences between the parties over certain aspects of

community infrastructure, with the result that the separate Obligation in respect of these matters is presented as a Unilateral Undertaking. The Councils have serious reservations about the form and structure of this Undertaking and these were initially expressed at the Inquiry in a joint document submitted by the WSC, SBC and NHDC [CD/MISC/13]. At

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 195

the session of the Inquiry on 21 May 2004, WSC indicated that it would seek to address the “fundamental concerns” raised in this document and requested additional time in which to do so. The Inquiry was accordingly adjourned until 9 August 2004 so that the documents could be reformulated. At the 9 August session, WSC produced, among other things, a draft of a separate “security deed” to give backing to the Undertaking, largely in its original form. The three Councils indicated that they would wish to see final versions of this and other documentation rather than continue to comment only on drafts, and would also require further time in which to formulate a response. The Inquiry was therefore again adjourned, until 25 October, by which time the three Council’s had produced a compendium document covering the adequacy, enforceability and legality of the various documents [CD/MISC/13a]. In essence, the Authorities maintain the view that the documentation is fundamentally flawed and “unfit for purpose”. WSC produced a written response to that document at the resumed Inquiry on 25 October. This is in two parts, the first part responding to general concerns about the form and structure of the Obligations and the second part dealing with the individual clauses [CD/MISC/13b and 13c]. The latter recites the Council’s criticisms of every clause in turn, drawn from the compendium document [CD/MISC/13a] and inserts WSC’s response after each. Both raise questions of law, and the ensuing summaries should therefore be regarded as providing only a brief outline of the points of dispute.

34.6 Since WSC’s submissions essentially respond to criticisms by the Councils, it is

expedient to depart from the sequence in the foregoing sections of this report and record the Councils’ submissions on the form and structure of the Obligations before those of WSC. Among the Councils, the principal submissions are those of HCC, which voiced the joint case, but each of the Councils has a slightly different perspective. The individual sections of evidence below therefore include reference to individual submissions made by the District and Borough Councils during the May 2004 sessions of the Inquiry on conditions and Obligations. I then give a brief summary of the submissions on the principal areas of dispute relating to the individual items of community infrastructure referring incorporating where appropriate cross references to relevant sections of evidence in earlier sections of this Report. I do not recite submissions from CD/MISC/13c that detail further submission concerned with procedural and interpretation clauses since that document deals with those matters in commendably brief fashion and would not in my view benefit from further summary in those respects.

Main points of the case for Hertfordshire County Council 34.7 Considerable care is needed to ensure that the S106 Obligations for a scheme of this

importance and magnitude are properly and suitably formulated because they will inevitably come to be regarded as precedents to be followed by others involved in similar schemes. The planning process for developing new communities would also be drawn into disrepute if the Obligations do not deliver that which is expected of them. This is quite apart from the risk of leaving a new community without needed facilities or expecting existing Local Authorities and other service providers to pick up the sizeable bill for their provision. Taken overall, the Obligations and Security Deed are far too complicated in their form, structure and interrelationships, and would bequeath to the Councils the need for a team of lawyers to interpret them, and potentially many years of litigation through the courts to enforce them [CD/MISC/13a, paragraph 2.1].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 196

34.8 The intention that the provisions in the Unilateral Undertaking would be secured solely by negative obligations and are founded on several liability is unacceptable. Although Section 106 of the 1990 Act provides for negative (as well as positive) Obligations, in an extremely complex development of such large scale as Stevenage West this does not mean that negative Obligations coupled with several liability are always or alone appropriate to ensure necessary infrastructure is actually delivered when required. The only effective way in which the necessary physical and social infrastructure can be secured is by a combination of both negative and positive covenants. These would need to be supported by step-in rights to enable the Authorities to carry out the relevant works in default, with a bonded sum to draw upon in this eventuality [CD/MISC/13a, paragraph 4.4]. WSC has not grappled with that fact that with solely negative obligations the various “triggers” could be exceeded by a developer building further houses with irremediable effect, because no Court would order houses to be demolished [CD/MISC/13, point D]. The idea that the Councils would be able to obtain an immediate injunction to halt the development is illusory because in order to get an injunction the Councils would have to give what is called a “cross-undertaking” in damages to the developers. Nor has WSC responded specifically to the Council’s point that because of the several liabilities provisions, the Councils would be left seeking to prevent developers who do not have the ability to deliver a promised item of infrastructure from continuing to build houses [CD/MISC/13, point F]. WSC’s opposition to the provision of a bond seems to be founded upon likely cost. Even a bond of £2m, however, would represent less than 1.5% of the total anticipated infrastructure costs of some £150 m. There is no suggestion from WSC that this additional cost would undermine the viability of the project.

34.9 The Councils want the Obligations (including those for affordable housing) to apply not

only to reserved matters pursuant to any outline permission for the present schemes but also to any free-standing applications that may be made in the future.

34.10 Clauses involving the payment of monies to third parties are unlawful [CD/MISC/13a,

paragraph 5, page 5 “cash payments”]. This applies to payments by vouchers (as proposed for energy from renewable sources and for bus travel), as well as for other facilities such as to the police for provision of additional prison facilities and a temporary police station [CD/MISC/13a, paragraph 9.2, pages 10 and 11].

34.11 The absence of covenants to give effect to clauses 6-67 would render the Undertaking

incomplete and potentially unenforceable [CD/MISC/13a, paragraph 5, page 5 “simple but fundamental numbering errors”].

34.12 The Undertaking also introduces a procedure whereby a third party may be appointed by

WSC to approve the form of certain infrastructure in the event that the Councils fail to approve it within a specified period. It would be quite wrong for the Authorities to have their statutory powers, duties and responsibilities abrogated in that way [CD/MISC/13a, Section 6 pages 5 -8 “deficiencies and concerns in the so called Invitation to Approve procedure”].

34.13 The proposals for certain elements of community infrastructure to be offered on a lease

to the Councils is unacceptable. Facilities such as necessary open space should be made permanently available through effecting a transfer of the land concerned. Clause 66 in any event requires only that a lease be offered rather than completed, and the offer can be withdrawn after only four months [CD/MISC/13a, paragraph 10, pages 12 and 13 “

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 197

fundamental problems with the offer process”, pages, 15 and 16 “fundamental problems with leases”]. Moreover, where facilities are to be marketed for other service providers to take up (such as the proposed green composting site and cemetery), WSC would be under no obligation to accept an offer [CD/MISC/13a, paragraph 10, page 6 “marketing” and Schedule 2]. Where the Undertaking requires financial contributions by WSC for the provision of infrastructure, the need is for actual payment, not simply an offer to pay [CD/MISC/13a, paragraph 11, page 14 “fundamental problems with financial contributions”].

34.14 The Security Deed does not address these shortcomings. It adds further and considerable

complication to an already complex Undertaking, contains no positive obligations, no bond, no step-in rights and fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 106(a) of the 1990 Act [CD/MISC/13a, paragraph 13, pages 16-20 “the security deed – an obstacle course for the unwary”].

34.15 The Councils’ prescription for an acceptable formulation would include the following:

• simply drafted restrictions on development pending delivery of land works

contributions and facilities. • simply drafted positive obligations to deliver land works and facilities prior to any

given trigger point. • all land required for social community recreational leisure open space and

education to be identified and permanently reserved and set aside for such purposes at the outset.

• all positive obligations to be secured by on demand bonds with main London clearing banks or approved sureties.

• simple forms of on demand bond agreed, attached to section 106 documentation and in place.

• bond sums as approved by the Authorities to be provided by a bondsman approved in advance by the Authorities.

• planning obligations to be bilateral rather than unilateral. • specifications to be agreed and attached to the bilateral planning obligation. • a properly thought out disputes clause to be attached to the Agreement with either

party having the opportunity to invoke it. • arbitrator or expert to be agreed between the parties or appointed by, for example,

President of the RICS/Law Society, default therefore ensuring a truly independent choice.

• arbitrator/expert to give reasons. • arbitrator/expert's decision to be binding on the parties. • all obligations to be contained in a single deed of planning obligation rather than

to use disparate documents designed to patch and mend defects in the original drafting.

• contracts for freehold disposal of for example school sites for £1 to be agreed and exchanged simultaneously with the s106.

• land and facilities should be delivered freehold to the relevant authorities. The transfers of land and facilities should be supported by appropriate defects liability provisions, which are both binding and clear at the outset.

• the delivery of land and facilities to the Authorities should be accompanied by appropriate commuted sums related to their long term maintenance and upkeep. Those commuted sums should be based on tried and tested formulae, which are

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 198

based on direct experience as to the cost and expense of running and maintaining the various facilities. These commuted sum payments should be determined and set by the relevant authorities and not through the process of “unilateral arbitration” now proposed by the Consortium.

Main points of the case for North Hertfordshire District Council 34.16 If planning permission is to be granted for either or both proposals, it is of vital

importance that the S106 planning Obligation delivers in a timely manner the social and physical infrastructure and facilities that are required to make this development a success. Moreover, given the scale of the development, the likely number of developers involved and the long period over which it will be implemented, it is also important that the Obligation can be readily understood by those who will have to deal with it. The Local Planning Authorities must also have adequate control to enable them to ensure that the S106 planning Obligations are fully complied with as and when items of infrastructure or facilities are required.

34.17 Furthermore it is important that the S106 planning Obligation makes appropriate

provision for the long-term maintenance of open space and other items of infrastructure/facilities. While NHDC does not question WSC’s good intentions, WSC and its successors-in-title have a commercial incentive to maximise financial returns, and there may be a conflict between this and delivering the matters promised in an S106 Obligation unless it is properly secure.

34.18 The fundamental concerns set out at the Inquiry session on the 6th May 2004

[CD/MISC/13] must therefore be addressed. The proposal to secure the Obligation purely by negative covenants is not an acceptable way of proceeding for a development of this scale and complexity. The only sure way of securing the provision of infrastructure and facilities as and when they are required is by a combination of positive and negative covenants, bonds and step-in rights. The cost of a bond would be small in relation to the scale and value of this development project and should be regarded as a reasonable and necessary cost of the development.

34.19 WSC’s answer to this problem appears to be that commercial reality will take care of this

problem, because of the unacceptability to developers of the risk that their part of the development might be held up by delay on some other part of the development. WSC says that there would be equalisation provisions to ensure everyone shares the burden but no details have been supplied and it is left as a matter of trust. However, the very purpose of S106 planning Obligations is that delivery of infrastructure is not left to developers as a matter of trust.

Main points of the case for Stevenage Borough Council 34.20 SBC’s resolution of “in principle” support for the applications was conditional upon the

imposition of appropriate conditions [CD/SBC/16]. The Council is broadly satisfied with the proposed conditions. There is, however, a need in SBC’s view, and that of NHDC, to limit the number of houses permitted to ensure that the development delivered reflects the assumptions underlying the Environmental Impact Assessment accompanying the applications and the S106 planning Obligations that have been negotiated. For example, the Environmental Statement assumes 12,750 residents (reflecting 5,000 homes) and calculates from that the number of forms of entry etc. If

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 199

the number of dwellings were to increase by, say, 250 houses (i.e. “only” a 5% increase over 5,000) that might be said to still be “substantially in accordance” (condition 5) with the Master Plan and the development description in the application forms (“approximately 5,000”). Such an increase may nonetheless have planning consequences beyond those addressed in the Environmental Impact Assessment.

34.21 SBC’s resolution was also conditional upon an appropriate Section 106 planning

Obligation being entered into. It is essential that all developments, let alone developments of the magnitude proposed, make proper provision to ensure that the extra demands placed upon the community and environment generally are mitigated and that the mitigation measures are deliverable and enforceable.

34.22 As to affordable housing, an agreement had almost been reached when new matters

arose in a draft agreement received on 17th May 2004. The agreement now reached will in any event need to be subject to a careful eye on the evolution of the Housing Corporation's emerging policy which is to the effect that the availability of grant could be dependent on the provision by developers to RSLs of land at no cost. The Housing Corporation's National Investment Policy, issued in October 2003 [CD/AFF/9a], had already created uncertainty but had been clarified to some extent by the Corporation in December 2003 [CD/AFF/9B]. The latest draft guidance [CD/MISC/16] simply reintroduces considerable uncertainty. Clearly the Secretary of State will wish to be satisfied, at the time of determining these applications, what the then policy of the Housing Corporation actually is. A careful eye will also need to be kept on the Housing Bill presently before Parliament to see what changes, if any, that will have for the funding of affordable housing. It would, frankly, be a disaster if affordable housing for those most in need of it, particularly the social rented sector, could not be delivered.

34.23 As to the S106 planning Obligation, Stevenage shares the fundamental concerns of both

the County Council and North Hertfordshire District Council as recorded in the joint Councils’ statements [CD/MISC/13 and CD/MISC/13a].

34.24 In response to WSC’s submissions on the subject, SBC makes the following points: 34.25 First, there is no question but that “several liability” is proposed. Even if there are no

financial commitments (thereby apparently rendering clause 52.2 otiose) each individual homeowner would thus be immune from liability. This is clearly a form of several liability with the consequences identified, for example, in paragraph F of the joint statement.

34.26 Second, WSC’s suggested solution of seeking an injunction to stop all development to

enforce all the negative covenants is simply unrealistic. The last thing wanted from anyone’s point of view (developer, local planning authority, resident or member of the general public) is for lawyers to have to be brought in, with consequential delay. On any view, a hiatus in bringing forward the development would result; and the delivery of much-needed development would be delayed whatever the outcome of the proceedings.

34.27 Third, by reason of the negative covenants, the Councils would be powerless to act until

a trigger had been passed and not satisfied, even though the inevitability of the failure to satisfy the relevant requirement (build a school etc) would have been apparent for months. There is no provision under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 200

Act 1990 to bring anticipatory proceedings in respect of potential breaches of section 106 covenants.

34.28 Fourth, in relation to the response to Paragraph P (need to transfer freeholds), control

over the use of the transferred land can, of course, be retained by WSC and its successors in title by way of a covenant imposed upon the transfer of the freehold. A lease of sites and buildings such as the community centres and schools would mean that in future years no building could be erected or alteration made without the freeholder’s consent. Further, any breach of the terms of the lease might jeopardise the very future of the school. Whilst one may recognise the commercial instinct of the draftsman, the lease proposal is wholly unacceptable.

34.29 Thus there are, in SBC’s view, fundamental concerns as to the structure of the agreement

with consequential concerns for enforceability of the delivery of the development as proposed. Positive covenants backed with step-in rights and bonds are essential to ensure delivery, and delivery on time.

34.30 In terms of substantive provisions, only the Transport Interchange Contribution remains

an issue for Stevenage [27.77, 27.78]. SBC submits that this must also be addressed before planning permission can be granted.

34.31 One general point may be made concerning the section 106 package as a whole,

particularly in the light of the Inspector's note [CD/IPD/6] and the Consortium’s response thereto. There is no evidence before the Inquiry that the totality of the S106 planning Obligations would in any way render the development unviable (Montagu Evans's letter [CD/IPD/6a] is plainly not to that effect and does not provide by any means all of the “figures” implicitly requested in the Inspector’s note). Indeed, if that proposition were to have been advanced, Stevenage would have requested detailed evidence to be adduced to that effect and would have wished to cross-examine upon it.

34.32 Even then, if (hypothetically) it appeared that the lack of viability arose because of

misjudged commercial decisions as to the value negotiated in options over land, it would be wrong for the planning system to be asked to underwrite such commercial decisions. This is particularly so when, in reality, if planning permission were refused the options would be re-negotiated whether by WSC or others. In short, there is no reason or evidence why any elements of the package should be deleted or why disputed obligations should not be required simply on this basis.

Main points of the case for West of Stevenage Consortium 34.33 It may be regarded as surprising that the Councils find fault with certain aspects of the

Unilateral Undertaking that are also included in the Affordable Housing Agreement, where the Councils have found them acceptable. Both, for example, are complex and both rely on negative covenants. Both proceed through a menu of offer and acceptance subject to an imposed time frame. In particular the Affordable Housing agreement makes provision for issues such as market value and rent to be determined by a single expert, there are no provisions for step-in rights and there are exclusions for single dwellings that are sold on. There are many different ways of drafting documents such as this but to elevate individual “preference” into a “fundamental” criticism is not warranted.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 201

34.34 In effect, the covenants in the Unilateral Undertaking would be secured by negative covenants, preventing commencement of construction and occupation of units within the proposed development at various stages until infrastructure thus far required has been provided. That is a normal approach to such matters and one that is envisaged by the very wording of Section 106 of the 1990 Act (“restriction on the use of land”) [CD/WSC/CLOSE in response to CD/MISC/13]. It avoids the need for “cash payments” sought by the Councils [CD/MISC/13b, Sections 5 and 19] and it would also avoid conflict with Circular 1/97 advice that a developer should not be required to provide community infrastructure beyond that required to serve development as it comes forward. For the same reason, it would also not be appropriate for the Undertaking to apply to any future free standing permission that may be granted for development here [CD/MISC/13b, Section 4].

34.35 Liability in the event of breach of the S106 planning Obligation would be joint as well as

several. In effect, liability would attach to successors in title and others deriving title, but for obvious reasons provision has been made to avoid liability attaching to individual householders. Liability of those with an interest in the land must also cease when they dispose of their interest as provided for in Section 106(4) of the 1990 Act. Where the S106 planning Obligation requires transfer of land, it would be enforceable against the owner of that land or others entitled to create or dispose of the interest. Any requirement to pay money would also be divided proportionately in accordance with percentages set out in the proposed Schedule. These are all perfectly conventional limitations on liability and do not represent any compromise on joint liability.

34.36 Enforcement by injunction is also not unusual and is expressly recognised in S187B of

the 1990 Act. Injunctions can be obtained at short notice and LPAs need not fear exposure to a cross-undertaking for damages in favour of the developer (Kirklees MBC v Wickes Building Supplies [1992] 3 All.E.R.717 [House of Lords]) [appended to CD/WSC/CLOSE]. As is now the practice with large schemes, a monitoring officer would be appointed to maintain a watching brief on compliance with the S106 planning Obligation so that the LPAs would be made aware of any impending breaches in ample time to take appropriate steps to secure compliance. The monitoring officer would also notify the Council of any transfers of ownership.

34.37 The principal sanction available to the LPAs would be to secure a halt to development.

Developers are unlikely to want to expose themselves to such a risk, but would have to satisfy the relevant requirements of the S106 planning Obligation before re-commencing development in any event. Clause 4 of the Undertaking would deal with enforcement, so there should be no confusion over enforcement of the covenants in clause 5 brought about by numbering as the Council has suggested [CD/MISC/13a, paragraph 5, page 5 “simple but fundamental numbering errors”].

34.38 Positive covenants of the type sought by the Councils are thus, in all the circumstances

neither necessary nor reasonable. A bond of the type requested would cost in excess of £2m (£2.61 m with inflation) and for similar reasons would also be unreasonable [CD/MISC/13b, section 3]. Furthermore, it would also be unreasonable to restrain development until such time as the offer of a lease has been accepted (such as in the case of the green waste composting site for example, where acceptance would be entirely in the hands of the proposed operator). The practical consequence of such provisions may be to temporarily or permanently delay development of Stevenage West. Instead, where an offer is not taken up, fall-back provisions would apply enabling the developer to

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 202

dispose of the land to use it for some other purpose after a set period of time. Commuted sums would be provided for equipped play areas and sport pitches (excluding replacement pitches), with maintenance for a period of 10 years in the event of leases not being taken up. The proposed S106 planning Obligation would thus fully comply with the advice in Circular 1/97.

34.39 In the light of these comments, the now proposed Security Deed is not regarded by WSC

as an essential complement to the Unilateral Undertaking, but is offered by way of an additional form of security to allay the Councils’ fears. It complies with statutory requirements, relies upon negative obligations and the diverse range of security proposed is similar to that accepted by South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council in the 1994 Camborne case [CD/MISC/13f].

34.40 With regard to affordable housing, it was at the Councils’ request that this be excluded

from restriction in the Unilateral Undertaking in order to avoid funding difficulties and any suggestion that developers would proceed to complete the whole of the affordable housing in any development parcel without providing necessary infrastructure (such as schools) is unreal [CD/MISC/13b, section 7].

34.41 The “invitation to approve procedure” at clause 65 of the Unilateral Undertaking would

not interfere with any of the Councils’ statutory powers, since only matters of detail rather than principle would be for the independent expert to determine [CD/MISC/13b, section 8].

34.42 There is no oversight in drafting the provisions of the Unilateral Undertaking insofar as

it relates to payments to third parties. This is expressed in the Unilateral Undertaking in negative form and thus falls squarely within the provisions of Section 106 of the 1990 Act. As a matter of law, any person may sue to enforce any Obligation thus undertaken in their favour regardless of whether they are designated in the Obligation by name [CD/MISC/13b, section 12 and CD/MISC/13d and e]. Performance would, in any event, be guaranteed under the Security Deed.

34.43 The “offer process” in clause 66 of the Unilateral Undertaking represents a suitable way

forward for dealing with those items of community infrastructure that are to be leased. It is, for example, necessary to establish a period in which both parties to the process should be expected to perform and 4 months is a reasonable period for that. The lease to the Councils would be for 999 years and it is in the interests of WSC that the assets be transferred to the Council concerned on that basis. It would be unreasonable in the light of Circular 1/97 advice for WSC to be expected to maintain these assets in perpetuity [CD/MISC/13b, section 17].

34.44 The arrangements for marketing under clause 67 of the Unilateral Undertaking are bound

by the requirement to use “all reasonable endeavours”. This can be measured objectively and the Undertaking provides, for example, for the Councils to require a “marketing report” [CD/MISC/13b, section 18]. The precise form of leases would be settled under the Invitation to Approve procedure in clause 65 [CD/MISC/13b, section 20].

34.45 For the above reasons, the Councils’ concerns are rejected. Nevertheless, WSC remains

willing to discuss the various matters in a positive and reasonable manner . If this leads

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 203

to agreement or further refinements they can be the subject of a further submission direct to the Secretary of State. There is, however, no reason to delay a decision on the applications.

The specific items of community infrastructure contained in the Undertaking: Clause 6 - Access Management. This clause would deal with the establishment of the proposed

linear park, the provision of new rights of way on-site, and permissive routes both within the linear park and in the Langley valley area. HCC’s criticisms relate to the timing for provision of the linear park, the need to include nature education study within the permitted use and a wish to ensure that the permissive routes would be constructed to HCC bridleway/footpath standards. WSC responds that phasing of the linear park is subject to planning conditions 7 and 18, nature conservation education is embraced by open space use and that the bridleway/footpath specifications would be dealt with by the “invitation to approve” procedure.

Clause 7 – Allotments. The Councils’ procedural concern about the transfer of leaseholds rather than freeholds applies to this provision. WSC responds that the matter is subject to the “invitation to approve” procedure and clause 66.2 of the Unilateral Undertaking dealing with long leases.

Clause 8 – Ambulance facility. There is no disagreement over these on-site provisions, which have been formulated in consultation with the ambulance authority, but the Primary Health Care Trust wants more flexibility included in the health centre definition [10.5, 10.6, 10.7]. The Councils’ procedural concern about the transfer of leaseholds rather than freeholds applies also to this provision. WSC responds that the Primary Health Care Trust has indicated that it is likely to take up the Health Centre, so clause 8.1 of the Unilateral Undertaking would apply.

Clause 9 – Archaeology. This clause would establish the proposed management regime for those parts of the site under which there are archaeological remains. The Council’s do not raise any specific concerns with this clause.

Clause 10 – Hydrological Monitoring (Burleigh Meadows SSSI). This would be an integral and necessary part of the off-site nature conservation programme. The Councils are concerned that there is no provision for remediation or action to counter the effects of development on the hydrology and vegetation of the SSSI if the development is found to be having an adverse effect. The Councils’ procedural concern about “unilateral arbitration” also applies to this provision in the event of disagreement over the cost of monitoring. WSC responds that the purpose of this clause is simply to assist monitoring and enforcement of the proposed Sustainable Urban Drainage System.

Clause 11 – Vegetation monitoring (Burleigh Meadows SSSI). The same applies as for Clause 10.

Clause 12 – Cemetery. This would be part of the open space provision within the proposed linear park. A purchaser would be sought for the site or, in the alternative, the cemetery and associated buildings constructed by WSC and offered on a lease to the Councils. The Councils take the view that the Obligation should simply require the cemetery to be laid out, landscaped and made available for use. If an operator is not found then the land should be offered to the local authority for one peppercorn. This objection relates to the Councils’ procedural concern about the transfer of freeholds rather than leaseholds. WSC does not accept that the cemetery should be offered to the Councils for one peppercorn and affirms that a long lease would be offered in accordance with clause 66 of the Unilateral Undertaking.

Clause 13 – CCTV cameras. A total of 10 cameras would be provided and fully integrated into Stevenage’s existing monitoring centre [24.1]. In particular, there would be 2 cameras in

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 204

the Meadway underpass and 2 in the Bessemer Drive underpass. There is underlying dispute with NHDC over the efficacy of CCTV to monitor these underpasses [24.8] and it is not specified whether WSCs intention would be to install them in the pedestrian/cycle underpasses or the parallel vehicular underpasses. However, NHDC does not object to their installation and the precise positioning would be for SBC to agree. The Councils further wish to have the cameras installed sooner than the Undertaking proposes in order to promote the attractiveness of walking and cycling from the outset of development. WSC says that there would be difficulties in installing CCTV while construction works are continuing.

Clause 14 – Community Centres. Suitable buildings would be provided and offered on long leases to SBC and NHDC as appropriate. Here and elsewhere SBC and HCC object to the proposed lease provisions [34.17]. The Councils also want detailed specifications of the buildings to be included, the right to inspect during the course of construction and flexibility to use the buildings for a wider range of community purposes. WSC says provision of the centres would be covered by the “invitation to approve” procedure and since the Councils have statutory rights to Inspect buildings under the Planning Acts and Building Regulations, no additional powers need be conferred in the Unilateral Undertaking.

Clause 15 – Construction Skills Training Contribution. SBC requested this in the interests of maximising local employment opportunities during the construction phase. Following negotiations, WSC would offer a sum of £20,000, with which SBC would be content. SBC point out, however, that clause 15.1 requiring a Local Labour Manager to be first appointed would involve the Council in funding the post before the contribution became payable. WSC says that the matter was fully dealt with in evidence and agreed at the Inquiry by SBC (note by Inspector – SBC objections at the Inquiry were withdrawn on the basis that agreement on the financial provisions had been reached with WSC).

Clause 16 – Day nursery site. The undertaking would provide only for the identification of a suitable site on a Detailed Master Plan (to which proposed planning condition 10 refers). The Councils’ procedural concern about marketing applies. HCC further want the site to be within the main mixed use centre and for it to be provided much earlier in the development process than the Undertaking currently provides for. WSC says the matter was fully dealt with in evidence (note by Inspector – under the heading “childcare”).

Clause 17 – School provision, contribution for childcare (day nursery operation) and youth facility. This is a lengthy clause which, with Schedule 3, would deal primarily with the phasing of on-site school construction in step with the progress of house building and with arrangements for determining the design and construction of the buildings concerned. The Undertaking does not provide for equipping the buildings, which is a main area of dispute with HCC [11.20, 11.33-11.34]. HCC also wants much closer control over the construction standards of the buildings than the Undertaking currently provides for, criticise the proposed education delivery programme and require that the location of temporary schools should be specified. Provision is also made in this clause for WSC to make a financial contribution (£300,000) to childcare, but only if HCC agrees to provide revenue support for such a facility for a minimum period of 12 months. This also is the subject of dispute with HCC, which considers the amount of contribution to be grossly inadequate [11.21, 11.35], Lastly under this clause, the S106 planning Obligation provides for a single youth facility of 320 sq m (net) within the mixed use centre. This may be at first floor level within a building part used for other purposes (for example above shops), rather than as a single storey building in its own right. HCC wants this to be furnished and ready for use. There would also be a floodlit external hard play area of 180 sq m. WSC says that the location of the temporary school accommodation would be controlled by planning conditions 2 and 5. The detailed specification for the schools would be dealt with under the “invitation to

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 205

approve” procedure but the general standards that would have to apply are governed by DfES Regulations. WSC does not accept that the freehold of the schools should be transferred to HCC or other nominated school operator. Any time gap between the Model C and Model A leases would be avoided by the sanction that no further development can take place until the Model A lease has been granted. The school would have to be built before an offer of a long lease can be made and HCC does not have to accept the lease if it is not content with the arrangements for sub-letting or does not intend to operate the school itself. There is no potential gap such that major strategic development could take place without the security that schools would be built or available. Educational and recreational use would come within the permitted use of the youth facility.

