The TRDC Local Plan Public Consultation. It's the time to have your Say!
Latest News:Three Rivers Joint Residents’ Association’s response to Reg. 18 Local Plan consultation (questions 1 to 6) here...
| trjra_response_to_questions_1_-_6_of_the_reg_18_consultation_-_final_draft.docx |
Before reading on read our Local Plan Fact or Fiction sheet here....
The Three Rivers DC Local Plan
| local_plan_fact_or_fiction.pdf |
TRDC Reg. 18 Consultation - November 2023
The Council have listened to residents - providing homes but protecting our Green Belt
Three Rivers District Council’s consultation on the list of sites to be included in the new Local Plan being developed has now commenced and will run until 10th December. Residents can find details of the consultation at:
https://www.threerivers.gov.uk/services/planning/planning-policy/new-local-plan.
For several years, Residents’ Associations from across the district have been working together to convince the Council to move forward with a plan with a lower new housing figure than that given by the Government’s methodology so as to better protect the Green Belt in the district.
We are delighted that this work has now paid dividends, with the Council now consulting on a plan with much lower proposed new housing levels, less than half the level given by the Government formula, which will massively reduce the amount of Green Belt that will be lost to housing.
Whilst there are concerns about some of the sites proposed, overall, the Residents’ Associations strongly support the proposed plan as it achieves a good balance between providing new homes for local people and protecting Green Belt.
Analysis undertaken by the Residents’ Associations shows that the district will require between 4,500 and 5,500 new homes to provide for local people over the lifetime of the plan, including allowing more of the younger generations to afford homes in the district. This plan proposes 4,852 new homes and will minimise the amount of Green Belt lost whilst delivering the homes our district badly needs. Through the policies that support this plan, many of these homes will be smaller affordable homes rather than the large mansions many developers prefer.
None of us want to lose any of our precious Green Belt