Clause 18 – Equipped play areas – This clause would deal with the phasing of provision and leasing arrangements to SBC and NHDC as appropriate. The Councils’ procedural concern about leases applies. The Councils want not less than 50 LAPs (Local Areas of Play) and for the Undertaking to include a positive obligation to lay out landscape and equip these areas, and to provide among other safeguards commuted sums for their future maintenance. WSC is willing to provide 50 LAPs. Clause 66.2 of the Unilateral Undertaking would deal with leasing arrangements. WSC would meet the maintenance costs of the maintaining the LAPs for up to 10 years but it would be unreasonable to require a commuted sum for maintenance in perpetuity.

Clause 19 – Experimental housing – It is proposed that (whether as part of PA3 or PA5) 50 experimental housing units (as defined in clause 2) would be constructed on the applications site, which would appropriately contribute towards sustainability objectives for the proposed development [5.2]. The Councils criticise the clause for being vague and unenforceable.

Clause 20 – Farmland species contribution – An index linked sum of £270,000 would be offered to bring forward the farmland species strategy (annex 10) [19.11], which would be an integral part of the agreed off-site nature conservation programme. HCC want the reference of an offer to make a contribution to be translated into a requirement for actual payment of the contribution.

Clause 21 – Fire precautions – This clause would deal with the provision of fire hydrants and of a fire station. Dispute on this subject revolves around whether adequate fire cover can be provided for Stevenage West from the existing fire station in Stevenage or whether an on-site facility is called for [10.27]. HCC also wants the fire station to be “ready for use” and located within the main mixed use centre. In addition, the Councils’ procedural concern about relying on unilateral arbitration also applies. WSC relies upon its evidence on the subject [10.11].

Clause 22 – Green Waste Composting site – A site of up to 1 ha would be provided for this purpose by WSC and marketed. HCC reservations [30.2] focus on the Councils’ procedural concerns about marketing.

Clause 23 – Health Centre site – Under this clause, WSC would identify a suitable site for a health centre and market it. Although HCC would prefer the centre to be constructed prior to marketing in order to be more attractive to prospective practitioners, the clause is uncontested other than by the Primary Health Care Trust on a point of interpretation [10.7]. The Councils’ procedural concerns about marketing again apply.

Clause 24 – Highway matters – This clause would cover contractor access during the construction phase, construction standards for the Meadway access and underpass and off-site highway works including those to junctions 7 and 8 of A1(M) (Schedule 4). For the most part they are acceptable to HCC and HA. The primary concern of HCC is that the “trigger points” all relate to the completion of Highways Act Agreements rather than to execution of the actual works. A financial contribution of £350,000 would be offered by WSC for enhancements to the existing pedestrian and cycle crossings of A1(M) serving

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 206

Stevenage West [24.2-24.12]. HCC want this offer translated into a requirement to actually pay and points out that the clause does not require any approval by HCC of works within the highway which would be unacceptable. WSCs general response to financial contributions applies. Clauses 24.7 and 24.8 control the progress of housing development relative to highway construction. HCC would retain control over road construction through the Highways Act Section 278 process.

Clause 25 – Home Zones. The undertaking would commit WSC to provision of a specified number of these. As defined in clause 2 of the Undertaking, they would effectively be shared surface roads with pedestrian priority. HCC wants them to be established earlier in the programme of development than the Undertaking provides for.

Clause 26 – Contribution towards a household waste site. For the PA3 scheme, WSC would offer £57,000 to HCC for acquiring, designing, laying out and constructing a site to handle household waste deriving from Stevenage West. HCC again wants this contribution to be available earlier in the programme of development than the Undertaking provides for. WSC’s response on financial contributions in general again applies.

Clause 27 – Library contribution. The dispute between the parties on this subject is recorded fully in the evidence [10.12-10.26].

Clause 28 – Local Governance contribution. For both PA3 and PA5, a sum of £40,000 would be offered by WSC as a contribution towards the costs of establishing and running a Neighbourhood Trust for Stevenage West in accordance with clause 33. The Councils question the composition and role of the Trust and want the offer of a contribution from WSC translated into the actual payment of money to a named body. WSC resists the payment of financial contributions in favour of control over the continuance of development.

Clause 29 – Local Labour Manager contribution. For both PA3 and PA5, a sum of up to £150,000 would be provided by WSC to fund SBC’s employment of a person charged with promoting training and economic development related to Stevenage West in association with an approved training organisation. This proposed measure would have similar objectives to Clause 15 and is subject to much the same criticism by SBC and response by WSC.

Clause 30 – Site for managed business units. WSC would identify a site suitable for development for small-scale Use Class B1 employment units at Stevenage West and market it. The Council’s procedural concerns about marketing arrangements apply and it is also suggested that the clause should provide for open space use of the reserved land until development of the units takes place.

Clause 31 – Appointment of a monitoring officer. WSC would appoint and fund this officer for the duration of development with the intention of alerting the respective Councils to progress on the development of Stevenage West and compliance with the terms of the various conditions and Obligations [34.6]. The Councils welcome this provision in principle but want a good deal more monitoring information to be provided, assurance that it would be accurate and object to any suggestion that the decision of the Monitoring Officer on the number of commencements, constructions and occupations would be conclusive. WSC does not see any need for the Unilateral Undertaking to address these points but would be willing to discuss matters further with the Councils

Clause 32 - Multi-use games area. WSC would construct this at the proposed secondary school site and offer a lease of it to HCC with a view to dual use by the school and the local community. HCC is not content with the arrangements for the latter, which the Undertaking deals with only by specifying that this will be part of the permitted use. It wants the area transferred to the Council with the school.

Clause 33 - Establishment of a Neighbourhood Trust. The same Council criticisms and WSC response apply as to clause 28.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 207

Clause 34 – Provision of a Neighbourhood Web site. As defined in clause 2, this would provide information of relevance to occupiers of Stevenage West. The clause contains no specific provisions for the establishment of the site, but the progress of housing development would be tied to it and the intention is that it would be maintained and operated by the proposed Neighbourhood Trust. No representations are made with regard to this clause.

Clause 35 – Open Space. The main purpose of this clause would be to ensure that the agreed open space would be provided in suitable proportion to the progress of housing development. The Councils want these areas to be transferred to them rather than leased and seek inclusion of appropriate commuted sums for their future maintenance. More flexibility is also sought for their development with kiosks, cafeterias, interpretation centres and the like. WSC is unwilling to transfer freeholds.

Clause 36 – Provision of a police and multi-agency room. It is currently intended that this would be provided by WSC in the community centre building at Stevenage West’s proposed main mixed use centre [10.5, 10.6, 10.8]. That building would be under the control of NHDC or SBC rather than HCC. On a point of law, HCC want it provided for the police authority (ie HCC) not to the police who are otherwise a third party. WSC affirms that the multi-agency room would be available for police use.

Clause 37 – Police station contribution [10.11]. WSC would provide £108,000 in connection with the PA3 scheme towards the cost of increasing custody accommodation at Stevenage and/or Hitchin police stations. The Councils want the offer of the contribution translated into actual payment. WSC’s general objection to financial contributions applies.

Clause 38 – Public Art. A sum of £200,000 would be provided for public art at Stevenage West, with the clause also indicating how that sum might be divided between SBC and NHDC. The clause would accord with SDP1994 and SDP2004 policies [34.3] and there is no significant dispute remaining between the parties on this provision.

Clause 39 – Recycling facilities. The clause would ensure provision of on-site collection facilities for recyclable waste in accordance with PPG10 advice but the Councils question the clarity of precisely what storage and collection facilities are actually to be provided by WSC. WSC considers the definition in clause 2 of the Unilateral Undertaking to be sufficient.

Clause 40 – Site for a religious facility. WSC would identify a suitable site at Stevenage West and market it. The Councils want the site to be reserved solely for religious use and not sold off for some more valuable use if the marketing is unsuccessful. WSC considers that the marketing process in clause 67 provides adequate safeguards.

Clause 41 – Renewable energy vouchers. In order to further advance the sustainability credentials of Stevenage West, WSC proposes to offer each new householder a voucher to the value of not more than £50 towards the additional cost of electricity from an appointed renewable energy supplier relative to that from “non-green” providers (50x3,600 = £180,000). No minimum level of contribution is stipulated. The Councils criticise this clause on the basis of the legality of making payments to third parties through planning Obligations to which those parties are not signatories. WSC’s general response to this criticism as a matter of law applies.

Clause 42 – Replacement pitches. This clause requires replacement, within not more than 18 months from the start of development, of the Meadway Park playing pitches that would be lost to the construction of the proposed new Meadway access to Stevenage West. It would meet Sport England’s requirements [22.13] and includes provision of a permanent pavilion. The Councils are dissatisfied with the proposed leasing of these facilities and want the land to be transferred so that they would be available for public use on a permanent basis.

Clause 43 – Resources Centre. The resources centre would be a room within the Community Centre building at Stevenage West’s proposed main Mixed Use Centre. The clause provides for WSC to provide the room and to equip it with computers. It further provides

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 208

for WSC to construct hardstandings for the mobile library service both here and at the northern and southern Community Centres. The Councils point out that clause 2 of the Undertaking defines the proposed library facilities contribution as being inclusive of funding for the resources centre and indicates a sum of £127,500 would be offered, amounting to 50% of the library contribution. They take the view that the funding should be additional to library funding. WSC disagrees.

Clause 44 – Retail shops. While proposed planning conditions 35, 36 and 36a would govern the amount of retail floorspace at Stevenage West, this clause would seek to ensure that provision would be commensurate with the progress of house building. It would do this by effectively delaying the start of housing development in the central, northern and southern parts of the site until the proposed shops in each of those respective parts of the site had begun to be marketed. The Council’s procedural concern about marketing and WSC’s general response on this subject applies.

Clause 45 – Provision of a Sports Hall. As with the proposed Multi-use games area referred to in clause 32, WSC would construct this at the proposed secondary school site and offer a lease of it to HCC with a view to dual use by the school and the local community. HCC criticisms are similar to those in respect of the multi-use games area and supplemented by further amendments sought to the proposed specification. WSC response is also the same.

Clause 46 - Sports pavilions. This clause would ensure the provision of suitable sports pavilions in association with proposed sports pitches. The Councils want them transferred rather than leased for public use. WSC’s general objection to the transfer of freeholds applies and point out that the timing of provision would be controlled by proposed planning condition 18.

Clause 47 – Sports pitches. It may, perhaps, have been more logical better if this clause followed rather than preceded clause 46, but the two clauses would in any event be complementary to each other and the foregoing comments apply in essence to both.

Clause 48 – Use of sustainable construction materials. The clause would ensure that a high proportion of the materials used in the development of Stevenage West would come from sustainable sources. The Councils consider that the clause, a drafted, may soon become out of date as construction methods change and would prefer a clause that referred to so-called “Eco-home” standards.

Clause 49 – Other sustainability measures. This clause embraces a range of subjects from designing and siting buildings to maximise solar gain to the use of timers on heating and hot water systems and the use of low energy bulbs. The same criticisms are made by the Councils as those applying to clause 48.

Clause 50 – Temporary police facility. This would take the form of a “Portakabin” or similar for use by the police until the facility referred to in clause 36 becomes available. Its provision is not questioned by the Councils except inasmuch as the provision of subsidy to third parties through the S106 planning Obligations process is claimed to be unlawful.

Clause 51 – Transport matters. This lengthy clause contains a number of discrete sub-sections, which it is convenient to consider individually:

Transport Interchange Contribution [27.69, 27.77, 27.78, 27.118-27.120] – the Undertaking is formulated on the basis of appointing an “independent expert” to determine the costs attributable to Stevenage West of altering the existing bus terminus in accordance with WSC’s proposed layout. However, HCC wants WSC to pay for remodelling the existing bus station and for increased capacity at the proposed bus/rail interchange, and the Councils’ procedural concerns about the use of independent experts applies.

Bus Services Support Contribution – This is the sum of £1m referred to in reporting the cases and which HCC considers inadequate [27.54 – 27.61, 27.113-27.117]. It would be offered in stages as development progresses. While there are provisions to “claw back” the contribution if the level of fare income to the bus operators exceeds the level of subsidy

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 209

(clause 51.11), there is no reciprocal arrangement for additional subsidy to be paid if fare income proves insufficient to maintain viability. HCC want the contribution to be increased to £4.5 m. Bus travel subsidy – For the PA3 scheme, 3,600 travel vouchers to a value of £200 each would be offered to new residents, redeemable against bus travel in the first year of residence. HCC question the legality of making payments to third parties in this way through the S106 planning Obligation process and would in any event prefer distribution of vouchers to be based on household size rather than per dwelling, pointing out that they may provide no more than 9 weeks of free bus travel. Appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator – The person appointed would be employed by WSC for the purposes of promoting sustainable travel at Stevenage West (schedule 5). HCC contends that if there are suitable sustainable travel and transport facilities in place, a person appointed to co-ordinate the operation of private shuttle buses would not be needed. Real time information contribution – This offer by WSC would total £155,520 for expenditure on providing the necessary equipment to give advance information to passengers of bus arrival time. It would not distinguish between PA3 and PA5, and would be intended to cover installation on buses and at bus stops serving Stevenage West and the cost of enhancing the existing central control system. HCC considers that the contribution should be increased to £500,000. Electronic Passenger Information points – Three such sets of apparatus would be supplied by WSC and installed in each of the proposed community centres, to assist Stevenage West residents in planning journeys by public transport. They would complement similar facilities already provided elsewhere in Stevenage by HCC. HCC would prefer the clause simply to require WSC to pay for the equipment and its installation.

Bus stops contribution – This sub-clause would deal with funding by WSC for new off-site bus stops in Bessemer Drive and Caxton Way. HCC wants the clause to include provision of real-time information at the bus stops and for the bus stops to be constructed to HCC specification.

Cycle stands contribution - WSC would offer a sum of £20,000 for the provision of cycle stands in Stevenage Old Town and the town centre. HCC wants the clause to translate “offer” into a requirement for actual payment.

Clause 52 – Appointment of a Waste Manager. This person would be employed by WSC to manage waste arising from Stevenage West during the construction phase (sub-clause 52.2), with a view to utilising the most sustainable options. This would accord with the general thrust of advice in PPG10 and paragraphs 5c and 5e in particular. HCC want the clause to include provision for the Council as well as WSC to approve the appointment.

Clause 53 – Woodlands fencing works. These works would be an integral part of the agreed off-site nature conservation programme. The Councils want the fencing to be provided at commencement of development rather than after 2 years have elapsed and seek inclusion of a requirement for its long term maintenance.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 210

Inspector’s Conclusions

IC.1.

IC.2.

IC.3.

IC.4.

IC.5.

IC.6.

From the cases reported above, I draw the following conclusions. The numbers in brackets [] alongside individual headings refer to the foregoing sections of the report that provide the source material for my findings under the heading concerned. Similar brackets within the text identify individual paragraph references supporting particular conclusions.

Preliminary matters:

My consideration of these outline applications is based on the environmental information and plans submitted with the applications and submitted subsequently, together with the responses of all relevant parties, including the revised Master Plans submitted to the Inquiry [paragraph 2.2]. In their entirety, I find these contain a suitably comprehensive range of information on which to base determination of the applications.

The development plan background against which the proposals are to be considered is in the process of change, and is likely to continue to be so for some time to come [4.1-4.6]. I comment at paragraphs 143-150 below on the relationship of the proposals to the development plan as it existed at the time that the Inquiry formally closed [31.23]. When the applications come to be determined, however, and for the purposes of Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, full account will need to be taken of the status of the development plan in the form that it then exists.

Main considerations:

In the light of the foregoing, the evidence at the Inquiry, the written submissions, and my inspection of the site and its surroundings, I am led to the view that there are three main subject areas for consideration in these applications. These are: (i). Quantitative matters relating to the supply of housing in Hertfordshire and the

strategy for its delivery. (ii). Factors bearing specifically on the identification of Stevenage West as a location

for development. (iii). Qualitative matters in terms of detailed development control considerations,

including travel and transport and the provision of requisite community infrastructure.

I deal with the various considerations under each of these subject areas in turn, before commenting on the specific matters on which the Secretary of State has indicated a particular wish to be informed [page 5 recitals]. I then consider the S106 planning Obligations that accompany the applications, briefly summarise my overall conclusions and, finally, make my recommendations, taking into account the suggested planning conditions which I consider separately in Annex 1.

Subject Area (i): Quantitative matters and strategy [Section 31, together with Sections 2 and 33]

The SP1998 housing requirement for the County is for 65,000 dwellings in the period 1991-2011 [31.7]. The SP1998 strategy is, however, promulgated on the basis of providing adequate land for some 21,000 dwellings, which represented the residual

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 211

IC.7.

IC.8.

IC.9.

requirement (after allowing for completions and commitments in the period 1991-1995) at the time the Plan was placed on formal deposit [31.15].

The strategy in SP1998 for delivering this amount of housing has three main limbs. The first is “planned regeneration” and is identified in SP1998 as the main development strategy (policy 6) [31.6]. This does not mean targeting development on settlements and areas that have been specifically identified as being in need of regeneration. Rather, it is a more generic approach to concentrating development within all of the County’s existing main towns in the interests of promoting sustainable patterns of development and contributing to urban renaissance. Its aims, among other things, include bringing land and buildings that are currently under-used or derelict into productive use, avoiding development that results in a net loss of open space, and managing the conversion or redevelopment of suitable buildings to provide dwellings that most closely match changing household needs. The main means of implementation are to be through “windfall” opportunities and helping to bring forward development which might otherwise not happen. The second limb of the strategy is “limited peripheral development” (policy 7) [31.6] and is to be advanced through the Local Plan process only when planned regeneration opportunities have been fully explored. It is also to be planned as part of the overall regeneration process. The third limb is “strategic green field locations for supplementary housing development” (policy 8) [31.7] for which both site- and quantity-specific provision is made at Hemel Hempstead and at Stevenage West.

HCC has never lent wholehearted support to the third limb of the strategy, its view always having been that the first two limbs would provide sufficient capacity to meet the residual housing requirement [31.14-31.28]. Indeed, HCC accepted inclusion of strategic green field locations for supplementary housing development in the formative stages of SP1998 mainly to avoid confrontation with the District Councils who, for whatever reasons [31.109, 33.55], supported the need for strategic allocations [31.16]. Importantly, HCC had suggested to the SP1998 Panel that the need for strategic development be considered when the Hertfordshire Districts’ Local Plan reviews came forward, at that time anticipated to be in about 2001 [31.18]. However, after considering all of the arguments, the EIP panel made clear that its inclusion was not on a “contingent” basis in the sense that it would only be taken forward if the other two limbs of the strategy failed to deliver housing in the quantity desired. This point was later reinforced in correspondence between HCC and ODPM [31.18, 31.21, 31.27]. Moreover, while policy provision is made in SP1998 for 3,600 dwellings to be completed at Stevenage West in the period to 2011, both the EIP panel report and the policy itself make clear that development here would be expected to continue to deliver additional housing in the period beyond 2011 [31.7, 31.22].

In their submissions to this Inquiry, both HCC and NHDC rely on monitoring figures and capacity studies to demonstrate that housing land has, and will continue, to come forward in sufficient quantity to meet requirements without the need for strategic development at Stevenage West [31.93 –31.106 and 31.111 – 31.128 ]. Although WSC contends that these matters are not relevant [31.38 – 31.41], they provide much of the context for the Councils’ objections and, even if for no other reason, therefore warrant consideration. Indeed, if taken at face value, the monitoring figures would seem to show HCC and NHDC to be correct. Those for the County show, for example, that over the period 1991-2003 the average completion rate has been some 3,523 dwellings per annum [31.98], a figure not dissimilar from that advanced by WSC [31.43]. This compares with 3,250 completions per annum required over the period 1991-2011 if the

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 212

IC.10.

IC.11.

SP1998 requirement for 65,000 dwellings is to be met [31.97]. However, it would be wrong to simply project past completion rates into the future without further scrutiny. Completions in the period prior to the publication of PPG3 may have included a higher proportion of greenfield sites than would now be regarded as sustainable [31.43], and completion rates can, in any event, be subject to significant variations [31.100]. There is also some evidence of relatively high levels of commitments and completions in the early part of the monitoring period [31.43], which may not be replicated in later years. Other factors may pull in an opposite direction, with increased densities on PDL, for example, having at least some potential to make up any resulting shortfall in housing land supply. For all of these reasons, monitoring of past housebuilding rates and existing commitments is insufficient, by itself, to demonstrate an adequacy of future housing land supply.

There is much greater disagreement between the parties over the forecasts of future urban capacity that have been proffered in evidence [31.44-31.50, 31.70, 31.93-31.106, 31.111 –31.128 and see also 2.4]. Such assessments are an important component in the preparation of Development Plans, not least to establish how much development is likely to be capable of being accommodated within urban areas, whether green field land will also be necessary to meet housing requirements and, if so, broadly how much. However, the subject matter of these cases is not concerned with formulation of strategy for the quantification and distribution of development but with the application of established and emerging policy. It is the advice in paragraphs 37-39 of PPG3 that applies to the latter. Of particular relevance is paragraph 38, albeit whether the paragraph is directly applicable to Stevenage West is open to question [31.150]. Whatever the case may be in that respect, paragraph 38 invites comparison with available previously developed sites. That is not the same as intimating that an urban capacity study should be undertaken before any application for planning permission for housing development is considered in the period between the publication of PPG3 and the review of Development Plans. Rather, as paragraphs 24 to 27 of PPG3 explain, a main purpose of capacity studies is to inform housing strategy, and such studies are not generally formulated with individual development control decisions in mind.

“Tapping the Potential” in fact identifies three approaches to assessing urban capacity, namely comprehensive surveys, priority area studies and typical urban area studies. The only two assessments referred to in any detail in evidence are those for North Hertfordshire District and Stevenage Borough [31.44]. In the context of the County as a whole these may at best be regarded as typical urban area studies [31.117]. Such studies are not intended to identify every site that is actually available and ready for development. They seek instead to examine the range of types and general quantity of sites within a representative part (or parts) of an area that, whether currently available or not, may reasonably be regarded as having potential for housing development. General assumptions regarding matters such as the proportion of those sites that are likely to become available within the plan period and the likely take-up rate of planning permissions are then made, and usually applied in the form of overall discounts. The resulting findings for the particular area under examination are lastly extrapolated to give a broad estimate of development potential over a wider area. Against that background, I find both the extent to which Stevenage new town may be regarded as “a typical urban area” in Hertfordshire open to question, and detailed criticisms by WSC of actual site availability in the NHDC assessment to be of limited assistance. Only a comprehensive capacity survey of the County would provide sufficiently detailed information to avoid these criticisms. Such a survey is not currently available, the Roger

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 213

IC.12.

IC.13.

IC.14.

IC.15.

Tym and Partners Housing Development and Spatial Strategy Audit for the County amounting to no more than a review of work already undertaken by the County and Districts, as paragraph 6 of the Audit avers [31.23]. It would also, in my view, be an impossible task to prepare a capacity study for an entire County that would be both of unquestioned accuracy and sufficiently up-to-date to suitably inform, as a snap-shot, the particular development control decisions that the Secretary of State is now to make [31.127].

To my mind, the comparison sought by paragraph 38 of PPG3 in the case of a strategic site such as West Stevenage must therefore be a different one. Notwithstanding the decision on land south of the M4 at Grazeley near Reading referred to by WSC [31.42, 31.104], it is my view that the comparison in these particular cases should not be confined to land within any one particular District or group of Districts. This is because SP1998 makes clear that Stevenage West is specifically advanced to meet County-wide housing needs and that North Hertfordshire District would not be required to make up any shortfall [31.116]. That contrasts with the position in the Reading case, where the relevant Structure Plan purposely left site identification to a single, named District. In the case of Stevenage West, it seems to me that the purpose of comparison under Section 38 for Stevenage West should be to ascertain from within the County whether there is any other available single PDL site, or combination of such sites, that would be capable of delivering the same number of dwellings within the same time-scale, while also having better sustainability credentials in terms of paragraphs 31 and 32 of PPG3. The assessments of urban capacity produced in evidence to the Inquiry are plainly not designed to enable that very specific comparison to be made.

Indeed, there is no suggestion by HCC or any other party that there is a single more suitable development site. Of those referred to in third party submissions, none are claimed to be PDL and for that and other reasons do not therefore qualify [33.20, 33.48, 33.49-33.51]. Instead, the essence of the argument advanced by HCC, NHDC and others is that a combination of relatively small and, at this stage, largely unconfirmed sites will come forward across the County in sufficient quantity and in suitable locations to meet the housing requirement without Stevenage West. That is a very different strategy from SP1998, and one that I consider to be deeply flawed.

The clear intention of SP1998 was that all three limbs of the approved strategy would not only be pursued together but would also be plan-led, even where referring to “windfall” development under the heading of regeneration. This is manifest from the wording of policies 6 and 7 and paragraph 124 of the explanatory memorandum, all of which seek to guide development to locations specified in SP1998 itself and “in accordance with” or “to be selected” in Local Plans, having regard to sustainability principles [31.6]. Although the HCC and District Councils’ capacity assessments include a number of “allocated” sites, some are carried forward from Local Plans that pre-date both SP1998 and PPG3, while others are drawn from Local Plans that are still at formative stage and have not yet been subjected to independent examination. Experience from the SDP2004 Inquiry where the Inspector rejected 20 “urban capacity” sites in Stevenage suggested by HCC, further illustrates that some caution needs to be exercised in taking such sites into account [31.70].

Sites that have not been formally identified in the Local Plan process can only, in practice, be regarded as “windfalls”. Such sites can represent a significant and legitimate contribution to housing land supply, not least because permission for their development will normally be granted only if in accordance with the development plan.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 214

IC.16.

IC.17.

It is, however, the antithesis of the plan-led approach that undue reliance be placed on “windfall” sites. This is explained in “Planning to Deliver” which says that “windfalls” can complicate the managed release of sites and risk throwing the planning strategy off course. Instead, it urges the use of urban capacity studies to assist the identification of sites suitable for allocation in Local Plans (which does not depart from the illustrative nature of the exercise) and thereby help reduce (rather than eliminate) the uncertainty that reliance on windfalls can create. Such considerations are particularly important in this case where there is no up-to-date framework of Local Plans across the whole of the County [31.45]. In these circumstances, the relative certainty that “windfall” development will be permitted only in suitable policy-led locations is largely absent.

HCC announced its intention to review SP1998 shortly after approval and adoption of SP1998 [31.31]. However, SP1998 strategy for planned regeneration had already been informed by consideration of the availability of previously developed land and may, indeed, be said to have been underpinned by it [31.16]. Review would not strictly have been necessary until publication of RPG9 in March 2001 (coincidentally the date originally suggested to the SP1998 EIP by HCC for Local Plans to have been prepared) [31.18] or, following transfer of Hertfordshire to the Eastern Region, at a later date when RSS/RPG14 is published. As in North Hertfordshire, several of the Hertfordshire Districts would now appear likely to miss entirely the cycle of Local Plan preparation that is necessary to bring SP1998 strategy to fruition [31.45]. Even in Stevenage, the Local Plan Inspector clearly had no option but to recommend strategic review of the need for Stevenage West in the light of objections extending far beyond his Borough-wide remit for consideration [31.13, 31.134]. Adoption of that Local Plan may yet be further delayed by the prospect of challenge on this very point [31.33, 31.86, 31.87, 31.88, 31.153]. Conversely, had the way been clear for Local Plan preparation to be progressed more swiftly and with greater certainty over the extant strategic framework, there could be greater confidence that the monitored contribution from “windfall” sites reflected in full the context of SP1998 regeneration strategy and other more up-to date policies than those in SDP1994 and NHDLP1996. This, in turn, under the now prevalent “plan, monitor and manage” approach to housing provision introduced in PPG3, would have provided better informed statistics on sustainable rates of house building that may, more legitimately, then have led to a decision to review the strategy, including the need for Stevenage West.

While similarly post-dating SP1998, “Planning to Deliver” further includes advice on “strategic sites”. It says that such sites signal the strategic foundations for future housing development in an area and that their designation assists parties to the development process to prepare for the lead-times required for such proposals, adding that their development might therefore extend beyond the life of the plan. To my mind, the strategic locations referred to in policy 8 of SP1998 (including Stevenage West) represent precisely the type of site that this part of the guidance refers to. They form an important and integral component of the approved development strategy for Hertfordshire, which distinguishes them from other “windfall” developments. Progress towards their development should not be stalled simply on the expectation that other unplanned “windfalls” will come forward in sufficient quantity to replace them. A much clearer evidential base would be required to justify such a significant change of course. This would include, for example, a high proportion of allocations in approved and up-to-date Local Plans (now Local Development Documents) supported by a relatively modest windfall allowance that reflects reasonable expectations from a similarly approved and up-to-date regime of development control policies. This evidence does not, at present,

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 215

IC.18.

IC.19.

IC.20.

IC.21.

exist. It would thus be wholly wrong in my view to abandon one or all of the limbs of SP1998 strategy in favour of an alternative strategy that, in its present form, amounts to little more than seeking to secure much-needed housing development through individual ad-hoc development control decisions [31.151].

That said, the quantitative decision to be made in this case is not which strategy should be pursued, and nor is it whether Stevenage West should be permitted in preference to an unspecified assemblage of “windfall” and so-called “allocated” sites. Rather, because “windfall” sites will continue to come forward in any event (whether at a rate greater than, equal to, or less than HCC and NHDC expect) the question that actually arises is whether Stevenage West should be permitted in addition to such sites.

In this respect, it is a key thrust of the PPG3 “plan, monitor and manage” approach to planning for housing that releasing (as opposed to allocating) more land for development than is necessary to meet the agreed housing requirement for an area should be avoided. However, while the development control process ultimately regulates individual site release and may thus act to avoid excess, management of housing land supply must take place within a structured policy framework [31.18, 31.21, 31.42]. Achievement of strategic objectives must be led by site-specific allocations (including strategic sites) that have been specifically formulated to meet those objectives rather than follow from an arbitrary distribution of windfall permissions. Other than where policies include specific provisions for phasing, a long term perspective must therefore be taken, in which any over- or under-supply of housing in one cycle of plan-making is corrected by policy reformulation in the next, rather than through the shorter term expedience of day-to-day development control decisions [31.104, 31.105, 31.106].

In areas of high housing demand such as Hertfordshire redressing over-supply in this longer term way may be viewed with circumspection, particularly where past experience shows that the housing requirement in future years has not been reduced as anticipated [31.95]. The advice in paragraphs 7 and 8 of PPG3 is now, however, of particular pertinence. In effect, the RSS/RPG process will provide the forum for debate on the appropriate future balance between development needs and environmental protection, with reviews at sufficiently frequent intervals to maintain suitable control over both. That process will take into account the past, current and expected rates of windfall development and the quantitative achievements of the current strategy of planned regeneration in Hertfordshire. It will thus indicate, even if not in site specific terms, whether further strategic scale development beyond 2011 would be either appropriate or necessary and, if so, inform decisions about future phasing. It will also guide the formulation of policy in Local Development Frameworks for determining windfall applications through the development control process.

As matters currently stand, however, SP1998 policy 8 requires Local Plans to identify land suitable for strategic housing locations west of A1(M) at Stevenage for 1,000 dwellings and for 2,600 dwellings west of A1(M). My view, although this is open to question as a matter of law [31.29 – 31.36, 31.65-31.67, 31.75-31.89, 31.115, 31.150], is that neither policy 8 nor SP1998 actually make those allocations. As policy 8 goes on to make clear, planning for them is to be brought forward through the review of the relevant local plans. In parallel with that process, the policy further requires the preparation of a Master Planning brief for an initial phase of 5,000 dwellings and a possible second phase of a further 5,000 dwellings [31.145]. Local Plans are not required to make provision for these latter numbers for the reasons set out in paragraphs 5.27-5.30 of the SP1998 EIP Panel’s report and because to do so would make

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 216

IC.22.

IC.23.

IC.24.

IC.25.

IC.26.

development commitments well beyond the SP1998 period. The latter would plainly be inconsistent with the “plan, monitor, manage” approach to housing land supply introduced in PPG3, which may provide for long term strategic commitment to certain sites but cannot be held to dispense entirely with the need to regulate the phasing of their release. In the now prevailing post-PPG3 “plan, monitor and manage” environment, the case for PA5 has therefore yet to be made out in the light of such deliberations.

However, following full and proper consideration of all the issues then involved [31.14-31.22], specific provision has been made in SP1998 for 3,600 dwellings to be completed at Stevenage West by 2011. Even though a much smaller number now seem likely to be completed within that time scale [31.93], development of this strategic site by whatever proportion of the originally expected contribution is an essential part of the approved and adopted strategy for planned regeneration in Hertfordshire during the present Plan period. I thus see nothing, in quantitative terms or in terms of extant strategy, that would warrant refusal of permission for the PA3 schemes.

Nevertheless, the SDP2004 Inspector, Stevenage Borough Council and, by all accounts, those commissioned with advancing the RSS/RPG14 process, all anticipate strategic review of the need for Stevenage West [31.91, 31.152]. With the coming into force also of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 [31.94], it is therefore appropriate also to consider under this subject area the question of prematurity in the context of emerging strategy. Indeed, the robustness of submissions on the subject may be said to highlight its significance to the cases advanced by the principal parties [31.51 – 31.55, 31.92, 31.94, 31.139-31.145 and 31.154], and I therefore consider the subject in some detail.

At the outset it must be said that RSS/RPG14 is concerned with a different area to RPG9 and with a much larger area than Hertfordshire alone. Within its area of purview, there will be different problems to address and different factors to weigh in the balance. Although development demands may change and expand commensurately, so would the range of locational choices. These factors will inevitably stimulate wide debate in the Regional Planning forum, involving a much greater range of participants than in connection with these particular planning applications [31.93]. Indeed, HCC has contended that it would be wrong in law to exclude such debate [31.84, 31.91].

Nonetheless, a number of key themes are common to SP1998, RPG9 and RSS/RPG14 (and to SP2003). These include the promotion of sustainable patterns of development, support for the provision of affordable housing, fostering of economic growth through the provision of an adequate and balanced supply of employment land, reduction in the need to travel (especially by private car), and a desire to protect and enhance the local environment [31.1-31.10]. Stevenage West was considered in the light of these matters during the formulation of SP1998 and included as part of the strategy for development in Hertfordshire as a result. It thus seems to me that there can be no inherent conflict between extant and emerging strategy in these respects.

A further strand of strategy is that relating to the emergence of the London-Stansted-Cambridge growth corridor. There is no longer any doubt that Stevenage West lies within the proposed corridor [31.3]. It does not necessarily follow that development should be promoted throughout that corridor, because there will be parts where protection of local environments holds sway. However, while such areas could include the Green Belt around Stevenage, it was plainly the intention of the SP1998 EIP panel that the Green Belt would be drawn back here, notwithstanding what the SP1998 Key

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 217

IC.27.

IC.28.

IC.29.

IC.30.

Diagram shows [14.10, 14.11]. Indeed, the SP1998 EIP panel succinctly summed up its conclusions in the following words [31.26]:

“It is quite true that Stevenage lies in a corridor of growth where even limited further growth on a north-south axis could threaten coalescence but the thrust of growth envisaged is not on that axis; and there is scope for major expansion which would not threaten coalescence in the way that similar expansion of towns to the west of the County would.”

Moreover, although a study has been commissioned by the Regional Planning Body to analyse, among other things, the reasons for differences between County and District estimates of capacity [31.4, 31.23, 31.54, 31.91], this is to inform emerging RSS/RPG14. It does not in itself amount to a review of existing RPG9 or SP1998 strategies. Indeed, there is a fundamental difference between assessing the extent to which the capacity of existing urban areas may reduce the need for future green field land releases in the Eastern Region as a whole, and assessing the merits of a single planning application on a specific site in the context of existing strategy for Hertfordshire alone. Essentially, the former will bear on the future regulation of housing land supply at Regional level, and I fully accept HCC’s view that consideration of these applications is not an appropriate forum for debate on that subject. The latter is, however, a much more limited consideration, and one that is to be undertaken within the ambit of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. For that reason, I find no obstacle to determining the applications before the outcome of the study has been absorbed into emerging strategy, notwithstanding HCC’s concerns [31.84, 31.91].

In any event, there is nothing to suggest that the need for housing land in either or both the South East Region and the Eastern Region has decreased since SP1998 was approved. Rather, there are strong indications that need will increase in future years, including for employment reasons [12.7-12.14]. In all the circumstances there can be little doubt that Stevenage West would make a welcome contribution to the housing stock of the area, and it is for all of these reasons that I do not consider draft RSS/RPG14 to be an overridingly material consideration in these applications [31.3-31.4, 31.41, 31.47, 31.51, 31.54, 31.55, 31.70-31.72, 31.84-86, 31.90 – 31.94, 31.103, 31.137, 31.138, 31.141, 31.143], notwithstanding the additional documentation that was submitted to the 25 October 2004 session of the Inquiry [31.23].

Turning then to consider specifically the advice in paragraphs 47, 48 and 49 of PPG1 on the subject of prematurity, paragraph 47 is concerned essentially with the scale of proposals. In this respect, even though both PA3 and PA5 would contribute a relatively small proportion of the SP1998 housing requirement for 65,000 dwellings and a smaller proportion of the Eastern Region’s requirement, the importance of Stevenage West (at least in Hertfordshire) is affirmed by its identification in SP1998 as a strategic site. This reflects, in particular, the longer term potential for 10,000 dwellings signalled in SP1998 policy 8 [31.7]. Its “substantial” size is thus beyond doubt and the consequent risk of predetermining decisions about the scale and location of development expected to be taken by RSS/RPG14 follows from that.

It also follows that these are cases to which the advice in paragraph 48 of PPG1 applies, and that the circumstances are such that refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity could be justified. As paragraph 48 further cautions, however, regard must also be had to the stage reached in development plan preparation. In this latter respect, RSS/RPG14 had not at the close of the Inquiry yet reached formal consultation stage

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 218

IC.31.

IC.32.

IC.33.

IC.34.

[31.92]. Even though RSS preparation processes are different from those of “old style” development plans, approval is not anticipated until 2006 [31.23, 31.143]. Although a deposit version is likely to be imminent [31.23, 31.137] no certainty can be attached to it while in a still formative state.

Turning to paragraph 49, however, Regional Planning Guidance has rarely included site specific detail and identification of specific development sites has generally been left to be initiated at Structure or Local Plan levels. There are some indications that RSS/RPG14 may depart from that approach in Chapter 5 of the so-called “banked” version [31.91]. However, unless it actually does so and there were to be no doubt that green field sites of sufficient scale to accommodate strategic housing developments in the Region would be required, it does not follow that awaiting publication would necessarily indicate unequivocally that Stevenage should be selected for allocation. Importantly, however, this is not a case where the question arises of whether development would pre-empt strategic decisions that should be made in the context of a development plan that has yet to be formulated. Rather, the suggestion is being made by HCC and NHDC that the strategic decision to progress Stevenage West should be reviewed. For the PA3 scheme, that decision was made following full deliberation over all the issues then involved, in approving and adopting SP1998. I see no compelling reason to revisit that decision or the capacity arguments that led to it. Nor do I see how the grant of permission for the PA3 scheme would prejudice the outcome of the development plan process, because the outcome of that process is already known from SP1998. The same cannot be said for the PA5 scheme, to which no equivalent commitment exists in SP1998.

In sum therefore PA5 cannot, in my estimation, be held to accord with present strategy. It would be premature to grant permission for that scheme before strategy for the post 2011 period (revised from that in RPG9, now for a different region) has been established through the approval and adoption of RSS/RPG14. However, irrespective of the rates of windfall development during the present SP period (including that presumed from current capacity studies), I see no similar reason in quantitative or strategic terms to inhibit or delay construction of the PA3 scheme.

Subject Area (ii): Locational factors

Development of greenfield sites is in some regards inherently unsustainable because of the irreversibility of permanent housing. PPG3 recognises, however, that some green field development may be necessary and establishes (for the Plan-making rather than development control process) a search sequence. This begins with the re-use of PDL and buildings within urban areas identified by urban capacity study, then urban extensions and finally new development around nodes in good public transport corridors. Stevenage West falls into the second of these categories (urban extensions). Although its identification in SP1998 pre-dated PPG3 advice, the EIP Panel considered in some depth the suitability of the location. The Panel noted that site selection had followed an hierarchical process based on considerations of sustainability, that could not be faulted, and concluded that there were no other development locations in Hertfordshire of greater or equivalent merit [31.22]. Quantitative and strategic considerations may bear on the timing of development relative to PDL, but do not undermine the inherent locational advantages of Stevenage West found by the EIP Panel relative to other green field sites in the County.

The broad range of objections raised in evidence mirrors the matters considered by the SP1998 EIP panel and there is therefore little to be gained by rehearsing them. A

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 219

number of new and supplementary points were, however, raised in evidence to the Inquiry and I deal in turn with each of those that bear most directly on development location:

Green Belt [Section14]

IC.35.

IC.36.

IC.37.

IC.38.

Prior to the identification of Stevenage West in SP1998 there is no dispute that the applications site was firmly embedded in the Green Belt. Uncertainty has, however, since permeated the situation. This arises for a number of reasons, including an apparent error in the SP1998 Key Diagram [14.11] and a degree of ambiguity in the wording of policy formulated to signal adjustments in the extent of the Green Belt in Hertfordshire generally as well as at Stevenage West specifically [14.12-14.15, 14.19, 14.23, 14.26-14.35]. The varying approaches to development control decisions taken by North Hertfordshire in the period since SP1998 was adopted bear witness to this uncertainty [14.27-14.29].

It is apparent from paragraphs 2.2 to 2.7 of PPG2 that the general extent of the Green Belt, upon initial designation or on subsequent alteration, is to be determined through the Regional and Strategic planning process and that it is for Local Plans only to determine detailed boundary alignment. Whether any particular alteration to the extent of existing Green Belt coverage amounts to varying its general extent or determining its detailed boundary must be a matter of fact and degree. However, it seems to me that an alteration to accommodate development of strategic scale, such as the major tranche of Stevenage West, intrinsically falls into the former category rather than the latter [14.25].

The question of Green Belt alteration to accommodate Stevenage West was fully debated at the SP1998 EIP, exceptional circumstances were found to exist, and the Secretary of State implicitly indicated satisfaction with that in approving SP1998 [14.10, 14.12]. Use of the future tense in SP1998 policy 5 (“Green Belt boundaries will be reviewed…”) [14.12] reflects a main purpose of strategic policies, to guide Local Plan formulation rather than to establish detailed criteria for the determination of planning applications. The ensuing words in policy 5 “…with an eye to exclusions to allow for the strategic housing developments…” may, however, be interpreted to convey an element of discretion that may inappropriately pass decision on the general extent of the Green Belt, rather than just its detailed alignment, over to the Districts. This ambiguity would have most easily been avoided had the policy indicated that existing detailed boundaries would be maintained until the relevant Local Plans had been reviewed. Nonetheless, given that detailed boundaries are already defined in Local Plans, these existing boundaries would prevail in any event [14.17].

I return to the subject of the relationship between the Stevenage West proposals and advice in PPG2 at paragraphs 151-157 below, this being one of the matters about which the Secretary of State particularly wishes to be informed. However, the specific question of whether it is for SP/RSS or Local Plans/LDF processes to provide for any necessary adjustment of the Green Belt to accommodate Stevenage West is, essentially a matter of law [14.25, 14.30 –14.34] rather than planning judgement. It is sufficient simply to record at this point my finding that, since only detailed boundaries and not the general extent of the Green Belt are to be revisited in Local Plan formulation, the applications site currently remains within the Green Belt.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 220

Landscape [Section 16]

IC.39.

IC.40.

IC.41.

Stevenage New Town occupies a shallow dish in the landscape. As the town has expanded, development has spread up the sides of the dish to the north, east and south. On the western side, however, the London-Cambridge railway line, the A1(M) and a swathe of industrial development between the two has created a firm physical limit to further outward growth, confining this side of the new town to the bottom of the dish. The open land beyond this western side of Stevenage rises to a plateau separating Stevenage and the A1(M) from the Langley valley to the west. Towards the north, the plateau descends to the more gently sided Almshoe valley. The landscape of plateau and valleys includes an attractive mixture of broad arable fields, paddocks, hedgerows and woodlands of typically rural character. Parts closest to Stevenage and A1(M) show some signs of urbanisation, including earth mounding around the Norton Green landfill site, the travellers’ site, the Transco High Pressure Gas Main compound, together with fly-tipping alongside certain of the tracks and paths crossing the land. In the Almshoe valley area particularly there are also pylons and distant views of Stevenage itself [16.16]. These features soon give way however to the unspoilt open landscape of the higher plateau land and to the very much more secluded and attractive qualities of the Langley valley and more distant parts of the Almshoe valley.

The subject of landscape impact was considered in some detail by the SP1998 EIP panel [16.7]. It concluded that the impact of development, though “painful” for the County at large [31.19], would be acceptable in the case of Stevenage West [16.8]. That is not to say, however, that the impact of development here would be unrelated to the scale of the proposals. In effect, PA3 would take development up the western side of the dish in which Stevenage is presently situated and onto the top of the plateau. PA5 would continue development westwards and northwards to the top of the eastern side of the Langley valley and part way down the southern side of the Almshoe valley. Further development to bring the total number of dwellings to 10,000 would extend down the eastern side of the Langley valley. All would result in loss of significant areas of open countryside to permanent built development and would thus cause serious harm to the present character and appearance of the rural landscape [16.48]. PA3 would, however, be much more easily contained by the landscape than PA5 or any more extensive proposal. It also follows that the main focus of evidence is on the effectiveness of mitigation measures, rather than any suggestion that landscape impact can be avoided altogether [16.17].

Part of the applications site lies within a Landscape Conservation Area [16.3, 16.4] this being a local designation to which the advice in PPS7 now applies, rather than that in PPG7 [16.13]. Evidence to the Inquiry by the principal parties pre-supposes that this designation may not endure, but whatever may happen in future in that respect, only limited importance can be attached to it at present pending robust assessment of the qualities of the landscape and development plan review. Nonetheless, for the most part, important topographical features of the existing landscape, including woodlands, hedgerows and ponds, would be retained and enhanced, albeit as part of the setting for large scale housing development rather than as an integral part of the existing open countryside. Some off-site planting is also proposed, which would reinforce local qualities of the existing landscape. [16.12]. The same mitigation proposals are put forward for PA3 as for PA5 but these have been designed around the PA5 scheme. A criticism made by NHDC is that they may thus be regarded as something of a “loose fit” for PA3. However, landscaping is a reserved matter and it should be possible to design a

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 221

IC.42.

IC.43.

IC.44.

scheme of further “structural” planting for PA3 that would fill any gaps that might otherwise be left, while still being in general accordance with the Master Plan.

In the Almshoe valley, PA3 would have relatively little visual impact because of the prevailing contours, but the impact of PA5 would be more significant [16.19 - 16.22, 16.31-16.35, 33.20]. In the PA3 scheme, adverse effects on the landscape here could be avoided almost altogether with advance landscaping as proposed [16.20] and if some 20-30 houses were to be re-distributed elsewhere within the applications site, away from the upper southern slope of the valley [16.35]. If only PA3 is to be permitted, it seems to me that such redistribution would be desirable in order to protect, from avoidable loss, the openness of the countryside and the pleasant rurality of the views of the landscape seen from the various rights of way in this area [16.32]. That could, I consider, be suitably dealt with by planning condition [see Annex 1 commentary on condition 18b]. A much greater amount of development would inevitably spill down the valley side in the PA5 scheme, but the exposure of development would progressively reduce as landscaping grew and matured over time [16.20], so the full impact would not be enduring. Nonetheless, if PA5 were to be permitted, it seems to me that it would be desirable to at least delay development in this sector until existing and proposed landscaping had been given greater opportunity than currently proposed to mature. With that caveat, in neither case do I find the long term landscape impact unexpected or, to that extent, exceptional.

In the Langley valley, neither the PA3 nor the PA5 scheme would impact significantly on the views from the B656 Langley Road along the valley floor. Concern instead focuses on the views from higher level on the western side of Langley valley [16.36-16.47]. Views from here are both distant and broad ranging, with the extensive Rush Green scrap yard in the foreground of some, and glimpses of the built up area of Stevenage in the background in others [3.2, 16.10, 16.12, 16.23]. Much of the development in both the PA3 and PA5 schemes would be largely concealed in these views behind existing and proposed woodlands and hedgerows, and by proposed earth mounding. Nonetheless, some substantial proposed buildings and the earthworks themselves would be visible in both and would signal proximity to the outer edge of the built up area of Stevenage much more clearly than now. This would much diminish the otherwise predominantly rural qualities of the present views across the valley.

It has, however, been anticipated that there would be some landmark buildings along this edge of the plateau [16.25, 16.46, 16.47]. Even though their precise architectural detailing may not be apparent over the distance concerned, their presence would lend both focus and interest to the view without, in my judgement, necessarily being over-intrusive [16.47]. Much the same applies to the proposed school buildings on the central school site [16.26, 16.27, 16.39-16.45]. Formation of the proposed playing fields and earth mounding would, I acknowledge, significantly alter the present landscape and be incongruous if proposed in a rural area to be kept free from built development. The presence of either 3,600 or 5,000 dwellings cannot, however, be entirely concealed from elevated views, and judgement instead needs to be made as to whether the view would be unacceptably harmed. In this respect, features such as schools and playing fields are not uncommon or inherently unattractive features on the edge of urban areas. Provided the proposed earthworks are carefully sculpted and the buildings well designed [16.28, 16.43], I do not therefore consider that they would seriously impair the view from the opposite side of the valley. With PA3, however, a significant length of bunding could be avoided altogether as there would be no dwellings in the vicinity of the area called “the

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 222

IC.45.

IC.46.

bulge” to screen [16.23, 16.24, 16.36-16.38], so the impact would again be less than would be the case with PA5.

In sum, both PA3 and PA5 would inevitably result in loss of significant areas of open countryside to permanent built development. There can therefore be no doubt that neither proposal would accord with policies in RPG/RSS14, SP1998, NHDLP1996, SDP1994 and SDP2004 that seek to protect and enhance the existing rural landscape, particularly the Landscape Conservation Area designated under policy 12 of NHDLP1996[16.1-16.6]. Individual topographical features would, however be retained and/or enhanced both on and off-site, and some additional areas of greenery would be established. In this particular respect, there would be compliance with certain other landscape policies and parts of policies, such as for example SDP1994 policies EN14, EN15 and EN17 and similar policies in SDP2004, including SW3 and SW11. Compliance with the Master Planning Principles is a matter for consideration at detailed planning stage.

Landscape policy conflict and harm must in any event be balanced against the need for development. In that context, PA3 is to be preferred over PA5 in landscape terms, simply because the overall visual impact of the smaller scheme would be less. However, should the Secretary of State come to the view that strategic needs are compelling, the harm in either of the schemes would, I consider, on balance be acceptable.

Nature Conservation and hydrology [Sections 15, 19 and 33]

IC.47.

IC.48.

Although the SP1998 EIP Panel found most of the applications site to be of limited nature conservation interest, paragraph 5.87 of its Report noted substantial interests adjacent to the site that would need to be protected from hydrological effects and people pressure [19.6]. These include the group of SSSIs to the south of the site, known collectively as Knebworth Woods [15.3, 19.2, 19.10, 19.15]. Detailed survey work, both by WSC and by third parties, has also recorded a wide range of farmland species within the site itself, including brown hare, skylarks and grey partridge and, more recently, lizards [19.4, 19.6, 19.14, 33.34, 33.35, 33.38].

A wide range of measures has been formulated in consultation with relevant bodies to off-set the adverse impact of development [15.3, 15.4, 19.7-19.12, 19.17, 19.19, 19.20]. On-site, these include protection and enhancement of existing features of importance to wildlife including County Wildlife Sites [19.9], creation of new areas attractive to a diversity of species, and the establishment of wildlife corridors connecting the present fragmentary pattern of trees and hedgerows to the rural area beyond, mainly via the proposed linear park [19.8]. The linear park would itself include a small part of the Burleigh Meadows SSSI [19.2], which would thus be suitably protected and enhanced as an integral part of these measures. Off-site, arrangements are intended to be put in place to increase the capacity of nearby countryside to support increased populations of local flora and fauna and to provide physical protection to the bordering SSSIs. A degree of uncertainty prevails over the extent to which these arrangements may be supported by DEFRA or conflict with DEFRA’s own initiatives [19.11, 33.35, 33.61]. Whatever the outcome may be, the procedural aspects concerning construction methods, access management, nature conservation management and the proposed Farmland Species Strategy can be dealt with by planning conditions and Obligations without prejudice to the provisions of Regulation 54(4) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 223

IC.49.

IC.50.

IC.51.

It is, however, inevitable that urban development on the scale proposed would result in significant loss of rural habitat and displacement of farmland species, particularly those whose habitat is characterised by broad, arable fields in relatively elevated locations such as the plateau land of the applications site. This type of habitat is in finite supply and cannot readily be re-created elsewhere because of its inherently large scale. In Hertfordshire particularly, it is also relatively scarce [33.34]. Even if more intensive colonisation by wildlife of similar nearby land is possible, there can be no certainty that existing populations of fauna would readily transfer [33.38]. That said, the site is not a candidate Special Area of Conservation or a Special Protection Area, which identify important habitats as part of the Natura 2000 network being pursued by Government to give effect to implementation of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives annexed to PPG9. Moreover, relevant policies are aimed primarily at protecting sites and areas that have been formally designated for their wildlife conservation value. Such designations cover only fragmentary parts of the site [19.2, 19.4]. The areas concerned would be retained and, to their benefit, interlinked with new areas of greenery that would provide corridors for wildlife movement both within the site and to and from surrounding areas. I therefore see no overriding policy obstacle to development of Stevenage West in this regard [19.1-19.3] and from the evidence, there is also no reason to find any conflict with the policies and principles relevant to hydrology [15.1].

For those reasons, a strategic need for housing may be held to be an overriding public interest. That interest is one which, in the light of the SP1998 EIP panel’s findings on Stevenage West in the round, is unlikely to be met satisfactorily elsewhere in Hertfordshire without similar impact upon wildlife and habitats or giving rise to other environmental concerns. As matters currently stand, “windfall” development at other locations coming forward through the development control process would also be without the assurance of a comprehensive range of mitigation measures like that accompanying both the PA3 and PA5 schemes.

I therefore conclude that there is nothing to warrant departure from the SP1998 EIP Panel finding that Stevenage West is an acceptable development location, notwithstanding the nature conservation interests that have been identified.

Luton Airport [Section 18 together with Sections 5, 32 and 33]

IC.52.

IC.53.

Whether the airport remains at its present size or is expanded to maximise the increased capacity presaged most recently in the Airports White Paper [18.1], Stevenage West would lie outside its established public safety zone. There are no wider safety restrictions on building in proximity to the airport that would militate against Stevenage West in principle, and there are many other places where settlements lie beneath flight paths, including Stevenage itself. Accordingly, no public safety objection to development at this location has been raised by the Civil Aviation Authority, which has responsibility for such matters, or by LLAOL itself [18.7]. I find no reason to take any different view [18.7, 18.9, 18.11, 18.39, 33.39].

The subject of aircraft noise was considered by the SP1998 EIP panel, which concluded that actual or potential aircraft noise could not be regarded as a substantial objection to development of Stevenage West [18.14]. That conclusion was reached in the light of advice in PPG24 “Planning and Noise” but was based on estimates of future airport capacity carried out by RUCATSE rather than those now contained in the Airports White Paper [18.14]. Nonetheless, Stevenage West is predicted still to be exposed to noise levels no greater than those falling within Noise Exposure Category B, even on the basis of the White Paper’s expected future capacity of the airport [18.14, 18.16, 18.17,

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 224

IC.54.

IC.55.

18.20, 18.27-18.34]. As Annex 1 to PPG24 explains, noise in this Exposure Category should be taken into account when determining planning applications. It does not automatically follow, however, that permission should be refused since planning conditions may be appropriate to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise [18.19, 32.20, 32.21]. In this respect, it is apparent that the proposed dwellings could be insulated against external noise sufficiently to ensure acceptable night-time internal noise levels [18.12-18.18, 18.33, 18.34]. Daytime external noise would be an inconvenience [18.41-18.42], but would not be such as to render development of Stevenage West unacceptable. I thus conclude that, in these cases, noise can be suitably dealt with by planning condition. Arguments concerning the formulation of the proposed condition are included in Annex 1 to this Report.

A further concern that has been raised and which may bear on development location is the risk of aircraft being struck by birds [18.10, 18.36, 18.37, 32.21]. Stevenage West would fall within the 13 km radius around airports that the CAA Safety Regulation Group has indicated may be prone to such eventualities. That radius is, nevertheless, based on the premise that it represents the area within which aircraft may be expected to be at a height of less than 2,000 feet [18.36]. Those passing over Stevenage West would, however, be at about this height and would generally only be lower in the much more limited approach and take-off zone between Stevenage West and the runway [18.11, 18.32]. To that extent, the likelihood of birdstrike attributable to development at Stevenage West may be regarded as being at the margins of possibility. Moreover, the landscaping of the proposed development, while extensive, would be subject to detailed approval and it should be possible to select plant species that would not be attractive to large flocks of birds in accordance with recommendations of the Civil Aviation Authority’s Safety Regulation Group [18.36]. No large areas of water are proposed and the only waste disposal site proposed of any significance would be the proposed green composting facility [5.1, 5.2]. The focus of any bird activity there would be at ground level (approximately 400 feet above Ordnance datum) rather than at 2,000 feet. It is for the respective Councils to decide on the consultation and publicity procedures arising from applications for approval of reserved matters and other details of the proposed development as may be submitted. The extent to which these may or may not be covered by the 1992 Safeguarding Direction is a matter of law [18.9, 18.10, 18.21, 18.36, 18.37]. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the risk of birdstrike would be no greater than that already associated with the diverse habitat provided by this extensive area of farmland in close proximity to the urban area of Stevenage itself, where there is no evidence of any similar problems having arisen.

The policies relevant to Luton Airport are mainly concerned with control of airport development rather than of residential development at Stevenage West [18.1 – 18.5]. Subject to the formulation of a suitable noise insulation condition, the requirements of other policies including SP1998 policy 57, NHDLP1996 policy 23 and SDP2004 policy 29 could be suitably met, and the requirements of Master Planning Principle MP46 have been complied with. In sum, I therefore find no reason to oppose Stevenage West for reasons of its location close to Luton Airport in noise or safety terms.

Rush Green Airfield [Sections 23 and 33]

IC.56. Use of this airfield is constrained by the need to keep away from the flightpath of aircraft arriving at and departing from Luton Airport. Combined with the physical characteristics of the airfield itself, this means that the airfield is suitable only for experienced pilots. Stevenage West would represent a further constraint on flights

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 225

IC.57.

IC.58.

because of the need to maintain suitable distance above the proposed dwellings while keeping below the Luton flight path [23.2-23 – 23.4, 23.6, 23.7, 33.11-3.14]. Indeed, the arrangements for landing and take off are likely to become such that this already relatively lightly used airfield would become even less convenient to use than it is now and it has been suggested that development at Stevenage West may even signal its ultimate demise [33.14].

There is, however, no objection from the current operator of the airfield on the basis of continued operational or commercial viability [23.5, 33.10] and no suggestion that protection of the airfield should take precedence over strategic housing needs. Rather, the objector’s case is that development should be precluded from the part of the applications site that lies under the circuit flown by pilots intending to land [33.13]. This would require re-siting of the central school site and displacement of houses from swathes of the site to the east and south of the school as well as from any replacement site selected for it. This, to my mind, would be a disproportionate response to safeguarding such a lightly used airfield [33.11], which is already compromised by its juxtaposition relative to Luton Airport. An alternative flight pattern, such as the “straight in-straight out” route, despite its serious inconvenience to pilots, would I consider be a more appropriate way of addressing the problem [23.7, 33.14].

For that reason, I neither endorse the request for the establishment of a development free zone within the applications site nor regard the presence of Rush Green Airfield to be an insurmountable obstacle to Stevenage West as a strategic development location. Since the main thrust of development plan policies is to control development at the airfield rather than at Stevenage West, and given that there are no Master Planning Principles that bear on the relationship between the two [23.1], I also see no policy objection to the PA3 and PA5 proposals.

The Historic Environment [Sections 9 together with Section 4]

IC.59.

IC.60.

There are no buildings or areas within the site that are statutorily designated for their historic, architectural, or archaeological importance. Three Listed Buildings stand a short distance beyond the site boundaries and would not be physically affected by the proposed development [9.5]. Two of these buildings, Dyes Farmhouse and the thatched cottage at Todds Green, would be sufficiently distant from any proposed area for building on the applications site for their present rural settings to remain largely undisturbed. The third, Almshoebury Farmhouse is largely enclosed within an existing farmyard containing a number of sizeable agricultural buildings. Although this Listed Building would be relatively close to the site boundary and to a section of proposed linear park, built development in the PA3 scheme would be set a good distance away behind proposed tree planting and earth mounding. Even with the PA5 scheme, which would be closer but similarly screened, the setting of the existing farmhouse would in my judgement be preserved [9.7].

Archaeological investigation of the site has been undertaken and a number of finds recorded of regional or local importance [9.6]. While there is some doubt over whether the vestiges of a Roman Quarry are of greater importance [9.6, 9.10], all are in locations where they can be preserved in situ. Detailed investigations would continue as development takes place and appropriate measures taken to deal with any additional finds. These are matters that can be suitably dealt with by planning conditions in accordance with PPG16 advice, and there would be no conflict with relevant policy requirements [9.1-9.4].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 226

IC.61. Other landscape features of historic significance would be retained, enhanced or in the case of certain hedgerows, suitably replaced [9.8]. I thus find no reason in terms of the historic environment to oppose development at this location.

Stevenage Regeneration [Section 26 together with Sections 5 and 31]

IC.62.

IC.63.

IC.64.

The arm of the SP1998 development strategy relating to “planned regeneration” has the general objective of maximising opportunities for redevelopment within existing urban areas rather than focussing new development on towns specifically identified because of a pressing need for urban renewal. However, Stevenage West would make a positive contribution to regeneration initiatives currently in train for the town centre of Stevenage, which are supported by English Partnerships [26.1].

In this respect, Stevenage can be distinguished from towns more typical of Hertfordshire by reason of its New Town status. Unlike the more prevalent historic market towns of the County, its town centre was developed in a single period of growth and over the ensuing years has become uniformly dated in design, form and layout. The size of the task to bring the attractiveness of the town centre up to a standard compatible with the aspirations of modern-day families should not therefore be underestimated. The proposals being advanced by SBC and English Partnerships are designed with this in mind [26.3, 26.6].

The sizeable influx of population that would result from development of Stevenage West would be likely to both lend stimulus to, and derive sustainability benefits from, the quantitative and qualitative enhancement of the range of retail, leisure and other facilities proposed for the town centre. A refurbished Stevenage town centre would not, however, capture all of the increased expenditure deriving from Stevenage West, especially during the potentially lengthy period of town centre redevelopment and the inevitable environmental disturbance associated with it [26.3]. In the interim, given that dwelling completions at West Stevenage would start to flow in increasing numbers from 2007 [5.4, 31.93, 31.128], residents may prefer to use alternative and, at present, more attractive centres. It is also the case that the refurbishment of the town centre would be likely to take place whether or not PA3 or PA5 are permitted [26.6, 26.7, 26.8]. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that town centre regeneration and development at West Stevenage would be of mutual benefit to each other, at least in the longer term. Development other than at Stevenage, and particularly a more dispersed pattern of development, would be less likely to bring such benefit in equal measure. To that extent, a single significant development at Stevenage West in the form of either PA3 or PA5 may be seen to have locational benefits and be supportive of relevant development plan policies [26.1].

Other locational considerations [Sections 8, 20, 29 and 33]

IC.65. Despite concern expressed by Codicote Parish Council and existing residents over the capacity of existing utility services to provide for development of the scale proposed [33.22-33.25, 33.45, 33.47], the service providers themselves do not foresee any difficulties in this respect and there would be no identifiable conflict with development plan policies [29.1 - 29.15]. Farmland in the best and most versatile category would be lost, and this would conflict with SP1998 policy 40, SP2003 policy 40, SDP1994 policy EN25 and SDP2004 policies EN24 and SW11. However, DEFRA has not raised objection and the SP1998 EIP panel considered the loss to be acceptable [8.5]. I find no reason to depart from those views [8.4-8.11]. With regard to traffic noise from A1(M), a satisfactory noise environment could be achieved by the construction of a noise barrier

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 227

IC.66.

along the eastern edge of the site [20.5-20.6]. None of these matters nor any others touched upon in evidence to the Inquiry militate in my judgement against this development location.

Subject Area (iii): Qualitative matters

If the principle of development here is accepted in quantitative, strategic and locational terms, it is necessary to examine the qualitative details of the proposals, including the measures proposed to establish suitable community infrastructure. Indeed, for permission to be granted, the development must be acceptable in terms of all of the main subject areas that I have identified, no one of which is less important than any other. For the most part, however, I regard detailed development control matters as being, at least initially, for local decision, and a good deal of the evidence to the Inquiry informed on-going discussions between the parties on these matters. In consequence of those discussions, a large measure of agreement has been reached on many of the original points of concern, and is reflected in the terms of the various planning conditions and Obligations advanced at the end of the Inquiry. I therefore limit my comments here to key infrastructure aspects and the main points that remain in dispute.

Affordable Housing [Section 7 and see also Section 34]

IC.67.

IC.68.

IC.69.

The size and nature of the Stevenage West site is such that the provision of affordable housing as part of the development would, in principle, be in accordance with the provisions of Circular 6/98 “Planning and Affordable Housing”. Such provision is not and has never, therefore, been at issue [7.3, 7.9, 7.13, 7.14, 7.19, 7.27 7.31, 7.32]. Housing needs surveys have been undertaken in both Stevenage Borough and North Hertfordshire District. That in Stevenage Borough informed SDP2004, which would require 22% of the proposed dwellings to be affordable [7.21]. In North Hertfordshire District, the needs survey intimates a requirement for 35% of dwellings to be affordable but the Council would be content with a lesser contribution from Stevenage West for a number of reasons [7.31]. In particular, development plan policy in the form of NHDLP1996 would require only 25% of the proposed dwellings to be affordable. In the event, WSC proposes 27.5% affordable dwellings, a figure which would include 2.5% for special needs housing. It is a consequence of the site’s location that the principal beneficiary of the affordable dwellings would be SBC even though most of the site lies within the administrative area of NHDC. The proposed special needs housing provision would be primarily to meet HCC housing responsibilities.

Following negotiations throughout the course of the Inquiry, the arrangements for provision of affordable housing have emerged in the proffered S106 planning Obligation in the form of an Agreement rather than a Unilateral Undertaking. Under the terms of the Agreement, WSC would provide the land concerned at 40% discount to its open market value [7.10, 7.20, 7.30 and 7.33]. Doubt must remain over whether expected levels of affordable housing would be delivered by Registered Social Landlords in the light of emerging changes to the funding regime of the Housing Corporation [7.10-7.12, 7.22, 7.30, 7.33, 34.11] and the fall-back provisions would then be less satisfactory [7.13, 7.20, 7.30]. Subject to that caveat, however, the arrangements are, I consider, acceptable, and would provide a welcome, needed and substantial addition to the stock of affordable dwellings in the area [7.7, 7.8, 7.9 and 7.19].

Nonetheless, there are matters remaining in dispute with HCC. These arise from the statutory duties placed upon HCC to make provision for accommodating certain categories of people in need, which are additional to the general duty placed upon

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 228

District Councils under the Housing Acts [7.25 –7.29]. Concern that HCC requirements would be overlooked during detailed negotiations on each phase of development have been met by making specific numerical provision for special needs housing in the Agreement [7.14, 7.25, 7.26, 7.27 and the Planning Obligation itself, clause 5.5]. No specific provision is, however, made in the Agreement for either a children’s home or a home for the elderly [7.28, 7.29]. In this respect, I share WSC’s reasons for submitting that any such requirement would be unreasonable, the former being excessive in quantitative terms and the latter being for the private sector to bring forward if sufficient demand arises [7.16, 7.17]. It seems, however, that the Agreement has been drawn in sufficiently broad terms to allow such provision as part of (but not in addition to) the overall 2.5% special needs requirement, if that is HCC’s preference [Clause 5.5 of the Obligation and Section 2 interpretation of “special needs unit”]. I thus consider the Agreement, as drafted, to be satisfactory and find no conflict with the relevant statutory development plan policies and Master Planning principles[7.1-7.6].

Travel and Transport [Section 27 and see also Sections 3, 5, 26, 31, 32]

Introduction

IC.70.

IC.71.

IC.72.

Objections raised by the Highway Authorities (HCC and HA) are not directed at the principle of development at Stevenage West, but at the details of the measures proposed to secure appropriate travel and transport linkages within the development, to and from Stevenage itself, and to the wider highway network. It is for this reason that I deal with the subject here as a qualitative consideration rather than under the subject area concerned with locational considerations. Nonetheless, it is important not to lose sight of important inherent characteristics of Stevenage West in sustainable travel and transport terms [27.21-27.23, 27.84, 27.98], not least to give context to criticisms that the proposals do not make the most of the site’s locational attributes [27.98, 27.147 –27.150].

In terms of paragraph 31 of PPG3 (third bullet point) for example, the physical separation of the applications site from Stevenage itself by A1(M) combined with the scale of housing development proposed mean that Stevenage West would be less readily absorbed into the established travel and transport networks of the town than may typically be anticipated with “urban extension” sites. In particular, new rather than extension of existing bus services are proposed, and this is a factor that places considerable importance on ensuring long term commercial viability of such services if sustainability objectives are to be met.

Conversely, travel and transport advantages of locating strategic scale development here include the proposed developer-funded investment in new public transport services and infrastructure to serve Stevenage West, which would be of some benefit to existing residents. Proximity to large scale retail, leisure and administrative facilities within Stevenage would also minimise the need to travel. In addition, the applications site is close to major employment areas on the west side of the town, the Lister Hospital, and would be accessible by a range of modes to a major rail station and to a bus interchange facility. The proposed provision of a comprehensive range of local facilities on site would further reduce the need for travel. This combination of advantages would not accrue to development scattered more thinly throughout Hertfordshire, to more distant parts of the Almshoe valley or to development on the edge of other towns that have a more limited range of services and facilities. Indeed, the existing travel and transport network deriving from the period of New Town development is, in my view, a significant advantage over most other towns in Hertfordshire. This includes an existing

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 229

IC.73.

IC.74.

IC.75.

IC.76.

and well developed network of segregated pedestrian and cycle routes, an existing road system that is relatively free-flowing and an easily accessible public transport network. In particular, the alternative of promoting a more dispersed pattern of development elsewhere in the County would inevitably result in greater emphasis on car use if in rural areas, and would be likely to contribute to greater traffic congestion if in market towns or villages with historic road layouts. While questions are raised over whether the travel and transportation measures proposed are the right ones, the sustainability of development at Stevenage West in travel and transport terms (as an urban extension site), is not therefore challenged by the evidence on this subject.

In dealing with the travel and transport implications of the scheme, I begin with “means of access” (because this is not a reserved matter) and then move on to consider other qualitative aspects of the travel and transport proposals that influence the acceptability of the present proposals in development control terms. The bulk of objections is, in fact, directed at the latter.

I take “means of access” to be the number and location of the proposed links across A1(M) and the details of their design in highway engineering terms as shown in nature and extent on the application drawings 7.0/24S(C) and 7.0/25S(C) [2.2]. I exclude details of highway works to other junctions that fall outside the application site, these being covered in any event by the proposed unilateral undertaking. I also exclude details of the vehicular, pedestrian and cycle routes within the site because these are shown only in preliminary form in the Master Plan and precise layout and engineering details would need to be submitted with each phase of the proposed development. These are matters dealt with in the planning conditions.

Number and Location of proposed links across A1(M)

The number and location of links cannot be entirely divorced from the internal road layout of the site. This is because the so-called “access strategy” for Stevenage West, as now included in both PA3 and PA5, relies upon a central transport spine (CTS) passing through the site from north to south, which would link to two principal vehicular crossings of the A1(M), one at Meadway and the other at Bessemer Drive [27.17]. This number of crossings was accepted as being appropriate by the SP1998 EIP and is reflected in SDP2004 and in the Master Planning Principles SPG [27.6, 27.7]. Both the Meadway and Bessemer Drive crossings of the A1(M) would also include pedestrian and cycle routes joining with the existing Stevenage route network [27.14, 27.15]. In addition, there would be additional pedestrian and cycle routes with similar links using existing tunnels to the north at Symonds Green and to the south at Norton Green in the vicinity of Six Hills Way [5.1]. Private residential traffic and service traffic would share use of the Meadway and Bessemer Drive crossings and parts of the CTS, but for the most part would be diverted within the site onto a network of access roads serving the various residential enclaves [27.24, 27.25].

This access strategy has evolved over a period of time, largely at the instigation of WSC albeit in response to concerns raised by others. In the earliest formative stages, for example, a guided bus route had been considered [27.90] as a means of promoting a “step change” in public transport usage. WSC says that was rejected for a number of reasons, including cost [27.23, 27.135]. Whatever the merits of such a proposal it would in my view be wrong to set in stone (literally and metaphorically) the public transport routes within and beyond the site before new residents’ travel patterns have become established, and the ultimate scale of development at Stevenage West determined through the Regional planning process [31.22]. For much the same reason, I also have

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 230

IC.77.

IC.78.

IC.79.

reservations about making the CTS a dedicated public transport route [27.136, 27.137, 27.138]. That would effectively establish two physically separate road networks within the site, which may be wasteful of land and difficult to vary if, for example, bus patronage either substantially exceeded or undershot expectations on part of the site or all of it. It was also originally considered that the main bus route to the town centre could operate via Six Hills Way as a more direct link to the town centre than Bessemer Drive or Meadway (both being further to the north). This was particularly because such an arrangement would have provided a dedicated section of route along Six Hills Way giving better bus journey time advantages over private car usage [3.3, 27.11, 27.135]. However, having inspected this route, and despite its acknowledged advantages, I concur with the view expressed by WSC that it would present inordinate difficulties both practically and financially to construct, especially for the PA3 scheme alone [27.23]. HCC has conceded the point [27.91], and I likewise regard shared use of the CTS (to the extent that this is an integral part of the access strategy and may thus be regarded as part of the proposed means of access) to be acceptable in principle.

This would, however, have the effect of shifting a greater balance of all-purpose traffic onto Bessemer Drive, so that it would become somewhat more evenly used with Meadway, an outcome that the access strategy was not formulated to handle [27.26, 27.66, 27.87]. As HCC has cautioned, particular care must therefore be taken to ensure that the originally intended attractiveness of bus travel is undiminished [27.87, 27.91]. This would require, among other things, public transport use of the CTS to be unimpeded [27.91], which I regard as a matter for traffic management rather than for highway construction to address. The SDP2004 Inspector recommended that policy should attach no priority to either of the two proposed accesses, and it is noteworthy that Bessemer Drive represents an extension of the CTS whereas Meadway would, in effect, be a spur off it. Of the two, Bessemer Drive is also more conveniently situated in relation to the town centre [27.145, 27.146]. I find nothing to support the implied suggestion that land ownership considerations have influenced the choice of Meadway as the principal access (SBC standing to benefit from acquisition of its playing fields at Meadway and Gabriel Securities standing to benefit from the alternative of land acquisition in Bessemer Drive) [27.141, 33.21]. Rather, the SDP2004 Inspector’s recommendation seeks only to maximise flexibility at policy formulation stage. Meadway is much less constrained by existing buildings, which would make construction of a suitably attractive entrance to Stevenage West more easily achieved than at Bessemer Drive. In that context, I do not find the now proposed shift in balance to Bessemer Drive, with Meadway still remaining the principal access, to be objectionable.

There is no dispute that the two proposed vehicular crossing points in the positions proposed would have sufficient capacity to accommodate public private and service traffic from both the PA3 and PA5 schemes [27.87] and the number and location of pedestrian and cycle route crossings is unquestioned. I therefore find the proposed means of access to the proposed development in terms of the number and location of crossing points of the A1(M) to be acceptable.

Design of the links across A1(M)

Meadway

I consider here only the highway engineering aspects of this proposed access and deal separately with the implications for Cartref and for personal safety under the headings

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 231

IC.80.

IC.81.

IC.82.

IC.83.

IC.84.

“Noise” and “Safety/Security/Crime Prevention” in paragraphs IC.118 and IC.137-141 respectively, below.

The existing Meadway crossing would be retained as a pedestrian/cycle route and a new vehicular access tunnelled beneath A1(M) a short distance to the north. This would take the form of a dual carriageway across land owned by SBC and currently used as playing fields on the east side of A1(M). To the east of these playing fields the proposals include an enlarged and redesigned roundabout junction with Clovelly Way (which serves existing residential areas to the north and employment premises in Rutherford Close to the south), and the redesign of a second roundabout at the junction with Gunnels Wood Road/Bridge Road [27.108].

West of A1(M), HCC has expressed concern that the proposed dual carriageway would appear to terminate abruptly in a town square forming part of the main mixed use centre [27.82]. Given the traffic flows expected along this access [26.2, 27.87], that would plainly be an unsatisfactory arrangement. Nonetheless, it is a matter that concerns the internal road layout of the site rather than the means of access to it, and can (as proposed) be dealt with by planning condition as part of the design detailing of the mixed use centre itself.

The main point of concern at this access relates to the proposed re-design of the existing junction of Clovelly Way with Gunnels Wood Road and Bridge Road. This is outside the applications site but forms an integral part of the highway network bordering the applications site boundary and is now included in the application drawings [2.2, 3.1]. HCC has identified an apparent conflict between achieving adequate capacity for the proposed roundabout here and the need to avoid compromising traffic safety [27.108]. In response, WSC contends that its capacity assessment is sufficiently robust to avoid any problem [27.63]. HCC comments are however based on drawing J501/200F submitted by WSC specifically for safety audit purposes [27.63] whereas the applications details are shown on drawing 7.0/24S(C) which is less detailed. HCC is satisfied that the matter can be dealt with by re-design [27.108] and this could, in my estimation, be achieved without departing significantly from this latter drawing. Since both the junction and land concerned are existing highway land, it further seems to me that HCC (as Highway Authority) would retain full control over the alterations to the junction irrespective of any planning permission that may be granted. I therefore see no reason to withhold planning permission for this reason and accordingly find the means of access proposals shown in the application drawings to be acceptable in respect of Meadway.

Bessemer Drive

As with Meadway, I consider the personal safety implications of this access separately at paragraphs IC.137-IC.141 below.

The existing road tunnel beneath A1(M) would be retained as a two-lane single-carriageway road directly off the end of Bessemer Drive on the east side of A1(M). A new pedestrian, cycle and equestrian tunnel would be built alongside it to the south [27.66]. West of A1(M), the northern and southern limbs of the existing accesses to the travellers’ site and to Norton Green would be closed to vehicular traffic, with alternative access being provided from the CTS further to the west. Apart from concern expressed by HCC over access to the travellers’ site, which I deal with at paragraphs IC.109 –IC.110 below, the engineering details of this proposed crossing are not criticised. Concern focuses instead on the treatment proposed for the section of Bessemer Drive

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 232

IC.85.

IC.86.

IC.87.

IC.88.

east of A1(M) and its junction with Caxton Way. Although outside the application site, details of the proposals are now included in the application drawings [2.2] so I consider them here.

The Bessemer Drive proposals advanced by WSC have been produced on the basis of being confined within the limits of existing highway land. It is suggested by the owner of land bordering this road (Gabriel Securities) that the quality of design of the proposed access would, in consequence, be compromised [27.141, 27.147- 27.157]. Gabriel Securities has expressed a willingness to co-operate in designing an enhanced access and has produced an alternative scheme of alterations to Bessemer Drive and its junction with Caxton Way to indicate how this might be achieved [27.150]. Positive suggestions that might secure mutual benefit should, in principle, be carefully considered if fresh proposals for the development of Gabriel Securities’s land come forward, and should not be rebuffed out of hand. However, I make no further comment on those proposals because they affect land that is not within the control of either WSC or the determining authorities. Moreover, whatever the relative merits of Gabriel Securities’s scheme, it is the nature of development control decision making that proposals can be required only to satisfy the requirements of relevant policy and standards, rather than to achieve optimum outcomes [27.66-27.67]. In this respect, WSC has produced further illustrative details to confirm that satisfactory, even if not ideal, provision (including for pedestrians and cyclists) could be met within the confines of highway land, without departing significantly from the scheme shown in the application drawing 7.0/25S(C) [27.66, 27.67]. The only detailed points of criticism raised by HCC are ones that that can be dealt with by planning condition [27.106, 27.107, 27.110].

Overall, I therefore conclude that the means of access proposals, as shown in the applications drawings, are acceptable both in principle and in highway planning terms, and now turn to consider other qualitative aspects of the travel and transport proposals.

Proposals for sustainable travel and transport

Given the proximity to the existing town centre, railway station and employment areas it has long been recognised that development at Stevenage West would offer many opportunities to encourage sustainable travel and transport, principally by walking, cycling and bus travel [27.21]. The proposed walking and cycling routes within the site would be closely related to the CTS [27.24] and would complement the existing high quality network of routes within Stevenage itself [27.32]. An unusual observation by WSC on the existing network is that its original design standards catered for travel by moped [27.19, 27.61, 27.148]. That is not intended to be the case on the applications site and precise control over usage of the network within Stevenage would remain a matter for SBC and the Highway Authority to determine. Precise dimensions and engineering standards would be controlled by planning conditions. The main points in contention thus do not focus on walking and cycling, but on the proposals for bus travel.

Two bus routes would ply along the CTS using mainly the Bessemer Drive route to and from Stevenage town centre, where there is an existing bus terminus alongside the main shopping centre. One of these routes (“the principal route”) would operate all day between Stevenage West and the Town Centre with a service interval of 10 minutes and a periodic route extension to the Lister Hospital [28.28, 28.30]. The other would be a peak hour service only (“the peak hour route”), passing through the existing main employment areas of Stevenage that line Caxton Way off Gunnels Wood Road [28.28]. When this is operating, the service interval from within the site to the town centre would reduce to 5 minutes. The routes themselves have been agreed with the bus operators and

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 233

IC.89.

IC.90.

are not disputed by others [27.28]. However, HCC questions whether the services offered would be sufficient to deliver a “step change” in public transport usage that WSC committed itself to at the conceptual stage of the proposals [27.85].

In this respect it seems to me that a degree of circumspection is called for when seeking to extract firm conclusions about bus patronage and viability from the traffic modelling process that has been undertaken. I say this for five main reasons. Firstly, although comprehensive and detailed, the model’s forecasts of trip numbers, destinations and modal choice are based on data calibrated and validated against sources (such as the Census) that record travel patterns associated with established populations [27.34]. These sources may not bear direct comparison with homogenous new development of the scale of Stevenage West. Secondly, the outputs of the modelling process are plainly susceptible to wide variation in response to relatively small changes in inputs, such as bus speed [27.45, 27.132] as well as to significant accidental distortion as witnessed by the so-called “education mistake” whereby trips to school were inappropriately assigned from car to bus rather than walking or cycling [27.40, 27.49, 27.57 27.96, 27.101, 27.102, 27.104 27.114 and 27.132]. Thirdly, its forecasts are for morning peak hour travel only, with all development completed and all infrastructure in place [27.34]. This does not assist assessment of the likely patronage and viability of bus services at other times or in the period of years before Stevenage West is completed [27.34]. Fourthly, not all of the data bear direct comparison with each other. This is the case, for example, in respect of the distinctions between “home-based” trips, “facility trips”, journey to work trips and peak hour trips [27.41, 27.49, 27.96, 27.97]. Fifthly, the overall modelling process is designed so that its final output is to inform the design of alterations to the highway network in the interests of ensuring that it remains free-flowing into the future [27.100]. This is a very different exercise from designing the most suitable framework for ensuring enduring and well-used public transport operation. Importantly, for example, the first relies on maximising car mode share to demonstrate robustness, while the aim of the second is to minimise car mode share. For these reasons, in assessing the proposals for bus travel, I see little purpose in examining in detail the differences between the parties over the outputs from the modelling process and the alternative modelling processes that have been employed [27.37, 27.41, 27.43 and 27.72].

There nonetheless now seems to be broad agreement on likely bus mode share of about 11% [27.43, 27.44, 27.96, 27.98]. Bus mode share is important in demonstrating whether the key sustainability targets set by WSC have been met [27.85] but the Inquiry evidence flows from the Local Model and is thus open to similar criticism as the modelling process itself. Nonetheless, 2001 Census data for Stevenage shows journey to work mode shares to be 68.8% car, 5.5% bus and 11.4% walk/cycle [27.43]. The figures now put forward by WSC for Stevenage West for the morning peak hour are 49% car, 11% bus and 34% walk/cycle [27.44]. On that somewhat limited basis, the first of the key sustainability targets (reduction of 30% in peak hour car journeys) would not be met, the second (doubling of peak hour journeys by bus, cycle and foot) would be, and the third (containment of trips within the Stevenage area) is not seriously at issue [27.50, 27.129, 27.133]. Nevertheless, achieving targets during peak hours does not necessarily equate to achieving significant shifts in mode shares averaged over a longer period. Buses would be less frequent when the “peak hour” service is not operating. The “principal service” would operate only with a 30 minute frequency after 19.00 hours on weekdays and all day on Saturdays, and there would be an hourly service on Sundays

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 234

IC.91.

IC.92.

IC.93.

[planning Obligation , annex 18]. At these times services would fall well short of the “turn up and go” level that would make bus travel more attractive than car [27.28].

However, it is bus ridership that informs judgement as to the viability of actually achieving a “step change” in public transport usage and maintaining it in the long term. In this respect, there remains considerable difference between the estimates advanced by the parties. Again caution needs to be exercised to compare these on a like-for-like basis and also with similar urban areas. That for London based on a multiplication factor of 2,248, for example, alone creates a significant margin for error [27.114]. Indeed, the estimates, including those produced independently of the modelling process, have suggested that ridership may be as high as 230 trips per person per annum (tppa) or as low as 30 tppa [27.44, 27.55, 27.57, 27.58, 27.59 27.60, 27.96, 27.98, 27.114, 27.115,] before seeming to settle on figures in the range of about 55 – 175 tppa [27.60, 27.116, 2.117].

Among the measures proposed to ensure viability of the services, WSC is offering a sum of £1m to subsidise bus operation in the early years of development until population, and thus ridership, has grown to the level that the services would be self-supporting [27.28, 27.29, 27.30, 27.58]. This, it calculates, would be achieved in a maximum of 6 years, well before the subsidy would run out [27.57, 27.58]. WSC further suggests that HCC criticism that the services would never achieve viability [27.115], is directed only at achieving higher levels of subsidy [27.61]. For its own part, HCC suggests there would be a deficit of £5,000,000 on the basis of a 76 tppa ridership figure and a consequent need for substantial and continuing public subsidy [27.115]. Whatever the case may be, there would be little point in subsidising bus services to the tune of £1m, and especially five times that figure, without any certainty that bus usage would be enduringly high [27.139]. On this last point, I fully agree with the view of HCC that, for all the measures proposed by WSC to make bus travel attractive, the projected 11% bus mode share, if that is all that can be achieved, would be disappointingly low [27.98]. A figure closer to 20% as originally envisioned [27.42, 27.99] would, I consider, be a more appropriate target to aim at.

That is not to say, however, that I accept HCC’s view that significant increase in bus mode share could be achieved simply by altering the Master Plan and redesigning the bus services within the site [27.98]. Bus journeys are by their nature more circuitous than car journeys, the former having to visit a range of pick-up and set-down points along a fixed route, while the latter travel directly from point of origin to destination [27.88]. With such relatively short distances as are involved here, it would therefore require considerable slowing of car journeys to make bus journey times more advantageous [27.91]. I also question the desirability of an approach that would artificially extend the length or duration of car journeys in order to encourage bus use, when the result may simply be to increase driver frustration and/or pollution. Moreover, journey time and distance within the applications site would, on the basis of the current proposals, represent the smaller part of the overall journey to and from the town centre (and the more so to destinations beyond) from all but the northern end of the site [27.48]. To that extent, off-site measures to facilitate bus travel may be regarded as equally, if not more, important than on-site measures. Ensuring a free-flowing CTS, establishing bus priority measures at certain junctions on the route to and from the town centre and seeking to ensure a high quality bus service for Stevenage West are all important in fostering a culture of bus travel. To my mind, however they would be insufficient in themselves to deliver a “step change” in bus usage much greater than the 11% currently anticipated.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 235

IC.94.

IC.95.

IC.96.

IC.97.

To achieve a higher level it would, I consider, be necessary to adopt a much wider perspective than focussing solely on the bus routes between Stevenage West and the town centre during the morning peak hour. Among other things, it would in my view require bus services to be tailored much more closely to the different travel and transport needs of different people. Rail commuters using a bus to travel to and from Stevenage Railway station are, for example, likely to place high priority on connectivity with specific morning and evening train services. They are also unlikely to be attracted by a meandering route with many intervening stops on a bus that regularly becomes enmired in local traffic congestion. Conversely, shoppers using the bus (who, from my time in Stevenage appear to include a high proportion of elderly, young parents with push-chairs and others with mobility difficulties) [27.94] would, it seems to me, be unlikely to favour complete transfer of the existing Stevenage bus terminus to the railway station as part of a new interchange [27.13]. This is because the shopping centre would then lie on the far side of a dual carriageway from the bus station (the present crossing from the station being by a pedestrian overbridge). Getting on or off a bus would also be much more hurried at any replacement intervening stop that may be provided. New residents of Stevenage West would be likely to include families with children who would find this equally inconvenient. Indeed, I find it somewhat surprising that WSC’s proposals for bus travel are based on ease of access to shopping and other facilities in Stevenage Town Centre, while the Highway and Planning Authorities are actively seeking to move the bus terminus elsewhere (even if not far off) [26.6, 27.118]. That is not to say that an interchange at the railway station would not be a good thing. It is simply my view that it may be unwise to jettison the convenient town centre turn-around facility in the shopping centre altogether. Others travelling to destinations beyond the town centre would no doubt welcome the ease of connection to onward services (whether at the existing bus terminus or at a future bus/rail interchange). However, they would not be attracted to bus travel unless the connecting services are of similar quality and as free from congestion and waiting times as that on the part of the journey from Stevenage West.

Likewise, the relatively high quality existing new town road network already makes car travel in Stevenage attractive, and the importance attached by SBC and HCC to maintaining its free-flowing character (which is appropriate to the trunk road network) will favour car use rather than the reverse [27.62, 27.87]. This would be especially so if policies aimed at maintaining or increasing the present amount of commuter car parking facilities at Stevenage Station are pursued [27.3, 27.4, 27.5] and the ample supply of parking in association with town centre shops and employment uses is not restrained [27.47].

Various policies and strategies are either emerging or in place to address these matters independently of the Stevenage West proposals [26.1, 27.5, 27.8, 27.30]. I make no further comment on their individual merits other than to note that it would seem that the so-called “banked” version of RSS/RPG14 may have an underlying objective to secure the finance necessary to bring at least some of them to fruition [31.90].

In this latter respect, Stevenage West has significant potential to generate car traffic [27.82], which can only be minimised if appropriate transport measures are in place to offer suitable alternatives. The subject is, I consider, therefore one of crucial importance to the acceptance of either PA3 or PA5. It is also one that needs to be addressed in the context of travel and transport patterns within Stevenage as a whole, and within a time frame that would ensure maximum “capture” of Stevenage West residents by sustainable travel modes from the outset. Stevenage itself offers a unique opportunity to deliver a

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 236

IC.98.

•

•

•

•

•

IC.99.

IC.100.

significant step change, because of the qualities of its existing travel and transport networks. The scale of Stevenage West, its proximity to the town centre and all of the measures proposed by WSC to promote public transport usage would be a suitable catalyst, offering mutual advantages to both the existing and proposed communities. The proposals for the route between Stevenage West and the town centre, in whatever way they may be designed cannot, however, be the only means by which a significant “step change” is brought about. Indeed, the full range of measures likely to be needed cannot, in my estimation, reasonably be designed and financed by a single development.

If the “step change” objective is to be met, and in my view it should be, then I take the view that it would be expedient to ensure that suitable measures are in place to deliver comprehensive and integrated travel and transport networks within the Stevenage urban area. Such a programme could, it seems to me, readily be developed by the respective Authorities, Agencies and service providers, drawing selectively from their present policies and strategies [26.1, 27.5, 27.8] but further informed by:

Reconsideration of policy for increasing commuter parking at Stevenage Station and examination, as an alternative or complementary measure, of the potential for reducing private car travel to and from the station.

Appraisal of the opportunities to promote more sustainable travel patterns in connection with town centre shops and employment sites where there are at present large privately-owned car parking facilities.

Review of the proposed location/distribution of bus terminus/interchange facilities in the town centre, in consultation with service providers and existing user groups.

A timetable for the introduction of bus priority measures and quality bus services for all key routes in the town centre, drawn up in consultation with the service providers [27.29, 27.97].

Identification of specific points on the town centre’s pedestrian and cycle route network where measures to enhance safety, security, and convenience for users could most beneficially be targetted [paragraphs 137-141, below].

Plainly, it would be wrong to delay development while parties other than WSC produce such a programme. However, its implementation could be assured if, for example, any funding for it were to be specifically earmarked from that which may be committed through the “banked” version of RSS/RPG14 or similar future process [31.90] and only released when the programme has been agreed.

The A1(M)

Despite long and detailed involvement in the transport modelling process, HA has concluded that it is unable to accept the traffic predictions relating to the A1(M) junctions [27.122-27.125]. It is, however, content that suitable control measures could be put in place to avoid any increased risk that may be attributable to Stevenage West traffic, of obstruction or danger to users of the trunk road between and including the two junctions concerned [27.126-27.128]. WSC has reciprocated by expressing a willingness through the S106 planning Obligation to make provision for the measures that HA has sought [27.44, 27.45]. I consider that to be a satisfactory outcome which would ensure that the safe and free flow of traffic on this part of the trunk road network would be maintained.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 237

IC.101.

IC.102.

IC.103.

IC.104.

IC.105.

Other off-site road junctions

A range of proposed off-site highway works has been suggested by WSC. These are predicated on the traffic forecasts emanating from the modelling process and have been designed accordingly with the primary intention of ensuring that all-purpose traffic in Stevenage, including buses, would remain free-flowing [27.62, 27.63]. HCC does not accept that the modelling process has operated correctly and it follows that it does not accept that the works proposed are suitably distributed, appropriate or sufficient for the purpose intended [27.106].

Moreover, given that the works proposed are incorporated within the Section 106 planning Obligation, in the form of a unilateral undertaking rather than an agreement, there is no suggestion that HCC, as Highway Authority, is in any way committed to the works proposed in whole or in part. Its detailed comments on the proposals, which in themselves are otherwise minor in nature, few in number and in my view readily capable of resolution [27.109, 27.111, 27.112] must be seen in that context.

Nonetheless, the Obligation would reserve the Highway Authority’s position in terms of Section 278 of the Highways Act [clause 24.7]. The impact of Stevenage West traffic on the local highway network would diminish significantly with increasing distance from the applications site and there is a measure of robustness included in the modelling process, especially in respect of PA3 [27.63, 27.106]. In the light of my findings on the subject of the proposals for sustainable travel and transport, which should lead to a corresponding reduction in anticipated car traffic from Stevenage West, it seems to me that the works proposed would be sufficient to ensure adequate highway capacity can be maintained.

Stevenage bus terminus

The existing bus terminus in Stevenage Town Centre would be sufficient to accommodate the proposed “principal” bus route, but alteration to the layout would be necessary once the proposed “peak hour route” became operational [27.77]. Agreement has not been reached over the extent or nature of the alterations required [27.69, 27.77, 27.78, 27.118, 27.119, 27.120] and the matter is further complicated by the potential relocation, possibly in 2008, of the bus terminus and its transformation into a bus/rail interchange [27.118]. As drafted, the S106 planning Obligation would provide for the amount of “transport interchange contribution” deriving from Stevenage West to be assessed by an independent person. It then requires that sum of money to be spent only on the redesign advanced by WSC or, in the alternative, put towards the proposed interchange at Stevenage railway station, capacity of which would likewise need to be increased to accommodate Stevenage West services [27.77]. Dispute over these procedural arrangements are matters that fall within the ambit of my general conclusions on the Section 106 planning Obligation in paragraphs IC.172 – IC.183 below.

In practical terms, however, I have doubts about the ease of bus manoeuvring into and out of stand 1 on the submitted drawings [27.77], but this may prove to be only a relatively short term problem if an interchange facility is provided at the railway station. In the interim access would not be impossible, albeit with some reversing. There is an outstanding matter of agreement with the service operators [27.77], but I doubt that this would be problematic given the underlying intention to increase bus patronage. On balance, therefore, I consider that the Obligation may be regarded as acceptable in these respects. I have also already expressed reservations about the desirability of the present

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 238

IC.106.

IC.107.

IC.108.

town centre terminus location being abandoned (at least for certain routes and at certain times of the day). Since the Obligation does not specify that the contribution must be spent on a specific scheme for the interchange (unlike the requirement for redesign of the existing bus terminus), it seems to me that there would be scope for both facilities, if found necessary or appropriate. I thus regard the Obligation as satisfactory in this latter respect also.

SBC has further requested that the Secretary of State expresses a view on whether the S106 planning Obligation should include provision for WSC to recompense SBC for the acquisition of land necessary to construct the alterations to the existing bus terminus [CD/SBC/PRO/3(2)]. That would be explicitly excluded from the Obligation as drafted (clause 51.1). I include this subject in general terms in my overall consideration of the reasonableness of the S106 planning Obligation provisions at paragraphs IC.176 – IC.183 below.

Rail travel

The Strategic Rail Authority has indicated that PA3 and PA5 are unacceptable without suitable provision to increase capacity on the platforms and overbridge at Stevenage Station and funding for additional train services [27.13]. The importance of Stevenage Station as a regional interchange centre is recognised in a range of policy documents [27.13] but there is no clear plan for securing necessary improvements. The extent to which Stevenage West is likely to lead to increased commuting trips is however open to question [27.129, 12.11], but must be seen in the context of the third of the key sustainability targets established in the “Step Change” document produced by WSC [27.85]. This is for over 80% of total movements during the morning peak being contained within the site and the Stevenage area, a figure that would be unlikely to be seriously undershot on the basis of either the modelled forecasts or evidence. WSC itself estimates that the impact of West Stevenage rail patronage would be a growth of about 750 all purpose trips over a 10 year period, set against a daily rail commuter total from Hertfordshire of some 60,000 trips [27.13]. Alternative figures advanced by the Strategic Rail Authority are of doubtful provenance, because they are based on data that has not been assembled on a comparative basis [27.13]. Whatever the case may be, the need for investment in new platforms, overbridge and trains cannot be attributed solely to Stevenage West. In the absence of any established programme of works or investment to which contributions might otherwise be sought, it would in my view be unreasonable to withhold permission on these grounds for either PA3 or PA5 notwithstanding the existing and acknowledged station and rail service inadequacies.

Overall conclusions on travel and transport

In my judgement, the proposals would accord with the incremental approach to local improvements of public transport services and facilities presaged in draft RSS/RPG14. I also consider that the proposed structure for walking, cycling and bus travel within the site and to and from the town centre, combined with the other measures proposed to encourage future residents to undertake these particular journeys other than by car would be satisfactory. I further find that the specific requirements of SP1998 policies 23 and 29 and of SDP 2004 policies T5, T9, T12, T13, T14, SW5, SW6 and SW7 would or can be met within the schemes as proposed. The same applies to Master Planning Principles MP8, MP10, MP11 and MP23. Compliance with other policies and principles, notably Draft RSS/RPG14 policies SS6, T2 and T14 (and similar policies in RPG9), SP1998 policies 22 and 26 and SDP2004 policies T1, T7, T8, and T10, requires measures to be taken beyond the applications site boundaries and/or are largely beyond the control of

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 239

WSC [27.1-27.8]. In similar vein, I regard securing compliance with certain other policies including SDP1994 policy T9 and SDP2004 policy TR10 (which seek to increase commuter car parking at Stevenage Station and thus have only an indirect bearing on Stevenage West) to be potentially in conflict with the wider aim of reducing private car use in favour of bus travel and walking or cycling. SP1998 policy 33 has now been overtaken by events [27.10]. In sum, I come to the view that the traffic travel and transport measures advanced in support of the proposals do as much as can reasonably be expected to satisfy the specific aim of maximising the locational advantages of the site voiced in SDP2004 policy SW3 [27.147]. However, I remain unconvinced that wider objectives concerning reducing the growth in private motor traffic and promoting sustainable travel choices to destinations beyond the town centre and applications site, which are largely in hands other than those of WSC, would be achieved.

Travellers’ site [Section 28 and see also section 3]

IC.109.

IC.110.

This site lies outside the applications site but would be closely encircled by the Stevenage West proposals [3.1]. The only policy relevant to existing (as opposed to proposed) travellers’ sites is in SP2003 [28.1]. The proposals would not result in the loss of the travellers’ site or any diminution in the number of pitches or facilities provided there. It is proposed to alter the means of access [28.3, 28.7 and 28.8]. HCC is concerned that this would be inconvenient for the travellers themselves and likely to create problems relating to the management of adjoining land, which includes playing fields [28.8]. Its preferred solution would be to create a dedicated spur off the proposed Bessemer Drive access to Stevenage West, enabling the existing route northwards to the travellers’ site to remain largely undisturbed [28.9]. However, the northward part of this existing route would be subsumed under earth mounding proposed as a noise barrier alongside A1(M), so a new route would be necessary crossing an area of land identified on the Master Plan as playing field, to the south and east of the travellers’ site. WSC estimates this would result in the loss of 2 playing pitches although my view is that, in practice, it may well be only one [28.4].

Nonetheless, I find no reason why carefully designed mounding, landscaping or other physical barrier alongside WSC’s proposed route could not provide equivalent protection from encroachment onto adjoining land. While means of access is not a reserved matter, landscaping is, so the subject can be satisfactorily dealt with at a later stage. The additional journey time deriving from that proposed route would be minimal. Development at Stevenage West would, in any event, bring a further range of facilities and services (including schools) in closer proximity. Concerns about privacy could also, in my view, be dealt with at reserved matters stage through control over both landscaping and the fenestration details of the proposed dwellings. For these reasons, I find no policy conflict and do not consider that Stevenage West would have an unacceptable impact on the utility of the travellers’ site.

Community services and facilities [Section10 and see also section 6]

IC.111. In line with Government’s desire to build sustainable communities voiced in the July 2002 policy statement “Sustainable Communities - Delivering through Planning”, the Stevenage West proposals include a wide range of community facilities in addition to schools, shops and employment [10.6]. These would largely respond to local needs and aspirations expressed at the visioning conferences held during the early formative stages of the proposals [6.2]. They would be delivered through the Section 106 planning Obligation, some by physical provision and others through financial contribution or

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 240

IC.112.

IC.113.

IC.114.

IC.115.

various combinations of both. For the most part, the range of facilities and the measures proposed to ensure provision are accepted by the respective planning authorities. I consider in paragraphs IC.176 – IC.183 below whether they may be regarded, together with all other proposed community infrastructure, as being fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposals. Subject to the Secretary of State being content on that point, they should, I consider, be welcomed both for their contribution to sustainable development and as an exemplar of community planning.

Nonetheless, areas of disagreement remain over provision of a library [10.6 – 10.26], fire station [10.27] and youth facilities [10.19]. There are, however, no Stevenage West policy provisions in SDP2004 or the Master Planning Principles SPG that specify anything beyond fire station provision in general terms [10.1-10.5]. MP26 requires that provision be made for separate and youth facilities adjacent to community centres [11.1-11.3]. I do not consider failure to comply with this specific aspect of supplementary planning guidance to be significant because an adequate youth facility would be provided as part of the main community centre.

Prior to the Inquiry, there had been no dispute over whether a contribution for library provision should be made and only quantum had been at issue [10.7, 10.20]. However, the question of principle was aired at some length at the Inquiry by the parties and a point of law has been raised [10.24], so I deal with both principle and quantum here.

While provision of a library service is a statutory duty upon HCC, it is funded primarily from revenue sources [10.12]. Those sources only become available retrospectively so, if an adequate library service is to be provided from the outset of development, there is a need to identify a suitable source of initial capital funding. This, I consider, may properly be attributed to the development concerned. I find no conflict in this respect with the decision in the Napsbury case [10.16, 10.24]. In that decision, it seems to me that the Inspector was not intimating that library spending was wholly a matter of revenue expenditure (which paragraph B14 of Annex B to Circular 1/97 cautions against requiring by planning Obligation). Nor was the Inspector intimating that library provision was, for any other reason, an inappropriate subject to finance from developer contributions. Rather, he simply found on the evidence before him that no convincing case had been put forward that the library books that the developer had undertaken to pay for were actually necessary for the particular development concerned. It followed that accommodation for the books was equally unnecessary. Both the FSS interim decision letter and the final decision do no more than agree with that reasoning.

In the present case, however, there can be no doubt that the scale of population growth arising from either the PA3 or PA5 schemes would impose significant additional pressures on existing library facilities in Stevenage. These pressures would need to be addressed by additional capital expenditure on both library stock and library accommodation, a matter which is recognised in the Master Planning Principles SPG [10.5]. Given the statutory duty to provide a library service and the additional costs that the service provider would face, it seems to me that library provision may be regarded as both necessary in connection with the development proposed and relevant to planning in this case. This is, however, a subject that falls within the ambit of my general conclusions on the Section 106 planning Obligation in paragraphs IC.172 – IC.183 below. Subject to my conclusions there, I thus find no reason in principle why a developer contribution towards initial capital expenditure for library provision (books and accommodation) should not therefore be sought.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 241

IC.116. Turning then to the quantum of provision, WSC has proffered a sum of £225,000 (about £51 per dwelling) to pay for library facilities and a resources centre [10.12], whereas HCC seeks about £750,000 for PA5 and £540,000 for PA3 (about £150 per dwelling) for the library facility alone [10.21]. The evidence and submissions indicate that the principal differences between WSC and HCC in arriving at these figures derive from the amount and cost of additional library stock/equipping a resources centre and the size and cost of a building for those purposes [10.13-10.18 and 10.23-10.26]. On the first of these points, I regard provision for 24,000 books based upon Government advice [10.24] to be reasonable, although the HCC costings seem high in relation to emerging research [10.17]. On the second point, I take the view that the initial assumption should be that a new building is required, the cost of which would be based on HCC’s calculation [10.21], there being no alternative calculation put forward by WSC. If extension of the existing Stevenage library would be less costly, and is also the chosen solution for accommodating the extra books, then there should be provision in the planning Obligation for refunding the difference to WSC. This approach would also need to be time related in order to avoid HCC retaining the contribution indefinitely while deciding which option to pursue, or (for whatever reason) not building a library at all. Nonetheless there are no specific requirements relating to size of building or provision of stock in SDP2004 or the Master Planning Principles SPG and all are subject to the overarching test in Circular 1/97 of being fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. This is a subject that I return to in paragraphs IC.176 – IC.183 below.

Retail provision [Section 25]

IC.117. The quantum of shopping floorspace to be provided on site follows from detailed retail impact analysis [25.5]. Provision would accordingly be limited by planning condition to 1,620 sq m of convenience floorspace in the main mixed use centre and to 160 sq m in each of the two village centres [25.6]. Such a level of provision would, I consider, represent an appropriately sized supermarket together with small scale local shops in Use Classes A1, A2 and A3. There are no existing shops within or adjacent to the site, so there would be no adverse impact on existing trading patterns. Rather, the proposals would fulfil a need of the type identified in paragraphs 3.18 and 3.19 of PPG6, not least because the frequency of travel to convenience shopping facilities in Stevenage town centre would thereby be minimised. However, SDP2004 anticipates development of 10,000 dwellings, so there could be a risk of over-provision or lack of market demand in connection with PA3 in particular [25.6], especially if the full retail allowance provided for were to be taken up from the outset. Nonetheless, this would be insufficient to draw trade from beyond Stevenage West and, since over-provision would be commercially unattractive in such circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to undertake any wider assessment of need or a sequential test in this respect. Overall, I regard the amount and location of retail provision on the site, and the measures proposed to ensure such provision proceeds in pace with development [25.7], to be in accordance with relevant development plan policies [25.1-25.4] and both necessary and acceptable.

Noise impact arising from increased traffic [Sections 20 and 33]

IC.118. An existing small enclave of prefabricated dwellings at Cartref (off Redcliffe Drive) would be affected by increased traffic noise from the proposed new Meadway access. This is proposed to be addressed by a noise barrier rather than a bund as envisaged by SBC [20.7, 20.11]. Main windows in these dwellings would not face towards the barrier and there is an existing dense screen of vegetation along the west boundary of the

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 242

IC.119.

Cartref site. There would therefore be no significant loss of outlook resulting from construction of the barrier or from development on the existing Meadway playing field either. Subject to suitable detailing, which is a matter for the proposed conditions, I regard the noise attenuation measures proposed here to be satisfactory.

At Whitney Drive, there is a long-standing concern expressed by local residents at their existing exposure to traffic noise at the junction of Gunnels Wood Road and Hitchin Way [33.15 –33.18]. This junction is some distance from the applications site and for the most part the traffic noise arises from vehicles en route between Stevenage Town Centre and A1(M) at junction 8, particularly at peak hours. The houses themselves are separated from the carriageway by a broad swathe of grass and a mature belt of trees. A noise survey was commissioned on behalf of the local residents in 2001 and this concluded, among other things, that traffic noise levels were not excessively high for a residential situation and that there was no statutory basis for the provision of noise barriers [33.15]. The noise levels recorded in that survey are not directly comparable with the NECs set in Annex 1 to PPG24, but additional noise attributable to traffic from Stevenage West would be insignificant in relation to the present traffic noise levels at this particular junction [20.7, 33.17]. In contrast, existing levels of traffic noise at Cartref are small and would be much increased in consequence of Stevenage West [33.18]. The relevant planning policies and principles are directed mainly at ensuring a satisfactory noise environment within the site rather than further afield [20.1 – 2.2]. In all the circumstances, I do not consider that provision for noise barriers at the Hitchin Way junction should fall upon the Stevenage West proposals.

Employment [Section 12]

IC.120. Evidence to the Inquiry on employment was directed mainly at demonstrating the intrinsic relationship between economic growth and growth in housing demand [12.7 –12.13], with a view to establishing the numerical need for Stevenage West in housing supply terms. CASE and others are supportive of employment provision on site [12.11, 12.15] and the quantum is not disputed. I regard the on site employment provision to be adequate and suitably located and I find no policy conflict in this respect [12.1-12.6].

Education [Section 11 and see also sections 5 and 33]

IC.121.

IC.122.

It is intended that Stevenage West would be self-supporting in terms of education provision from the outset [11.4, 11.7, 11.8]. WSC intends to provide both requisite land for schools within the site and the school buildings themselves. Provision would be phased in sequence with the progress of development, with the intention that there would be three primary schools and a secondary school on site by completion of the development [11.8]. The precise form of teaching provision is for others to determine [11.14]. That includes whether or not there should be a “through school” [11.11-1.15]. In land use planning terms, the principal considerations are whether the proposed school sites would be appropriately located, of adequate size and with suitable characteristics to meet the requisite educational needs. Those needs fall to be considered over a long time scale, not least because of the difficulty of adding to, or reducing, school provision embedded in a comprehensively planned residential development [11.6].

Dealing firstly with location, a main criticism is that the sites were selected by WSC prior to consultation with HCC as education authority [11.23]. Even though such consultation would have been desirable it would nonetheless be expedient for the sites to be closely related to the CTS (Central Transport Spine) and to the main mixed use centre and two local centres [5.2]. There, they would be easily accessible on foot from much of

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 243

IC.123.

IC.124.

IC.125.

IC.126.

IC.127.

the development as well as by a range of other means of transport and they would also be well related to surrounding housing areas [11.9]. To that extent, I regard the general distribution and location of the sites to be acceptable.

Turning to the size of the proposed sites, there is agreement between WSC and HCC on the number of school places that need to be provided for [11.6, 11.24]. However, HCC is concerned that the small size of certain of the sites would require compromises in terms of layout and utility of buildings and external recreational areas, as well as imposing unnecessary maintenance costs [11.27, 11.30, 11.34]. It is not, however, suggested that the primary school sites would be so deficient as to warrant their rejection as unacceptable, and proposals to conjoin the sites for the central primary and secondary schools have added some flexibility to the main component of proposed provision [11.5]. Moreover, although undesirable, part off-site recreational provision is not uncommon for secondary schools and the reservation of a site large enough for educational buildings for a 10,000 dwelling scheme cannot be justified on the basis of either PA3 or PA5 alone [11.30], nor while there is no guarantee of further development being permitted in the future. On balance, I therefore regard the education site sizes proposed to be adequate, even though not generous.

The main criticism of the characteristics of the proposed sites relates to the central primary and secondary schools and is that they would not be on level ground. As such, the recreational areas would need to be terraced and the buildings themselves would need to be stepped with the contours. HCC contends that such an arrangement would give rise to problems of external supervision and internal accessibility [11.28, 11.30, 11.31]. Neither would, however, in my view pose insurmountable problems, and the buildings would need to be designed to satisfy the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act in any event. Changes in level of the magnitude involved could, if suitably incorporated into the design, add interest both to the buildings and their surroundings without endangering pupils [11.28].

Although concern has been expressed at the possibility of swallow holes opening up within the proposed school sites, this is a matter that can be addressed through prior soil investigation and, if necessary, adoption of appropriate construction techniques. It thus bears primarily on potential construction costs and not on pupil safety [11.28, 11.29, 33.48].

Relevant development plan policies relate to the likelihood or otherwise of surplus school land becoming available for residential development and are advanced primarily in support of arguments over housing capacity. I find no conflict with the policies or principles inasmuch as they relate to on-site school provision. Master Planning Principle MP26 requires that provision be made for separate childcare facilities adjacent to community centres. These requirements can be satisfied, as WSC proposes, within the proposed school sites [11.1- 11.3].

Two further points raised by HCC concern the provisions of the proposed S106 planning Obligation. HCC wants fully equipped school buildings ready for use, and a greater contribution for child care [11.33, 11.35]. WSC contends that neither would be justified [11.20, 11.21]. These are matters that bear on the test of reasonableness in Circular 1/97 and which I deal with in general terms at paragraphs IC.176 – IC.183 below.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 244

Footpaths and rights of way [Section 13 and see also sections 27 and 33]

IC.128.

IC.129.

IC.130.

IC.131.

Although there is dispute over the amount of usage of the existing local footpaths and rights of way [13.7, 13.23, 33.32, 33.33, 33.40, 33.41] the SP1998 EIP panel accepted that the present network was of undoubted benefit to residents of Stevenage. However, on much the same evidential basis as now, it further concluded that although the character of the various existing routes would be bound to change in consequence of Stevenage West, the overall network of open spaces and rights of way within the new development could provide benefits for both existing and future residents [13.18]. I see no reason to take a different view and thus do not regard the existence of a well-developed pattern of routes across the site, notwithstanding how much or little it may be used, to represent an obstacle to development of Stevenage West in principle. Rather, it is necessary to consider whether the qualitative objectives set by HCC would be suitably met [13.19].

In this context, an Access Management Strategy [13.17] has been advanced in the S106 planning Obligation, which has a number of discrete components. These include retaining as much of the existing network as possible, the creation of new “greenways” across the site and the establishment of a network of off-site routes in the Langley valley area. The latter would initially be “permissive” routes rather than dedicated rights of way and HCC is not content with this. The proffered Unilateral Undertaking contains at Schedules 7 and 8 draft access agreements and provides for formal dedication in the event that permission for further housing development at Stevenage West is not forthcoming after a set time. Given the uncertainty that must remain over such development at least until publication of RSS/RPG14 [13.13] I regard this arrangement as acceptable in planning terms [13.21]. That said, since many of the retained, new and diverted routes on site would link through and between existing and proposed areas of greenery, they would not be as urbanised as some may suggest [33.40-33.43].

A significant benefit would be the proposed provision of a north-south route through the proposed linear park along the western edge of the applications site, linking others which have an east-west alignment. A range of circular routes would thus become available, including through the Langley valley [13.10]. Details of the alignment, design and construction of other routes within the applications site would be submitted for approval with each parcel of housing development. In that way, it would be possible to ensure that there would be no unacceptable loss to the network in terms of general extent, status, amenity or convenience both during and on completion of development [13.15].

A particular point arises concerning the use of Dyes Lane as a potential route across the site for vehicles, effectively creating a short cut from Stevenage and Stevenage West towards Hitchin using the B656 route rather than A1(M). Part of this route passes through Dyes Farm, alongside Dyes Farmhouse. The precise status of Dyes Lane has been the subject of some doubt [13.14, 27.140] and there would be difficulties in regulating its vehicular use, which would require careful consideration of barrier design, location and control. Nonetheless, access from Stevenage West to B656 is not proposed and Dyes Lane would represent a far from attractive route for general traffic in terms of width and surface quality, as would other parts of the BOAT network. Statutory procedures would still apply to any diversion, extinguishment or other alteration proposed to the existing rights of way network, including Dyes Lane [13.20], and are matters that in my estimation do not bear on the acceptability or otherwise of the current planning applications.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 245

IC.132. In policy terms, to the extent that RPG9, SP1998 and SP2003 seek to secure effective management of the rights of way network, it may be said that the Access Management Strategy advanced in support of both PA3 and PA5 render Stevenage West compliant [13.1 – 13.5]. In the light of the proposals to establish new “permissive” routes in the Langley valley area, the same applies to SDP1994 and SDP2004 policies seeking extension of the network into the wider countryside. It is, however, questionable whether those policies were formulated with a view to expansion or other alteration of the network in consequence of green field development such as Stevenage West. The horse and pony route referred to in SDP1994 and SDP2004 policy 23 would be protected as required. The further requirement of Master Planning Principle MP12 that there should be no vehicular access to B656 would be met (insofar as the Master Plan layout is not intended to provide such access), but full compliance would be dependent upon the success of other statutory procedures and practical considerations in preventing such access.

Open space [Section 22]

IC.133.

IC.134.

IC.135.

On site open space provision would include new and replacement playing fields, a cricket pitch and athletics track and a range of children’s play areas [22.8, 22.9]. In addition there would be a flood lit all-weather hockey pitch and other games areas at the central school site potentially available for dual use [22.8]. There would be allotments together with other areas for informal recreation including, in particular, the proposed linear park, where there would also be a cemetery [22.7, 22.10].

HCC, SBC, NHDC and Sport England are content with the amounts and types of open spaces proposed and their distribution [22.11, 22.13]. There is dispute between HCC and WSC over whether the figures in clause 35 of the S106 planning Obligation (Unilateral Undertaking) should allow 75% of development to take place in a development parcel before open space is provided, or 50%. In a sluggish housing market, the former figure could result in households occupying the site for a considerable period before locally accessible open space is provided. As drafted, however, the Obligation would ensure that open space would at least eventually be provided and to that extent I regard it as acceptable given the availability under a different phasing regime of other structural open spaces within the development, such as the linear park. Sport England seeks a landscaped buffer between the A1(M) and the proposed playing pitches alongside. That is a detail that can be accommodated at reserved matters stage, as can the siting and design of the proposed cricket pavilion [22.13]. Subject to amendment to include reference to ground settlement, the proposed planning conditions would also satisfy Sport England’s concern about the use of the Norton Green Landfill site for playing field purposes [22.13 and annex 1, conditions 24 and 25 and 30-31].

Draft RSS/RPG14, RPG9, SP1998 and SP2003 are concerned principally with guiding policy formulation in local plans and thus have limited direct bearing on PA3 and PA5. The only loss of formal open space, at Meadway Park, would be replaced in a manner acceptable to Sport England, so there would be no breach of policies protective of existing open space in terms of NHDLP1996, SDP1994 and SDP2004. Provision of new open space within the proposed developments would meet the requirements of SDP2004 policies L16, L17 and L20 in a manner compatible with policy EN11. Policies in the Stevenage West Chapter of SDP2004 would also be fully complied with. The range of facilities specifically identified in Master Planning Principle 27 is expressed as

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 246

IC.136.

an expectation rather than a firm requirement, but would for the most part be provided [22.1 – 22.6].

A specific point of interpretation arises in the context of PPG17, which I deal with separately in the matters about which the Secretary of State particularly wishes to be informed, at paragraph IC.166 below, but that does not alter my overall conclusion that the open space provisions included in PA3 and PA5 are acceptable.

Safety, Security, Crime Prevention [Section 24 and see also section 27]

IC.137.

IC.138.

IC.139.

IC.140.

The ODPM publication “Safer Places – The Planning System and Crime Prevention” (March 2004) stresses the importance that creating places with well-defined routes, spaces and entrances can make to sustainable communities. It lists the attributes of safe, sustainable places under a range of headings, stressing their importance individually and together. The advice says, among other things, that crime and anti-social behaviour are more likely to occur if pedestrian routes are poorly lit and away from traffic and streets, and that places that could be vulnerable to crime should be overlooked by buildings or uses that are busy at all times.

This advice is pertinent to the proposed pedestrian and cycle routes to and from Stevenage West under A1(M), in particular in the vicinity of the proposed Meadway and Bessemer Drive underpasses [24.3-24.12]. NHDC accordingly seeks revision to the Master Plan to provide for frontage development to these accesses on the west side of A1(M) and encouragement of similar development to the east side of A1(M). Such an approach would ensure compliance with Master Planning Principle MP7 [26.1] but I doubt this could be achieved at detailed design stage without significant departure from the present Master Plan [24.2]. Moreover, NHDC would have no power to control this because the underpasses and their environs fall within the administrative area of SBC, which has a more ambivalent view of the subject and, in answer to my question, indicated that it regarded the Master Plan as satisfactory [24.12].

As an alternative to the segregated routes, pedestrians and cyclists could use the main vehicular tunnels wherein footway and cycleway provision is also proposed [27.14, 27.15, 27.66]. These would be well lit and passing traffic may provide a degree of surveillance, in addition to which WSC proposes remote supervision by CCTV cameras [24.2]. This would accord with SDP policy TW10 and Master Planning Principle 36 [26.1]. However, I regard these measures as being far from a satisfactory approach by themselves because users would no doubt feel only marginally less threatened by passing vehicular traffic and would have no means of knowing whether the camera system was operative or how to call for help if needed.

Nonetheless, the decision to walk or cycle between Stevenage West and the town centre or other destinations would not, in my estimation, be taken solely on the basis of the crossings under A1(M) and their approaches. It is more likely that the entirety of the route would be taken into account. In this respect, while Stevenage has an attractive and convenient footway and cycleway network, extensive lengths of it are separated physically and visually from roads and buildings, often in shrubbery-lined or walled cuttings. In my estimation, many fall well short of the standards that “Safer Places – The Planning System and Crime Prevention” now seeks to achieve. I do not suggest that it follows that there would therefore be nothing wrong with extending a similar pattern into Stevenage West. The point I make is simply that if any one part of an existing pedestrian or cycle route is perceived as unsafe, the likelihood is that no part of the route would be used, no matter to how high a standard new sections are constructed. The

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 247

IC.141.

journey would be undertaken by car or bus instead, or not undertaken at all. In essence, as with my findings on the proposals for sustainable travel at paragraphs 93-99 above, an holistic approach needs to be taken to the existing and proposed network with the aim of encouraging maximum use of sustainable modes of travel, especially walking and cycling. This includes at night-time, when bus services are inevitably likely to be of limited frequency and individuals walking or cycling alone are likely to be most vulnerable.

I do not therefore regard the proposals for Meadway and Bessemer Drive to be determinative of travel choices in themselves, and for that reason I do not give any particular support to NHDC’s preferred solution [24.12]. The subject is, however, one that lends weight to my finding at paragraph IC.98 above, that neither PA3 nor PA5 should be permitted without assurance that suitably comprehensive and integrated travel and transport measures within the Stevenage urban area would be delivered in parallel with development at Stevenage West.

Other qualitative matters [Sections 17, 21 and 30]

IC.142.

IC.143.

IC.144.

Proposals for the management of waste have not given rise to objection in land use terms and in my view are exemplary in policy terms [30.1]. They are clouded only by a degree of uncertainty that a commercial operator for the proposed green waste composting site would come forward [30.2] this being a procedural matter that I consider in general terms in paragraphs IC.172 – IC.175 below. The design of street and other on-site lighting could be controlled by condition to ensure policy compliance [17.1-17.2] and minimum spillage and pollution while providing adequate illumination to the internal road network as well as the Meadway and Bessemer Drive underpasses and accesses [17.3]. Although the Norton Green Landfill site is a potential source of pollution, appropriate control measures would be put in place and there are no adverse policy implications in this respect [21.1-21.6].

Matters about which the Secretary of State particularly wishes to be informed

(i) The relationship of the proposals to relevant policies and proposals in extant and emerging Development Plan documents (PPG1):

Although this matter specifically identifies SP1998, NHDLP1996, SDP1994, SDP2004 and SP2003 as those about which information is sought, it seems to me that emerging RSS/RPG14 cannot be completely overlooked in this respect, in the light of Section 38(3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 [4.4]. Among the other policy documents that have been referred to in reporting the cases, NHDLP2000 has no significant bearing because it has been withdrawn [4.5] and I take the view that RPG9 is of limited relevance. This is because although it is now part of the statutory development plan for Hertfordshire [4.4], it was not originally formulated as a development plan document and the County has recently been transferred from the South Eastern Region to the Eastern Region. The 2004 Regulations themselves are also intended primarily to facilitate the production of Local Development Frameworks rather than influence development control decisions in the interim [4.2, 4.4].

As with any scheme of the size and complexity of Stevenage West there will be Development Plan policies and proposals that are supportive of the proposals and others that are not. The position is further complicated in these cases by the fragmentary nature of the various documents referred to [4.1-4.6].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 248

IC.145.

IC.146.

IC.147.

IC.148.

In effect, two of the adopted development plan documents are time expired (NHDLP1996 and SDP1994) [4.5] at least insofar as their respective housing provisions are concerned. They were also formulated in the context of an earlier Structure Plan, now superseded by SP1998. A further two documents have yet to reach the stage of formal adoption (SDP2004 and RSS/RPG14), relevant provisions of the former potentially being the subject of challenge [31.33, 31.147] and the latter existing only in a formative “banked” version at the close of the Inquiry [31.55, 31.92]. That leaves only SP1998 which, although approved and adopted, stands unsupported by any adopted Local Plan for the subject area that is contemporary with its strategy. It is also weakened by HCC’s stated commitment to review [31.31] and, notwithstanding the halt called to preparation of SP2003 (following reservations expressed by Government Office for the Eastern Region concerning its relationship to draft RSS/RPG14), by the progress being made on RSS/RPG14.

To the extent that it is either necessary or possible to attach weight to any of these documents, however, it seems to me that, at the time of writing, the greatest weight attaches to SP1998 in terms of strategy and, in terms of detailed development control policies, to SDP2004 (in view of its advanced stage towards adoption) [31.62] and to NHDLP1996 (as an approved local plan, notwithstanding its relative age).

Dealing firstly with detailed development control policies in those documents, these have for the most part either been carried forward into, or (in the case of SDP2004) reflect, the 46 Master Planning Principles produced by the respective Local Planning Authorities and which have largely guided WSC’s formulation of the proposals [4.7]. Compliance with these, and thus by implication with the relevant development plan policies, is in some measure undisputed not least because the outline status of the applications mean that full details have yet to be submitted for consideration. However for the avoidance of doubt on their relationship to all of the various documents, and to identify where specific conflicts may lie, I have commented briefly on policy matters arising from each of the subjects covered in the foregoing sections of my conclusions. It will be seen from those conclusions that the proposals accord with much of the detailed development control policy framework, but there are notable and significant exceptions. In general terms, for both PA3 and PA5 these include inherent conflict with policies for the protection of the openness of the Green Belt, the countryside and associated wildlife habitats. Taking the profound step of breaching the clear and long established boundary to development provided by A1(M) and encroaching into open Green Belt countryside west of Stevenage undoubtedly calls for the utmost prudence in those respects, but mitigation measures are proposed to compensate in some degree for the harm that may be caused. On a more specific matter, I am not convinced that policy aims relating to sustainable travel and transport (on which safety and security has an influence) would be met [paragraphs 94-99, above].

Turning to the strategic dimension of the proposals, it is apparent from my findings on the first main issue that SP1998 makes policy provision for the PA3 scheme but not, in my view, for the PA5 scheme. This is because the latter would exceed the quantitative provisions of policy 9. Nevertheless, even the PA3 scheme cannot be said to be in accordance with the statutory development plan because the adopted local plans make no provision for it. Although WSC and SBC dispute this point, the subject was fully aired in evidence to the Inquiry, mainly in the context of the issue by HCC of statements of conformity for SDP2004 and NHDLP2000 [31.31-31.36, 31.65-31.69, 31.129-31.136]. Given that the latter was subsequently withdrawn, it is now beyond argument that there

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 249

IC.149.

IC.150.

IC.151.

IC.152.

IC.153.

is no Local Plan provision for Stevenage West in any existing or emerging development plan for North Hertfordshire District.

Should SP2004 be adopted before these applications are determined, the position would not significantly alter. This is because the bulk of the developments proposed lie within North Hertfordshire District and the schemes are not “severable” between the two Local Planning Authority areas [31.75].

It is therefore my conclusion that the PA3 and PA5 proposals would not accord with the development plan. By reason of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning permissions for either scheme should therefore only be granted if material considerations indicate decisions other than in accordance with the development plan.

(ii) Relationship to PPG2 (Green Belts)

In the light of my finding that the applications site is contained within the Green Belt in this part of Hertfordshire, two points of policy arise. Firstly, note must be made of the position in Stevenage Borough in the context of SDP2004 [14.6]. The LP Inspector has recommended acceptance of the proposal for detailed boundary adjustment to accommodate the relatively small portion of the applications site that lies within that Borough. Such a course of action must follow from the inclusion of Stevenage West as a housing allocation in SDP2004. However, in the light of the Inspector’s parallel recommendation for strategic review of this allocation [31.13], this has the potential to give rise to an early boundary readjustment back to the original alignment if the allocation is not then supported. While unavoidable in the circumstances, this would be inconsistent with the advice in paragraph 2.1 of PPG2 concerning the permanence that should attach to Green Belt protection. In the short term at least, there would also be inconsistency with the Green Belt status of the larger part of the site within North Hertfordshire District, where there are currently no proposals for boundary realignment [14.33].

Secondly, it is also necessary to draw attention to the situation that would prevail under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 upon approval and adoption of RSS/RPG14. This is because RSS14 would become part of the Statutory Development Plan for the area, superseding SP1998. Inclusion of specific reference to Green Belt boundaries in relation to Stevenage West would fade away with it unless RSS/RPG14 incorporates equivalent site specific detail to the Structure Plan it would replace. From the “banked” version of RSS/RPG14, such detailed reference to Green Belt boundaries seems unlikely, there being no specific reference to Stevenage in policy SS7 for example.

Those points of policy made, the position relative to PPG2 may be simply stated. The applications site lies within the Green Belt and to permit either PA3 or PA5 would be in direct conflict with the aims, purposes and objectives of including land within Green Belts [14.9]. That does not prevent the Secretary of State from permitting inappropriate development in the face of the general presumption against such development, where justified by very special circumstances, and to do so would not conflict with PPG2. Very special circumstances in my view exist in the case of the PA3 schemes only, by reason of the strategic commitment in SP1998 housing provision for that number of dwellings at Stevenage West.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 250

IC.154.

IC.155.

IC.156.

IC.157.

However, to grant permission for Stevenage West on the basis of “very special circumstances” would entirely submerge the existing Green Belt boundary in this location. In the light of the foregoing points of policy it would also carry the real risk of there then being no explicit strategy to replace that in SP1998 for re-establishing a new Green Belt boundary beyond. Moreover, a decision based solely on “very special circumstances” without such a strategy would sever any link between proposals for Green Belt reduction and compensatory Green Belt extension that may have been anticipated in SP1998 [14.3].

The present Green Belt boundary follows A1(M), and as such is a clearly defined boundary that, over a considerable period of years, has come to represent a firm division between the built up area of the town and the openness of the countryside beyond. There can be no doubt that any breach of the A1(M) barrier to the outward expansion of Stevenage would be a profound step that should not be taken lightly. In my consideration, such major outward expansion of Stevenage beyond A1(M) as is currently proposed, whether for 3,600 or 5,000 dwellings, but with future potential for 10,000 dwellings in total, should only take place in the context of a revision to the Green Belt boundary that can be regarded with permanence. It must also be sufficiently robust to check the unrestricted sprawl of Stevenage, prevent merging with neighbouring towns and safeguard the countryside from further encroachment. In this case, given that the land is already within the Green Belt, existing Green Belt protection would remain in place. Nonetheless, as SP1998 and the SDP2004 Inspector properly recognised, there are sound land use planning reasons why a suitably revised boundary should be unambiguously established through both the strategic and local plan making processes or, at the very least now, through the RSS/RPG14 process. This is to my mind essential in the light of the concerns voiced in the last two sentences of paragraph 2.8 of PPG2 and the importance attaching to public support for Green Belt policy in general.

My view in this respect is reinforced by closer analysis of the existing and emerging policy situation [14.1-14.7]. Draft RSS/RPG14, RPG9 and SP1998 seek to protect the Green Belt but provide for Green Belt reviews to accommodate housing developments such as Stevenage West. I attach little significance to the exclusion of such provisions from SP2003, because progress on that Plan has been halted. Neither SDP1994 nor NHDLP1996, however, provide for anything other than detailed boundary adjustments. SDP2004 includes Green Belt boundary adjustment specifically to accommodate Stevenage West, but acknowledges that this may need to be reversed following strategic review. There would be no conflict with Master Planning Principle MP3. Importantly, however, there is conflict with draft RSS/RPG14 and SP1998 in the light of my finding that Green Belt review has not yet actually taken place. There is also conflict with policy 2 of NHDLP1996, although that policy pre-dates identification of Stevenage West in SP1998. There thus plainly needs to be a suitable framework in place to resolve these conflicts if Green Belt policies are not to be seen to have been seriously compromised.

For all of these reasons I caution against any approach that may lead to an absence of clear strategic guidance as to the intended extent of Green Belt coverage in the Stevenage area. This would, I consider, seriously weaken public credibility of the importance attached by successive Governments to robust long term protection of the Green Belt. For as long as SP1998 prevails, permission can in my view be granted for the PA3 scheme on the basis of “very special circumstances” in the knowledge that an appropriate plan-led strategy for Green Belt protection and boundary adjustment is in place. However, it seems to me that it would be prudent for the Secretary of State to ensure that a suitable process will be in place to establish an appropriate new Green Belt

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 251

IC.158.

IC.159.

boundary in the Stevenage area in readiness for when SP1998 is overtaken by the RPG/RSS14 process and certainly before the post 2011 period when PA5 would, if permitted, begin to deliver additional completed dwellings.

(iii) Relationship to PPG3 (Housing)

It will be apparent from my findings on the first main subject area (quantitative and strategic considerations) that I find that the proposals would contribute to the provision of sufficient housing within Hertfordshire, in a manner anticipated by SP1998. It is, however, implicit from the “plan, monitor and manage” approach to housing requirements presaged in PPG3 that housing land should be carefully husbanded. For that reason, it would be wrong to “over-provide” by permitting PA5 now, even though there may have been no intention to set a lesser limit on the amount of development that Stevenage West may eventually accommodate at the time SP1998 was approved and adopted [31.95]. A more cautious approach is now called for, particularly because of two significant changes in planning circumstances that have taken place since approval and adoption of that Plan. The first is that Hertfordshire has been transferred from the South East Region to the Eastern region, wherein future housing needs and its pattern of distribution have yet to be determined. The second is that it has since become apparent that 3,600 dwellings will not, in any event, be exceeded in the period to 2011. The need to commit to more development now can therefore hardly be said to be pressing. In the interests of carefully husbanding the release of green field housing land, the need for development of more than 3,600 dwellings should, in my judgement, now be reviewed, irrespective of any commitment to such development that SP1998 may be held to convey. Such review should be undertaken in the light of up-to-date assessment of the availability of suitable PDL across the new Region, have regard to the acceptability of Stevenage West as a location for additional development within that Region, and also taking into account the subject of appropriate phasing. Those are all matters for determination through the Regional planning process rather than for decision in the context of a single planning application. WSC has affirmed that the PA3 proposals can stand alone [5.3] and although the economics of provision of certain facilities (such as shops and schools) may in consequence be less than optimum, a suitably mixed community would be developed and affordable housing in substantial quantity delivered. I thus find only the PA3 proposals to be acceptable in terms of PPG3 advice on “widening housing opportunity and choice”.

Although Stevenage West would occupy a green field site, its identification as a suitable “urban extension” to meet the then proposed strategy for the distribution of housing development followed a sequential approach in the formulation of SP1998. That Plan pre-dated the publication of PPG3, and the approach to identification of housing capacity within existing urban areas may not have been as rigorous as would now be the case [33.55-33.59]. Nonetheless, the SP1998 development strategy, of which Stevenage West is an integral part, was accepted on its demonstrated sustainability credentials. In comparison, I find the alternative of an assemblage of “windfall” sites and so-called “allocations” advanced by HCC and NHDC to be of insufficient substance, in the context of paragraph 38 of PPG3, to warrant abandoning provision of 3,600 dwellings at Stevenage West which the approved and adopted strategy anticipates. Whether analysis of the availability of suitable PDL across the region as a whole indicates that reliance upon green field land releases is no longer necessary, or that more such land should be taken, that will bear on proposals for more than 3,600 dwellings signalled in SP1998 for the post 2011 period. For these reasons I find no conflict in the PA3 scheme with PPG3 advice on “maintaining a supply of housing”.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 252

IC.160.

IC.161.

IC.162.

IC.163.

IC.164.

Turning lastly to the part of PPG3 concerned with “creating sustainable residential environments”, the advice is largely concerned with details more appropriately considered at reserved matters stage rather than dealing with outline applications. Nonetheless, the development framework provided by the Master Plan and the various S106 planning Obligations proffered in support of the proposals lend a large measure of assurance that the guidance would be met. Both paragraphs 67 and 68 of PPG3, in particular, indicate that the Government’s approach to sustainable development, including in the Green Belt, would not be compromised by a comprehensively planned urban extension at Stevenage West undertaken in accordance with an approved and adopted development plan strategy [32.2].

(iv) Relationship to PPS7, formerly PPG7 (Sustainable development in rural areas)

The loss of open countryside arising from development at Stevenage West would be permanent [16.48], as would be the loss from agriculture of a significant area of land in the best and most versatile category. There is no suggestion that any part of the Stevenage West development, including the provision of affordable housing, local shops and community facilities, is intended to benefit those who already live and work in rural areas. Landscape impact can also, at best, only be mitigated rather than avoided.

Nonetheless, PPS7 does not entirely preclude development in the countryside, even on the scale of the Stevenage West proposals. It refers, for example, to the Government’s objectives for rural areas, which include focussing most development in, or next to, existing towns and ensuring that where green field land is developed, it is not developed wastefully. The decision to make provision for strategic scale housing development at Stevenage West in SP1998 took account of all such matters and the content of PPS7 does not, in my judgement, alter the carefully considered basis for that decision [31.19]. Harm to the countryside and to rural landscapes arising from PA3 would be less than from PA5 even if for no other reason than because the extent of development would be considerably less. With that caveat, I do not therefore consider there to be any irreconcilable conflict with PPS7 advice.

(v) Relationship to PPG9 (Nature conservation)

As with the countryside, there would be losses of wild life habitat and of certain of the species of flora and fauna that inhabit the applications site, particularly those reliant upon an open farmland habitat. In these particular cases, a comprehensive management strategy is proposed that would be capable of providing compensatory benefits for wildlife, both on and off site, while ensuring protection and/or enhancement of specific areas designated nationally and locally for their nature conservation value. PPG9 acknowledges that one of the essential tasks for Government, Local Authorities and other public agencies is to make adequate provision for development and economic growth while ensuring effective nature conservation. PA3 would plainly be less invasive than PA5 because of its smaller scale both in terms of extent and resident population. I find no insurmountable obstacle in PPG9 to development as proposed and consider the mitigation proposals satisfactory.

(vi) Relationship to PPG13 (Transport)

The proposals have been comprehensively planned to create an “urban extension” to Stevenage and, as such, they embrace the general locational principles set out in Chapters 1 and 2 of PPG13, including paragraph 14. With regard to the more detailed advice in Chapter 3, the existing Stevenage railway station and bus terminus would

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 253

IC.165.

IC.166.

provide convenient interchange facilities. The independently proposed bus/rail interchange [27.13] also has potential to enhance this if suitable setting down and picking up arrangements for shoppers (including those with mobility difficulties) can be retained. Residents’ parking would be limited to an average of about 1.5 spaces per dwelling [27.25] and to the extent that limiting the availability of parking space may reduce the propensity to travel by car, this would contribute to an important objective of PPG13. I am, however, less convinced by HCC/SBC policies and proposals, separate from Stevenage West, to increase car parking elsewhere in the town centre, and at Stevenage Railway Station in particular. While such parking may discourage longer distance car journeys from outlying areas, provision of dedicated commuter bus links to and from key locations at certain times of the day, coupled with appropriate car parking control and charges as outlined in paragraph 57 of PPG13, may have greater impact in that regard. Paragraph 66 of PPG13 also refers to the need to ensure safe walking, cycling and public transport across the whole journey rather than simply part of it, this being a point of particular relevance to the A1(M) underpasses and the sections of route beyond the applications site boundary [24.3-24.12]. Otherwise, and apart from these minor exceptions mostly outside the control of WSC, I find the proposals compliant with the main aims and requirements of PPG13.

(vii) Relationship to PPG15 and PPG16 (Planning and the historic environment and Archaeology and planning)

Subject to appropriate conditions, there would be no conflict with the general or specific advice contained in PPG15 and PPG16.

(viii) Relationship to PPG17 (Planning for open space sport and recreation)

Paragraph 10 of PPG17 says that open space should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken that has clearly shown the land to be surplus to requirements, in terms of all the functions that open space can perform. For the purposes of this guidance, the Annex to PPG17 includes all open space of public value as well as, at (ix), accessible countryside in urban fringe areas. In the absence of any up-to-date needs survey or independent assessment, it seems to me that development at Stevenage West would not accord with this advice. WSC has made a full response to this criticism, which I raised early in the Inquiry [22.14]. To my mind, the key points are, firstly, that a survey was undertaken by SBC in connection with SDP2004 [22.11, 22.14]. This is of particular note because it is existing Stevenage residents that would lose most from accessibility to the existing open space and future Stevenage residents who would gain most from the proposed provision of alternative areas and types of open space at Stevenage West. The absence of an overall appraisal covering the larger part of the site within North Hertfordshire District is not, therefore, as important as may otherwise have been the case. Secondly, a wide range of on-site open space and recreation facilities would be provided to meet the needs of future Stevenage West residents, in addition to the replacement of Meadway Park in a location easily accessible to existing residents [22.12]. Thirdly and lastly, none of the Local Planning Authorities have objected on this point, and nor has Sport England [22.13]. I therefore find the proposals acceptable, even if not fully compliant with the terms of PPG17.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 254

IC.167.

IC.168.

IC.169.

IC.170.

(ix) Impact of the proposed development on the existing amenities and infrastructure of the area, including public transport and the local road network

I have nothing to add to the findings in these respects in my foregoing conclusions. In essence, I find the proposals acceptable, but have reservations about the wider travel and transport infrastructure under the control of others than WSC.

(x) Any other material considerations relevant to the Secretary of State’s consideration of the applications

I have considered all other matters raised in the representations and, to the extent that these may be material to the Secretary of State’s decision, I have included reference to them in the body of my conclusions. I draw attention here only to alternative sites briefly promoted during the course of the Inquiry and in written representations, one being the subject of further written representations shortly before the Inquiry closed [33.21, 33.50, 33.51]. In response to the specific points raised, the prospect of housing growth at Stevenage serving the London job market is one that is recognised in the Housing Development and Spatial Strategy Audit for the County undertaken by Roger Tym and Partners [31.23] and needs to be viewed in the context of the relative size of the two settlements, the intention to maximise trip retention within Stevenage West and Government policy to reduce the need to travel. It would also be wrong, in my view, to delay development at Stevenage West (and hence implementation of SP1998 strategy) on the basis of the claimed advantage of another site or sites, the relative qualities of which are not before me in anything like similar detail, and thus open to considerable question [33.49, 33.50. 33.51].

(xi) Whether any permission should be subject to any conditions and, if so, the form these should take

I provide a detailed commentary on planning conditions discussed during the Inquiry in a separate annex to this Report [Annex 1] and, in the event that the First Secretary of State is minded to grant planning permission for the PA3 scheme, list in my recommendation below the conditions that I consider appropriate.

S106 planning Obligations

There are two separate S106 planning Obligations offered in support of the applications. One takes the form of an agreement dealing with affordable housing, and the other the form of a unilateral undertaking dealing with broader community infrastructure issues [CD/MISC/10c and CD/MISC11e]. Both fall to be considered in the light of Circular 1/97 and paragraphs 7 and Annex B paragraphs B2—B15 in particular. There is also a separate “Security Deed” [CD/MISC/11f]. It should be noted that copies of all of these documents were released to me by WSC on the day the Inquiry closed. The Affordable Housing Agreement, however, awaits the Councils’ signatures and dating. The Unilateral Undertaking and Security Bond are both signed and dated but the Councils still expressed reservations concerning certain matters of title and the ESCROW conditions under which they had been held. At the Inquiry, the Councils intimated through HCC that they would write to ODPM separately on these matters within 14 days of the closure, as well as making a considered response to WSC’s 25 October submissions [34.5].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 255

IC.171.

IC.172.

IC.173.

Affordable housing agreement

I have nothing to add to my earlier findings on this subject [paragraphs 67-69 above]. It should, however, be noted that changes to the funding regime administered by the Housing Corporation are afoot, which may have implications for deliverability [34.22]. Two further concerns have been raised by the three Local Planning Authorities. The first is that there is no restriction to prevent WSC constructing all of the affordable housing but none of the community facilities that go with it [34.27]. The second is that the definitions of “affordable housing unit” and “special needs unit” in the unilateral undertaking dealing with community infrastructure do not cross-refer to the affordable housing agreement, resulting in potential confusion over which dwellings are the affordable units and which are the market housing units. However, both of these points bear on the former document rather than the latter. Subject, therefore, to receipt of the signed version and to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the changes to the Housing Corporation’ funding regime, when implemented, would not compromise affordable housing provision in the quantities anticipated, I consider the Agreement to be acceptable as drafted.

Unilateral Undertaking

Apart from the separate so-called “Security Deed”, this S106 planning Obligation is contained in 3 bound volumes. The first contains the text of the Obligation, Schedules listing interests in the site, model leases, the proposed education delivery programme, highways works, duties of the proposed Travel Plan Co-ordinator, details of the proposed Neighbourhood Trust, and forms for permissive bridleway and footpath agreements, together with a number of drawings. These include the PA3 and PA5 Master Plans, plans showing proposed areas for allotments and areas of archaeological interest, the Bessemer Drive/Caxton Way junction proposals, a land ownership plan, details of the proposed alterations to the existing Stevenage bus terminus and drawings of specific buildings, primarily for illustrative purposes. There is also, on pages 80-82, a list of the various financial contributions offered. The second volume contains 19 annexes including the proposed access management strategy [19.10], the proposed farmland species strategy [19.11], various nature conservation monitoring plans, and specifications for a range of facilities such as those for CCTV, bus stops, playing pitches and other recreational areas. The third volume contains annex 20, which is a bundle of detailed highway drawings for the proposed main site accesses and off-site road works. The Security Deed is advanced by WSC in order to address concerns expressed by the Councils over the enforceability of certain of the requirements of the Unilateral Undertaking. Rather than reformulate the Undertaking along the lines proposed by the Councils or provide a financial guarantee, the bond provides for development not to be commenced or occupied on the various parts of the site unless relevant provisions of the Undertaking have been complied with or the owners have provided a suitable guarantee that they will be complied with.

The overall complexity of the documentation is in large measure unavoidable for development of the scale involved, given the implications in terms of the amount and range of infrastructure provision required to establish a sustainable community. Dispute between the parties over matters such as reliance upon negative covenants, potential problems associated with several liability, the risk of abrogation of statutory powers, the making of payments to third parties, and the relationship to the Security Deed are primarily matters of law [34.8 – 34.14 and 34.33-34.45]. Guidance on certain procedural matters is, however, to be found in Circular 1/97 which, among other things,

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 256

IC.174.

IC.175.

IC.176.

IC.177.

IC.178.

counsels against the transfer of interests in land through S106 planning Obligations (paragraph B26) and, in certain circumstances seeking commuted sums for maintenance and other continuing expenditure (paragraph B14).

Beyond those legal and procedural matters, the drafting of a Unilateral Undertaking falls, essentially, to the hand of the party proffering it. That said, while the Unilateral Undertaking in this case may well be capable of delivering the facilities proposed, as a planning practitioner I view with considerable circumspection processes which ultimately rely upon detailed legal interpretation, identification of a large number of diverse “trigger points”, the appointment of “assessors” and action through the Courts to enforce. To my mind, the approach suggested by the Councils [34.15], while not avoiding these obstacles entirely, has much more to commend it. This is principally because it would provide a much simpler framework which not only lawyers and planners but also those involved in the purchase and sale of individual properties long into the future may more easily be able to navigate and understand [34.7].

In answer to my question at the session of the Inquiry on 25 October 2004, WSC intimated that it would not be wholly averse to re-drafting the Unilateral Undertaking along those lines if the Secretary of State were minded to make this a pre-condition of granting planning permission, subject to any question of law that may thus arise. In that case, a six month period would, it was affirmed, be more than adequate to deal with the matter provided clear instructions were to be given. Those could, I consider, be drawn directly from the Council’s suggestions [34.15], but with the last bullet point being limited to no more than a 10 year maintenance period and to those facilities that do not produce directly or indirectly any revenue income (such as open space). I commend that course of action at least in part in the light of the endorsement of it lent by Stevenage Borough Council who, in most other respects (and, unlike HCC), are supporters of the proposed development [34.20-34.32].

Turning to the detailed clauses, certain items of community infrastructure have been sought by the Councils but not acceded to by WSC. These include in particular, equipping the proposed school buildings and provision for childcare (clause 17), the proposed library contribution (clause 27), funding for land acquisition in connection with alterations to Stevenage Bus terminus (clause 51), and the amount of bus services support contribution (clause 51). There are others which, according to the Councils, may not be provided despite being offered because of the way in which the various Obligations, including the so-called “Security Deed”, have been drafted. These include affordable housing and clauses 17, 18, 24, 35, 44 and 51 (in all or in part).

Paragraph 7 of Circular 1/97 sets out the Secretary of State’s five policy tests for planning Obligations. Without exception, I find that the clauses may be held to satisfy the tests of being relevant to planning and directly related to the development being proposed. Having been proffered in the form of a Unilateral Undertaking, it must be the case that WSC implicitly shares that view. The position with regard to the other three tests (necessary, reasonable, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development) is more complex for three main reasons.

Firstly, some of the community infrastructure proposed may be regarded as eminently desirable but not, strictly speaking, necessary to enable the development to go ahead. Such would certainly apply to clauses 34, 37, 41 and 49. Clause 37 must, for example, be of questionable provenance given that there can be no certainty that additional custody facilities at Stevenage or Hitchin police stations would be used only in connection with the reduction of crime associated with Stevenage West. Were it not for

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 257

IC.179.

IC.180.

IC.181.

the need to ensure compliance with the development plan [34.1-34.3] and to respond positively to the Master Planning Principles SPG [4.7], similar criticism may also be levelled in varying degree at a large number of other requirements of the Undertaking. This includes clauses 7, 12, 16, parts of 17, 19, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 40, 43, 48, and certain parts of 51. If those clauses were indeed to be found desirable rather than necessary it would follow also that the requirements would be unreasonable. The advice in paragraph B15 of the Annex to Circular 1/97 is particularly pertinent in this respect and it is primarily for this reason that I attach little force to the Councils’ criticisms that certain of the contributions proposed are inadequate in quantum, even if they may be found to be so. It may also be that the Secretary of State takes the view that certain of the clauses included may be better replaced with others that have been excluded. Clause 41, for example, concerning renewable energy vouchers (which WSC freely proffered) may more suitably be replaced with or complemented by, a requirement to provide furnishings for the proposed school buildings (which WSC resists). In anticipation of that, I sought the parties’ views on how the reasonableness of deletions, additions or replacement requirements could be addressed (CD/IPD/6). In the event, a formal response was received only from WSC (CD/IPD/6a), although comment was made on the subject in evidence and in closing submissions by HCC and SBC [10.26, 32.4, 34.31 and 34.32]. Commercial and marketing considerations as well as precedent and questions of law no doubt play a part in WSC’s approach to such choices.

Secondly, given that the applications are made only in outline form, the level of detail required by the Councils in respect of certain of the proposed element of community infrastructure could also be regarded as unreasonable at this stage. In respect of school provision, for example, HCC wants plans sufficient to ensure compliance with DfES regulations and a sight of the contract for construction. Such demands are, however, largely unavoidable when Section 106 of the Act does not provide for planning Obligations to be revisited at approval of details stage.

Thirdly, in the absence of full detail of the formulae underlying certain of the proffered developer contributions (clause 37 for example), compliance with the test of being reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development is difficult to assess objectively. It is notable in this connection that some of the contributions do not vary between PA3 and PA5 even though the environmental impact of the former may be less than the latter (clauses 28 and 38 for example). Moreover, compliance with this test embraces all of the Obligations on offer, including the Affordable Housing Agreement.

However, negotiations between the parties over the details of the scheme are in my view best undertaken (as they have been) at local level between the parties themselves. Those negotiations have already been lengthy and exhaustive and may be said to have met with considerable success. In particular, they have identified a wide range of measures aimed at minimising the financial and environmental costs to the existing local community, while also providing some additional facilities (such as enhanced access to the wider countryside) of benefit to all. More fulsome agreement on the range and details of facilities has not been reached to date, and I doubt that it would be even if further time were to be allowed, not least because of the underlying points of principle that separate those involved. Without the necessary infrastructure, I would regard the development proposed to be both unsustainable and unacceptable, but I have identified no demonstrable conflict with relevant policy [34.1-34.3] and the detailed infrastructure provisions of the Unilateral Undertaking would, I consider, be adequate if not exemplary.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 258

IC.182.

IC.183.

IC.184.

The planning Obligations are presented by WSC as a large and comprehensive package, the overall integrity of which would be diminished by piecemeal deletions. A review of Government advice on planning Obligations is currently the subject of consultation and the test of need may in consequence become more flexible. Draft RSS/RPG14 also has some relevance in this respect [34.1]. On balance, and provided the Secretary of State does not inappropriately attach importance, when deciding whether or not to grant permission, to infrastructure requirements that have been offered but may nonetheless be held to be unreasonable, I take the view that the questionability of need for or relevance of individual clauses should not be allowed to place the overall acceptability of the Undertaking, or of the Stevenage West proposals, in jeopardy. That is not to say, however, that the proposals here should come to be regarded as a precedent for similar treatment in any other case. Indeed, the very nature of S106 Obligations is that they are designed to address specific concerns that arise in the different circumstances of each particular development proposal.

While I therefore come to the view that the range of subject matter covered would be sufficient to establish a sustainable community, considerable importance attaches to ensuring that the essential infrastructure on offer actually materialises. This, to my mind, is more likely to be achieved with the Unilateral Undertaking re-drafted along the lines suggested by the Councils [34.15] rather than by retaining the existing structure. This contrasts with the Affordable Housing Agreement which, while containing similar processes, deals only with one single item of infrastructure provision. I also have little doubt that, before committing themselves to considering any different formulation for the Undertaking, the parties await a clear indication of the likely outcome of the applications and the Secretary of State’s views on the points of principle concerning the Obligations raised in their “fundamental flaws” document. To that limited extent, I consider that a 6 month period should be allowed for the Unilateral Undertaking and Security Deed to be reformulated in accordance with all but the maintenance obligations in the Councils’ suggestions.

Overall Conclusions

Establishing an appropriate balance between development provided for in site-specific form in development plans (allocations and strategic sites) and the contribution to be made from so-called “windfall” sites is an iterative process. Regulating the supply of windfalls is dependent firstly upon minimising their number by translating as many as possible of the suitable sites identified in capacity studies into allocations. Secondly, it is dependent upon suitably stringent development control policies dealing, for example, with locational considerations and the rate of transfer from other uses. The latter includes education and employment uses, the demand for which may be expected to rise rather than diminish with increased housing provision. Importantly, for strategy to be implemented with the intended results, the policies for governing the balance between the actual release of allocated sites (phasing) and windfall sites (development control policies) must be contemporaneous with and complementary to each other. Such is not at present the case in Hertfordshire, and is unlikely to be the case until the cycle of RSS and LDF preparation is complete. That is not to say that housing development for which there is clear strategic commitment should be halted in the interim. Rather, those developments to which there are extant, firm and considered strategic commitments should endure until any over- or under-provision can be rectified through formulation, approval and adoption of a replacement strategy.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 259

IC.185.

IC.186.

IC.187.

IC.188.

•

•

•

Against that background, whether SBC’s expectations and those of others for strategic review of the allocations are valid are matters of both law and process [31.32, 31.144]. In my view, however, to permit the PA5 schemes in any circumstances prior to consideration of development needs beyond 2011 in the RSS/RPG14 forum would be premature and likely to pre-empt important decisions about the distribution of development in the Eastern Region that should properly be made in a wider than Hertfordshire context.

Given the potentially significant over-supply of windfall sites anticipated by HCC and NHDC, the imminence of a deposit version of RSS/RPG14 and the limited contribution that can now be made to pre-2011 housing provision [31.93, 31.128], it may also be, notwithstanding my findings at paragraphs 23-32 above, that the Secretary of State would consider the grant of planning permission for the PA3 schemes to be no less premature. It would then follow from paragraphs 47, 48 and 49 of PPG1 that planning permission should be refused. I caution against that, because it carries with it the risk that local debate over the development of this important strategic site would be re-opened [31.54, 32.1 33.5]. The lengthy process culminating in a public local Inquiry may then need to be re-run. The details of the scheme agreed thus far may also have to be renegotiated in the light of any circumstances that may change in the interim including, for example, the outcome of any up-dated housing need survey. The propensity for delay would thus be huge, even if RSS/RPG14 affirmed the findings of SP1998. Should the Secretary of State therefore consider that the PA3 schemes should not yet be permitted, then it may be better simply to regard them as untimely and, subject to agreement of the parties, defer a decision until the regional planning process has completed.

There is, however, an important distinction between the PA3 and PA5 schemes in that the PA3 schemes are specifically provided for in SP1998 policies 8 and 9 and represent an integral component of that plan’s sustainable strategy to meet Hertfordshire’s housing requirements in the period to 2011, whereas the PA5 proposals are not. Moreover, although the details of the development have not been advanced through the Local Plan process, they are generally in accordance with the Master Planning Principles Supplementary Planning Guidance produced by the three Councils involved. Together with the desirability of bringing SP1998 strategy to fruition and the provision of much needed affordable housing, it seems to me that these factors are material considerations that would justify a decision, without further delay, on the PA3 applications otherwise than in accordance with the statutory development plan.

My overall conclusions may thus be briefly stated as follows:

The PA5 applications are not acceptable primarily because it would be premature to permit the amount of housing development proposed in this location pending establishment of housing needs and distribution post 2011, through the RSS/RPG14 process.

Subject to the Secretary of State being satisfied that suitable travel and transportation measures would be in place [paragraph 98 above], the PA3 applications are acceptable in quantitative, locational and qualitative terms.

That, in the light of my commentary in Annex 1 to this Report, any permission be subject to conditions, and also to the S106 planning Obligations proffered by WSC, but with the Unilateral Undertaking reformulated in accordance with the structure recommended by the Councils.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 260

Recommendation 1. That the first pair of applications (Stevenage Borough Council Ref 01/00423/1, North

Hertfordshire District Council Ref 01/01157/1), for approximately 5,000 dwellings and business premises (Use Classes B1 and B2), shops (Use Classes A1, A2 and A3); leisure, social and community facilities (Use Classes D1 and D2); open space and landscaping; and provision of infrastructure, highways and public transport facilities; and ancillary facilities on land west of A1(M) at Stevenage, be refused.

And

2. That with regard to the second pair of applications (Stevenage Borough Council Ref 01/00506/OP, North Hertfordshire District Council Ref 01/01408/1), for 3,600 dwellings and business premises (Use Classes B1 and B2), shops (Use Classes A1, A2 and A3); leisure, social and community facilities (Use Classes D1 and D2); open space and landscaping; and provision of infrastructure, highways and public transport facilities; and ancillary facilities (as amended) on land west of A1(M) at Stevenage, subject to:

• the Secretary of State being satisfied that suitable travel and transportation measures would be in place

• the receipt of a completed S106 planning Agreement relating to Affordable Housing and an appropriately reformulated S106 Unilateral Undertaking relating to Community Infrastructure provision

outline planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: General

1. Where in the following conditions the Local Planning Authority approve(s) submitted details, the development shall only take place in accordance with the details as approved. With regard to the following conditions, submission of details shall be made to, and approval shall be by, the Local Planning Authority for the area to which the details relate, except in circumstances where those details relate to more than one Authority’s administrative area, in which case the details shall be submitted to each Authority for the purpose of the discharge of those details.

Reserved Matters

2. Development shall not commence within a development parcel until details of the siting, design, external appearance of the buildings and landscaping (hereinafter referred to as “reserved matters”) of that part of the parcel to be developed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3. An application for approval of reserved matters for the first part of the site to be

developed shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and all applications for approval of the reserved matters shall be made before the expiration of ten years from the date of this permission.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 261

4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Compliance with Master Plan

5. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the amended

Master Plan 8059-57L and the principles contained within the Development Principles and Design Guide (as amended).

Phasing 6. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Phasing

Plan 8059-127E. The development in each “Detailed Master Plan” area shall not commence until a detailed phasing plan for that area has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

7. With the exception of the Meadway underpass and replacement sports pitch

construction, development shall not commence until a “Development Code” for the whole of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to include the following:

i) preparation of Master Plans for the mixed use centre and local centres at a

scale of 1:2500 to indicate the general approach to building design and urban design;

ii) the standards to be applied to highway construction, the intended regime of traffic speed control at each level of the proposed road hierarchy, and the planning standards to be applied to housing design and layout;

iii) with reference to the detailed Master Plan areas, the intended overall distribution of affordable housing including special needs housing;

iv) the boundaries for the development parcels and those areas that are intended to be covered by a detailed Master Plan;

v) details of the Public Transport Spine shown on the Master Plan referred to in condition 5 above, including squares and greens that form part of the corridor, its surfacing, lighting and the street furniture to be used along its length, building frontages, bus stops and related facilities and any priority measures associated with the Public Transport Spine; and

vi) the overall pedestrian and cycleway and bridleway route network, including the arrangements for monitoring the use of the network and the measures proposed to maximise safe use of it.

8. With the exception of the Meadway underpass and replacement sports pitch

construction, development shall not commence within a parcel until an “Infrastructure Master Plan” serving that parcel has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which shall include for each parcel of up to 500 dwellings details of:

i) highway alignment with integrated traffic calming measures for the relevant

section of the Public Transport Spine, primary and secondary access roads; ii) footways, cycleways, footpaths and bridleways; iii) retained vegetation;

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 262

iv) car parking; v) lighting; and vi) street furniture.

9. With the exception of the Meadway underpass and replacement sports pitch construction, development shall not commence within a parcel until a “Detailed Master Plan” for that parcel of up to 500 dwellings or the mixed use centre, the local centres and each of the employment areas has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in the form of a plan and supporting information indicating:

i) affordable including special needs housing sites; ii) the circulation pattern and identification of the type of roads, including home

zones where applicable; iii) all open space areas and description of their content and treatment in broad

terms; iv) vegetation to be retained together with stand off/no build zones and indicative

landscape areas , including ditches and water features; v) areas where passive solar gain can be harnessed through building orientation; vi) the proposed materials palette; vii) the approach to urban form, in terms of variations in eaves height, roof form,

number of storeys and building lines; viii) the disposition of land uses within the Mixed Use Centre and the two Local

Centres; ix) location of CCTV cameras; and x) the dwelling mix type and numbers of affordable housing units and special

needs units.

10. No development shall take place within a development parcel until a “design Brief” for any community centres, youth facility, school buildings and sports hall falling within that parcel has been submitted to and approved in writing by then Local Planning Authority.

11. The details submitted in accordance with condition 2 above shall be accompanied by a

“Design Statement” which shall explain the approach taken to the following:

i) context and location ii) site constraints; iii) local character and identity; iv) site layout/Master Plan; v) access and circulation; vi) landscape treatment; vii) levels; viii) elevations and materials; ix) lighting; x) street furniture; and xi) sustainable construction methods.

12. With each development parcel covered by a Detailed Master Plan a minimum average

net density of 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) (as defined in Annex C of PPG3, March 2001) for semi-rural residential, 40 dph for semi-formal residential and 50 dph for the mixed use centre shall be achieved.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 263

13. No development shall take place within a development parcel until details of the slab

levels of the proposed buildings in relation to the surrounding ground level (expressed as AOD) for that part of the parcel to be developed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Save with the specific approval of the Local Planning Authority, the following development shall not exceed the specified heights (excluding chimneys) set out in the DPDG above slab level as shown on the approved plan:

i) Residential in lower density areas – 10.5 metres ii) Residential in medium and high density areas – 12.5 metres iii) Mixed Use Centre – 12.5 metres iv) Primary Schools – 7 metres v) Secondary School – 10 metres vi) Sports Hall – 11 metres vii) Employment buildings – 12 metres

Sustainable Design

14. No dwelling with a private garden shall be occupied until a compost bin has been provided for the property.

Landscape and Visual Impact

15. No development shall take place within a development parcel until details of the

provision of play equipment, safety surfacing, seating, dog-proof fencing and playing fields, with a programme for implementation serving that parcel has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

16. With the exception of the Meadway underpass and replacement sports pitch

construction, no development shall take place until a scheme for the structural landscaping and nature conservation for the site as a whole (and such off-site plantings as may be agreed under clause xiv below) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submission shall include the following:

i) aims and objectives of management; ii) location and descriptions of features to be retained and managed, to include

existing woodlands, hedgerows, grassland, ponds, trees and other habitats; iii) planting and maintenance of new woodlands and other habitats; iv) new amenity area, to include the proposed cemetery, allotments, public open

space, playing fields (including associated pavilions), play areas and greenways;

v) specification for the linear park; vi) description of target habitats and range of species appropriate for the site in

line with local, regional and national guidance; vii) management options for delivering aims and objectives; viii) creation/restoration of landscape in line with local and regional character; ix) selection of specific techniques and practices for establishing vegetation; x) sources of habitat material; xi) monitoring, review and remedial measures; xii) scheme of maintenance;

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 264

xiii) details of earth modelling; xiv) off-site planting shown on drawing No 8059 9.0/20 (MDC69 rev a); and xv) programme of implementation

17. Existing vegetation and habitat features shall be retained in accordance with the

Habitats Features Plan no 11.0/1 and none of the trees or hedgerows shown to be retained shall be felled, lopped, topped uprooted, removed or otherwise destroyed or killed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. If any of the trees or hedgerows shown to be retained are felled, lopped, topped, uprooted, removed or otherwise destroyed or killed within the expiration of 5 years from the occupation of the last dwelling to be constructed within the development parcel within which they are located, another tree or hedgerow of similar species and size (to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority) shall be replanted at the same place unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

18. With the exception of the Meadway underpass and replacement sports pitch

construction, no development shall commence until details of the advanced north-west and west planting as shown on drawing 8059-L33A have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved advanced planting scheme shall be carried out either before the end of the first planting season following construction of the Meadway underpass and replacement sports pitches or within three years of the commencement of development, whichever is the sooner.

19. The approved landscaping [as defined in Article 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning

(General Development Procedure) Order 1995] within a development parcel shall be carried out before the end of the first planting season following occupation of the last dwelling to be constructed within that parcel or in accordance with a programme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting any tree is removed, uprooted or becomes seriously damaged or diseased, another tree of a similar species and size (to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority) shall be replanted at the same place unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

20. The new Meadway underpass shall not be made available for public use until details of

the landscaping outlined on drawing 9.0/25 “Gateway Design into Development at Meadway” and the programme for its implementation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Protected Species and Habitats

21. No development shall take place within a development parcel until protected species

surveys of that development parcel have been carried out and the results submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If the surveys indicate the presence of protected species, a scheme for the protection of them and/or their habitats during construction, to include proposals for habitat re-creation, implementation, monitoring and management shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 265

Soils and Agriculture 22. Those parts of the site that are in “set aside”, in arable use or used for grazing on the

date of this permission shall be kept as such until details pursuant to condition 2 have been approved for development of the land concerned.

Drainage 23. With the exception of the Meadway underpass and replacement sports pitch

construction, no development shall commence in respect of any part of a development parcel until details of the foul and surface water drainage serving that part of the parcel have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the submission of those details, an assessment shall be carried out into the potential for disposing of surface water by means of sustainable urban drainage systems in accordance with the principles set out in Appendix E of Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 “Development and Flood Risk” and the results of the assessment provided to the Local Planning Authority. Where a sustainable urban drainage scheme is to be implemented, the submitted details shall:

i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method

to be employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures to be taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;

ii) specify the responsibility of each party for the implementation of the sustainable urban drainage scheme together with the phasing of implementation applicable to the development parcel; and

iii) provide a management and maintenance plan for the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangement to secure the operation of the scheme.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 24. No development shall take place in respect of a development parcel until a programme

of archaeological work has been implemented in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

25. No development shall take place in respect of a development parcel until a detailed

method statement for all new ground works serving that part of the development parcel has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted in these areas shall be implemented in accordance with the approved method statement.

Pollution and Waste

26. Apart from the construction of the noise attenuation bund and acoustic fencing referred

to in condition 27 below, no built development shall take place within 35 metres of the western edge of the current (at the date of this planning permission) metalled carriageway of the A1(M).

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 266

27. No residential development shall take place in respect of any development parcel within 200 metres of the western edge of the current (at the date of this planning permission) metalled carriageway of the A1(M) until details of the proposed noise attenuation bunding and acoustic fencing adjacent to the A1(M) and relating to that parcel have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The bunding and fencing relevant to each parcel shall be erected prior to first occupation of any dwelling within that parcel.

28. No dwelling within a development parcel shall be occupied until the dwelling has been

insulated against externally generated aircraft and road traffic noise in accordance with a scheme to be first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority designed to ensure that , at the time of construction, an internal noise level no greater than 40dBA Leq would prevail in living rooms between 07:00 and 23:00 hours and 30dBA Leq and and 45dBA Lmax (F time weighting)in bedrooms between 23:00 hours and 07:00 hours. Insulation sufficient to provide equivalent attenuation shall thereafter be retained within the dwellings at all times.

29. With the exception of the Meadway underpass construction, no works of construction

shall be undertaken before 07:00 hours or after 19:00 hours on Mondays to Fridays and before 07:00 hours or after 13:00 hours on Saturdays, and (except for emergency repairs) construction work or deliveries of construction plant or materials shall not take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

30. The rating level of noise from fixed plant or equipment on the site shall not exceed the

existing background level by more than 5dB. The background noise level shall be determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises. /the measurements and assessments shall be made in accordance with BS 4142: 1990.

31. No development shall take place within a development parcel, with the exception of the

Meadway underpass and replacement sports pitch construction, until details of the proposed external lighting within that parcel have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No other external lighting shall be installed without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Cartref 32. No development relating to the Meadway Access shall take place until details of the

noise barrier, reinstatement of the northern access and relocation of the parking area shown on drawing 9.0/025 have been submitted to and approved in writing buy the Local Planning Authority.

Norton Green Landfill Site 33. No residential, commercial or recreational development (including playing field

construction) within 250 metres of areas on the Norton Green Landfill site which exceed 5% methane (as set out on plan EN1639/Figure P1 and as updated by monitoring results) shall commence until details of measures to prevent ingress, accumulation and ignition of landfill gas based on current best practice (Construction Industry Research and Information Association Report 149 and DETR PIT 1997) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 267

34. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development as set out in Schedule 2 Part 1 Classes A, D and E shall be carried out within the area shown on Plan EN/1639/Figure PE2.

35. No soakaways shall be constructed and no development shall take place on Norton

Green Landfill site unless and until details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water and land settlement, including provisions for monitoring, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the measures approved.

Infrastructure

36. No development shall take place on the site that would obstruct maintenance access to

the 132kV power lines that cross the north east corner of the site. 37. All new piping, ducting and cabling for the provision of new services, including

electricity cables and cable TV pre-ducting, shall be placed underground.

38. No built development shall take place within 3 m of the 15 inch medium pressure gas main on the site, the 12 inch regional feeder or the 36 inch national feeder (and, in the case of the latter, only then if it has been relayed to urban standards set by the Health and Safety Executive and Transco).

Employment and Retail

39. With the exception of the main foodstore, no individual retail premises within Class A1

of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) shall not exceed 2,000 sq metres (of which no more than 20% of this floorspace shall be occupied for convenience goods sales) in the Mixed Use Centre and 1,340 sq metres (of which no more than 20% of this floorspace shall be occupied for convenience goods sales) in each of the Southern and Northern Local Centres.

Construction Method Statements 40. No development shall take place within a development parcel until a Construction

Method Statement in respect of that development parcel has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning authority.

41. No development shall commence until a construction Method Statement for the

construction of the Meadway underpass has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Traffic and Transport

42. Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling or commercial floorspace a Strategic Green

Travel Plan shall be formulated by the developer and submitted to and approved in

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 268

writing by the Local Planning Authority. The tenants/occupiers of the main foodstore, the primary and secondary schools and of any commercial floorspace greater than 2,500 sq metres (gross) shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for approval their own individual Green Travel Plans within three months of commencing occupation which shall be in accordance with the objectives of the Strategic Green Travel Plan. Within one month of approval, the measures described in their respective approved Travel Plans shall be implemented and shall continue to be implemented unless or until the Local Planning Authority agrees to cessation.

43. Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling or commercial floorspace a “Management

and Control Strategy” outlining how vehicular access to the Public Transport Spine will be controlled and the method of managing vehicular movement along it to provide bus priority shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Strategy shall be implemented as approved as each section of the Public Transport Spine becomes available for public use.

44. Before development is commenced, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in

writing by the Local Planning Authority indicating the sequence of the proposed housing development relative to the sequence of construction and use of the Meadway access, the Public Transport spine and the provision of operational bus stops along it.

45. Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted, the relevant

section of the Public Transport Spine serving the part containing the nearest bus stop location as shown on figure 41A of the DPDG (as amended) shall be completed and made available for public use.

Car and Cycle parking

46. Car parking relating to dwellings within each development parcel shall not exceed 1.5

off-street parking spaces per dwelling averaged over the site as a whole. 47. Car parking relating other than to dwellings shall, within each development parcel, be in

accordance with the current adopted car parking standards of the Local Planning Authority.

48. Prior to the occupation of the schools, main foodstore and employment areas, cycle

parking relevant to the proposed use shall be provided in accordance with the current adopted cycle parking standards of the Local Planning Authority.

Travellers’ Site

49. Before the closure to motorised traffic of Dyes Lane from Bessemer Drive up to the

travellers’ site, the works to the new vehicular access arrangement to the travellers’ site and gas compound as shown on drawing J501-1025 shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

50. No development shall take place, with the exception of the construction of the

Meadway underpass until a detailed scheme for the boundary treatment to the four southern playing pitches and the area of public open space immediately to the west of the travellers’ site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 269

Authority. The scheme shall be carried out as approved prior to the completion of the laying out of these sports pitches.

Other matters

51. Notwithstanding the details shown in the Master Plan referred to in condition 5, no

development shall take place in the two residential areas shown to the north and west of the northern primary school indicated on plan 90b of the DPDG addendum booklet.

Information

Attention is drawn to the requirements of section 76 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 concerning provisions for the benefit of disabled people.

Inspector

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 270

Glossary

CASE The Campaign Against Stevenage Expansion

CTS The proposed Central Transport Spine Road, a term which I prefer to PTS (Public Transport Spine) used by WSC because of dispute over the extent to which it would be used for general access to Stevenage West.

ESFI Environmental Statement Further Information [CD/PA3/16-37 and CD/PA5/16-37]

EIP Examination in Public (SP1998)

fe School forms of entry

LDF Local Development Framework

LEAP Local Equipped Area for Play

NEAP Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play

NEC Noise Exposure Category (PPG24)

NHDLP1996 The North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 2 with Alterations, adopted April 1996 [CD/DP/6]

NHDLP2000 The North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 3 Draft (withdrawn) with Alterations, adopted April 1996 [CD/DP/7]

NPFA National Playing Fields Association

PA3 The applications for 3600 dwellings and ancillary facilities

PA5 The applications for 5000 dwellings and ancillary facilities

PDL Previously developed land

PPG Planning Policy Guidance Note

Tppa Trips per person per annum (by bus)

RPB Regional Planning Body for the Eastern Region

RPG9 Regional Planning Guidance for the South East

RPG14 Emerging Regional Planning Guidance for the Eastern Region

RSL Registered Social Landlord

RSS Regional Spatial Strategy

SDP1994 The Stevenage District Plan 1990, adopted November 1994

SDP2004 The Stevenage District Plan Second Review 1991-2011 at Modifications stage following receipt of the Inspector’s report on objections

SP1991 The now superseded 1986 Structure Plan Review, which incorporated Alterations approved in 1991

SP1998 The Hertfordshire Structure Plan Review 1996-2011 (approved 1998)

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 271

SP2003 The Second Deposit Version of the Hertfordshire Structure Plan Alterations 2001-2016

SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance

Stevenage West Generic term for the proposed development in all of its forms

The 1990 Act The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

The 2004 Act The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

WSC The West of Stevenage Consortium/the applicants

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 272

•

•

•

•

ANNEX 1

Planning Conditions A1 Suggested planning conditions[CD/MISC/9a] were compiled by WSC in response to points

made by various parties to the Inquiry and follow from discussion with HCC, SBC and NHDC. I contributed to those discussions by commenting on an early draft in the context of Circular 11/95 advice. Further discussion was held at the Inquiry session on 18 May 2004 dealing specifically with planning conditions and Obligations. My commentary here explains the proposed general structure of the conditions and identifies the subjects covered, but focuses principally on outstanding matters of concern at the close of the Inquiry, with references to the main part of my report where appropriate. Except where explicitly indicated it may thus otherwise be taken that the conditions would be acceptable to the principal parties. I maintain the same numbering sequence as that in WSC’s compilation. Cross references are included to relevant paragraphs in the text of my report, those prefixed IC being to my conclusions. I list the conditions in the form that I consider they should be imposed, if the First Secretary of State is minded to grant permission for the PA3 scheme, in the recommendation at the end of the main body of my Report.

A2 In terms of general structure:

An introductory paragraph has been included at my suggestion to make clear to which Council(s) the various details must be submitted for approval. Alternative forms of words for certain conditions are included where it is necessary to distinguish between the proposed treatment of PA3 and that of PA5. Because the development may be expected to extend over a period of years, it is not anticipated that the reserved matters would all be submitted in a single tranche. This has implications for the time periods set out in the statutory outline planning conditions. It is also reflected in a number of conditions. Alongside submission of the specified reserved matters these would, in effect, establish a parallel procedure for establishing “framework” details for each phase of development prior to or alongside the submission of working details for the phase in hand. Some of the conditions also begin with the words “With the exception of the Meadway underpass and replacement sports pitch construction…” While this is a somewhat repetitive formulation, it is necessary to recognise that development would begin with the construction of the Meadway access (if for no other reason than to provide a suitable access to the applications site for construction purposes). This access would traverse the existing Meadway Park, bringing about the need to ensure that the proposed replacement sports pitch provision would then be made available [22.1, 22.13, 27.18]. These critical aspects of initial phasing are in themselves, however, dealt with in the proposed S106 planning Obligations rather than by planning condition. That is an approach that I find to be appropriate.

A3 Subjects covered and commentary: Condition 1 – Development to be carried out in accordance with such details as may

subsequently be approved. This “catch all” condition is necessary to avoid constant repetition in ensuing conditions. It has been included at my suggestion. Separate requirements are, however, still required in certain other conditions where a specific time

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 273

limit is to be imposed, such as those dealing with advance landscaping (condition 18b) and implementation of Green Travel Plans (condition 38).

Condition 2 – Statutory outline condition requiring submission of reserved matters. The condition provides for reserved matters to be submitted in phases and for parts of phases, rather than in a single block for the scheme as a whole. Given the scale of the proposals, I find this acceptable. Means of access is not a reserved matter, but the scope of this term needs to be borne in mind when considering other conditions [IC74, IC81].

Condition 3 – Statutory outline condition relating to timing of reserved matters submissions. An addition has been made to the wording in model condition 4 of Circular 11/95, for the period for submission of reserved matters to end 10 years from the date of permission. This is unobjectionable to the parties and the approach proposed would avoid establishing an open-ended commitment to large scale development that fails to deliver housing in the time period envisaged by strategic policy. Although both unusual and against the general tenor of the provisions of Section 51 of the 2004 Act, I consider it acceptable.

Condition 4 – Statutory outline condition governing the period for commencement of development. The statutory time limits would be unaltered.

Condition 5 – Compliance with the Master Plan. Two versions of this condition have been advanced, one for PA3 and one for PA5, the difference being only in the reference numbers of the Master Plan relevant to each pair of applications. In principle, this condition is both acceptable and necessary. However I find the words “in substantial accordance with” to be unacceptably vague in terms of paragraph 31 Circular 11/95, and paragraph 32 would be relevant to any alternative form of wording based on “…save with the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority (ies)…”. I therefore recommend that the condition simply requires compliance with the appropriate Master Plan, a formulation that would in any event accommodate some flexibility because of the inherent lack of precise detail in the Master Plans themselves. Separate procedures are also available for seeking variation of extant planning conditions in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 of Circular 11/95. The Secretary of State should be aware that I invited the principal parties to consider this approach, but they rejected it.

Condition 6 – Limitation on dwelling numbers before 2011. This condition is relevant to PA5 only and seeks to avoid the number of dwellings anticipated by SP1998 policies 8 and 9 in the Plan period from being exceeded. If it is the Secretary of State’s view that PA5 should be permitted, then I would regard this condition as unnecessary since the rate of housebuilding necessary to significantly exceed 3,600 dwellings is most unlikely to be achieved in the time remaining available [5.4].

Condition 7 – Phasing. Two separate formulations are proposed, one for the PA3 phasing plan and one for the phasing plan accompanying PA5. The condition further allows for more detailed phasing proposals to be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authorities within each of the phases currently proposed. While I regard the condition as acceptable in principle it would again rely on the words “in substantial accordance with”, which I find unacceptable for the same reasons as with condition 5.

Condition 8 – Submission of a “development code” for the whole site. The purpose of this condition is to establish the basic principles for the design and construction of certain key elements of the proposals before development commences. Effectively, these go beyond “reserved matters” so would not be covered by condition 2 and deal among other things with highway details that are not included in the present PA3 and PA5 applications [27.80, IC81, IC85]. I find the condition acceptable, albeit the last phrase of clause (vi) could usefully be reworded “..including proposals for monitoring the use of the network and the measures proposed to maximise safe use of it”.

Condition 9 – Submission of “Infrastructure Master Plan” for each development parcel. This condition would require details to be submitted for approval of those parts of the

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 274

development that do not amount to “buildings” for the purposes of condition 2 and which are not included in the details of means of access accompanying PA3 and PA5 [IC74]. The requirements are in my view reasonable and necessary.

Condition 10 – Submission of “Detailed Master Plans” for each development parcel. The required details would, in essence, put flesh on the bones of the overall Master Plan referred to in condition 5 in terms of the proposed disposition of uses. It would also establish the framework for urban design within each parcel with the aim of each acquiring it own sense of identity. This is acceptable.

Condition 11 – Submission of “Design Briefs” for specified key sites. These are required to establish a suitable approach to the layout and design of a limited number of sites such as those for the proposed schools [11.9].

Condition 12 – Submission of “Design Statements” to accompany reserved matters submissions. These are a requirement of PPG1 to secure high standards of urban design and building design. They would also serve to inform the Local Planning Authorities of the detailed approach taken to satisfying the requirements arising from conditions 9, 10 and 11 and thus represent the last stage in progress from the general to the particular in the design process.

Condition 13 – Density of development. The condition is necessary to ensure that efficient use is made of the land, with the density of development falling within the range advocated in PPG3.

Condition 14 – Slab levels of buildings. The main purpose of this condition is to ensure that the proposed buildings would not have any greater impact on the wider landscape than envisioned in the Environmental Information accompanying the applications. It would also govern the maximum height of the proposed “landmark” buildings [16.25, 16.46, 16.47] and ensure that the height limitations sought by LLAOL would not be exceeded [18.11, 18.38].

Condition 15 – Compliance with BREEAM standards. WSC has offered this condition on the basis that it affirms a commitment to sustainable construction methods. Nonetheless the relevant Building Research Establishment environmental standards have yet to be fully developed and integrated into the present system of Building Control. I therefore caution against such a condition for the reason that it may prove unenforceable in the face of a contradictory Building Regulations requirement. To the extent that the Secretary of State may regard such a condition to be desirable or necessary I recommend instead that the list of matters referred to in condition 12 be amended by the addition of a clause (xiii) referring to sustainable construction methods. In that case, condition 15 could be deleted.

Condition 15a - Provision of compost bins. This would apply only to houses with gardens and, in the interests of sustainability, is I consider acceptable subject matter for a planning condition [5.2].

Condition 16 –deleted because duplicative. Condition 17 – Provision of recreational equipment. Although the S106 planning Obligation

would secure provision of requisite play areas and other open space, it is also necessary to ensure that the areas concerned would be suitably equipped. The proposed condition would ensure this and that the details of the proposed equipment can be appropriately controlled.

Condition 18 – Structural landscaping and nature conservation. This condition would ensure that the framework for securing the major components of landscaping both on- and off-site would be established from the outset [16.17, 19.19, IC39-46]. The list of items to be included in the submitted scheme is necessary in this particular case to lend definition to the term “structural landscaping” and to distinguish this from more localised landscaping within the individual development parcels, which would then fall to be dealt with as reserved matters. The words “development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved scheme” are however unnecessary in the light of proposed clause (xv) and condition 1.

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 275

Condition 18a – Retention of existing habitats and trees. This condition is an adaptation of model conditions 74 and 75 in Circular 11/95 and, as such, I find it satisfactory.

Condition 18b – Landscaping in advance of development. Most of the requirements of this condition could be said to be duplicative of those in condition 18, but it is in my view appropriate to deal with them separately in this condition. This is specifically because of the need to ensure that the planting takes place at a different time, earlier in the development process. For that reason I regard the proposed condition as acceptable in the context of PA3. I deal separately with PA5 under “other points in dispute” (paragraph A4, below) [16.20, 16.35, IC42]. However, the wording of the proposed condition lacks precision inasmuch as it is not clear whether “approval of details” means details of landscaping or other reserved matters and whether that is for the whole of the scheme or only part of it. To my mind, the condition would be clearer, and its effect more appropriate, if the last sentence required the advance planting to be carried out in the first planting season following construction of the new Meadway underpass and replacement sports pitches.

Condition 18c – Implementation of landscaping proposals. This condition is necessary to ensure timely implementation of the landscaping reserved matters within each development parcel.

Condition 18d – Landscaping at the Meadway access. The same comments apply to this proposed condition as those that I have made in respect of condition 18b.

Condition 19 – Nature Conservation. The proposed condition would complement clause 20 of, and Annex 10 to, the proffered Unilateral Undertaking. It accords with advice in PPG9 and is, I consider, both reasonable and necessary [IC48].

Condition 20 – Soils and Agriculture. This condition seeks to ensure that each part of the applications site remains in mainly rural uses until such time as immediately required for building. This would avoid the threat of neglect and dereliction during the potentially lengthy period of development and would, I consider, be an appropriate precaution.

Condition 21 – Sustainable Urban Drainage systems. It is WSC’s intention to employ sustainable systems if possible, and I suggested the proposed wording for this condition, with which the parties are in agreement.

Conditions 22 and 23 – Archaeology. These two conditions complement each other (the second dealing with implementation of the first) and accord with the thrust of advice in PPG16 [9.6, 9.9, IC60].

Conditions 24 and 25 – Physical separation from A1(M) and noise barrier. These conditions have been amended at my request to ensure precision over the separation distance required in the interests of protecting the proposed dwellings and other development from traffic noise. To my mind they are now acceptable [22.13, 33.48, IC65, IC134].

Condition 26 – Noise insulation of dwellings. The proposed condition reflects the advice in PPG24 [18.15, 18.19, 18.20, 18.22, 18.28-18.35] and would, I consider, satisfactorily meet the concerns expressed by LLAOL and others [18.20, 18.22, 18.34, 18.35, 18.42, 32.20, 32.21, 33.48, IC53]. In the last line, F time “waiting” should be “weighting” and I find nothing in PPG24 which differentiates between F and S settings [18.22]. It is otherwise acceptable in all but one respect. This is because in my view it is not appropriate for a planning condition to require insulation to be installed in a dwelling prior to occupation but with no commitment to it being retained thereafter. As drafted, the condition could be evaded on the basis that the insulation had simply been removed prior to inspection rather than not installed in the first place, rendering it unenforceable. Its subsequent removal would also expose future residents to noise levels greater than those recommended in National Planning Guidance. In response to the concerns that I raised at the Inquiry in this respect, WSC contends that maintenance conditions of this type are precluded by paragraph 82 of Circular 11/95 [18.18]. However, I draw a distinction between requiring a particular

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 276

insulation system installed at the outset to be maintained (in the sense of kept unaltered), and a more general requirement to retain insulation (in whatever form it may take) sufficient to ensure protection from excessive noise. In the case of the latter, once the dwelling had been built responsibility for ensuring retention of adequate insulation would pass from WSC to the new owner. A breach of planning control would then be most likely to be revealed when the property is surveyed on behalf of a prospective subsequent purchaser, or the requirements of the condition are disclosed in response to solicitor pre-purchase enquiries. In all likelihood, enforcement would then bear on the vendor, who was either responsible for removing the insulation in the first place or who had previously purchased the property in knowledge of the relevant requirements. This, it seems to me, would meet Circular 11/95 tests, and I recommend that the proposed condition be amended accordingly.

Conditions 27 and 28 – Noise control during the construction phase. These two proposed conditions are designed to ensure control over potentially noisy construction activities, which would be likely to extend over a period of years. Such noise would bear at least in part on the occupiers of new dwellings within Stevenage West itself. I regard the proposed conditions as both reasonable and necessary.

Condition 29 – Lighting. This proposed condition would, I consider, suitably meet objector fears about light pollution, [17.3, 18.38, IC142]. The second sentence is, however, by way of an informative and could be omitted in the interests of brevity. Such lists can rarely be exhaustive and, in the attempt to be so, often require details that are not relevant to the particular scheme that is then submitted. Conversely, if the list is excluded it would be open to the Local Planning Authorities to request further specified and relevant details or to reject the lighting proposals outright if adequate details are not submitted.

Condition 29a – Noise attenuation measures at Cartref. Given that the proposed barrier design would be formulated to deal with the results of an extant noise appraisal, the proposed condition would, I consider, ensure suitable attenuation in line with PPG24 guidance [20.7, IC118].

Condition 30, 30a and 31 – Pollution control measures associated with the Norton Green Landfill site. I am of the view that the proposed conditions represent a suitably proportionate response to the risk of landfill gas migration and groundwater pollution in accordance with PPG23 advice [21.4, 21.5, 22.13, IC142]. It is necessary, however, to include reference to preventing potential land settlement in condition 31 [22.13, IC134].

Condition 32 and 34 – Protection of existing services. These conditions have been requested by the service providers, who have no alternative statutory powers of control over development. The conditions accordingly are necessary and provide appropriate safeguards.

Condition 33 – Services to be laid underground. I regard this as a necessary measure to facilitate the achievement of high standards of urban design.

Condition 35, 36 and 36a – Control over retail floorspace. The proposed floorspace limits follow from retail appraisal [25.5, 25.6] and are necessary to ensure compliance with advice in PPG6 on local shopping provision [IC117].

Conditions 37and 37a – Construction method statements. Two conditions are proposed, one requiring statements for each development parcel as development progresses and one for the initial works of constructing the Meadway underpass [19.19]. As with condition 29, I question whether it is appropriate to include a list of matters to be included in either of the conditions. However, both conditions are in themselves necessary to my mind for similar reasons to conditions 27 and 28 but with regard to the control of general environmental disturbance during construction rather than construction noise alone.

Condition 38 – Green Travel Plans. The requirement for Green Travel Plans would accord with guidance in PPG13 [27.80].

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 277

Condition 38a – Control of access to the CTS. This condition is based on acceptance of the principle that the CTS would not be a dedicated bus only route as sought by HCC [27.93]. It would thus deal only with details such as the design and location of the so-called “bus gates”, transponders, traffic signs and highway markings for securing the free-flow of buses. Nevertheless, I regard the condition as necessary to ensure suitable control can be exercised over these important measures in the interests of promoting sustainable travel and transport. In the second line of the proposed condition, the word “vehicles” should be changed to “vehicular” and the reference in the fourth and fifth lines to consultation with the Highway Authority should be deleted. This is because the determining authority is the Local Planning Authority and it is not appropriate for a planning condition to stipulate consultation procedures between that Authority and the Highway Authority. Paragraph 38 of Circular 11/95 deals with this point.

Conditions 38b and 38c - Standards of construction for new accesses. The effect of requiring WSC to enter into a Clause 278 (Highways Act) Agreement in these conditions would be to cede land to the Highway Authority (condition 38b) and to control the manner in which works are carried out within existing highways (condition 38c). As drafted, condition 38b would be contrary to advice in paragraph 72 of Circular 11/95. To the extent that it is necessary to ensure that the new access would be constructed to an appropriate standard it would be sufficient for condition 38b to say that “notwithstanding the means of access details shown in the submitted application drawings, no development shall take place until full working details of the construction of the proposed new Meadway underpass beneath A1(M) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority”. Condition 38c is superfluous because the Highway Authority would have control over the works in any event. It should be deleted. Both conditions are, in any event, duplicated in clauses 24.3 and 24.4 of the Unilateral Undertaking, and I therefore regard them as unnecessary.

Condition 38d – Availability of the CTS prior to development. A condition of this type is in my view necessary to ensure the availability of public transport from the outset of development. However, the bus routes (and access to Stevenage West in general) are also dependent upon the availability of the A1(M) crossings and the Meadway link to the CTS in particular. Moreover, it is by no means clear from figure 41A of the DPDG (as amended), where the various “parts” of the development of Stevenage West would start or finish in relation to the proposed bus stops. Nor does the phasing plan referred to in condition 7 provide assistance in this respect. I therefore recommend that condition 38d be redrafted to say “Before development is commenced, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authorities indicating the sequence of proposed housing development relative to the sequence of construction and use of the Meadway access, the CTS and the provision of bus stops”. Condition 1 would ensure suitable implementation.

Condition 39 – Car parking provision. In the light of CD/MISC/17a and b, it would be appropriate to divide this condition into two, one dealing with residential parking and the other dealing with parking for other uses. Thus, the first would say “Car parking relating to dwellings within each development parcel shall be in accordance with the advice in paragraphs 59-62 of PPG3 and shall not exceed 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling averaged over the site as a whole.” The second would remain as drafted but with the words “…to residential development and other uses…” in the first line substituted with “…other than to dwellings..”

Condition 40 – Cycle parking. This condition accords with PPG13 advice and is satisfactory. Condition 41 – Access to Dyes Lane travellers’ site. I consider this condition necessary and

appropriate [28.5]. Condition 42 – Boundary treatment to the proposed playing pitches adjacent to the travellers’

site. The requirement to submit a detailed scheme for boundary treatment falls within the

Report APP/X1925/V/02/1103811

Page 278

•

• •

•

ambit of condition 2 as part of the reserved matters (landscaping) [28.5]. However, I consider this additional condition necessary because the requisite treatment may need to be programmed differently to the general progression of landscaping across other parts of the site.

A4 Other points in dispute

(i) SBC and NHDC jointly seek an additional condition that would limit the number of dwellings permitted in PA3 to no more than 3,600 and, in PA5, to no more than 5,000 [34.9, 34.10]. I acknowledge that the scale of community infrastructure provision must be commensurate with the proposed number of dwellings. However, the adequacy of provision is not a precise science and will always be a matter of fact and degree, with variations from one type of facility to another. Should the details propose a number of dwellings that would demonstrably result in the demands on which the Environmental Information is based being exceeded, it would be open to the Councils to refuse permissions. In those circumstances, I find no reason to impose the condition sought.

(ii) LLOAL seeks an additional condition relating to the risk of bird strike [18.36,

18.37, 32.21]. SBC has reservations about that [18.21] and WSC objects [18.10] . I have nothing to add to my findings in the conclusions section of my report [IC54] and do not support such a condition.

(iii) A further condition would, however, be necessary to minimise the landscape impact

of the PA3 scheme on the Almshoe valley by seeking redistribution of some 20-30 dwellings elsewhere in the site [16.20, 16.31-16.35, IC42]. This would need to be formulated along the lines “Notwithstanding the details shown in the Master Plan referred to in condition 5, no development shall take place in the two residential areas shown to the north and west of the northern primary school site indicated on plan 90B of the DPDG addendum booklet”. There would not, in my estimation, be any significant implications arising from this particular approach in the context of the environmental information supporting the applications. A similar condition seeking to permanently preclude development on that part of the site in connection with the PA5 scheme would, however, to my mind be unreasonable. Rather, appropriate phasing of development to ensure a long period for advanced landscaping to mature could more suitably be controlled by the Local Planning Authorities through conditions 6 and 7 as drafted.

Overall conclusions and recommendations on planning conditions: A5 In summary:

The wording of the following conditions should be amended: Conditions 5, 7, 8, 18, 18b, 18d, 26, 29, 37, 37a, 38a, 38d. The following conditions should not be imposed: Conditions 6, 15, 38b, 38c. A further condition should be imposed to avoid PA3 development on the side of the Almshoe valley. There would also be a need for an informative relating to access for those with disabilities [CD/MISC/9a last line].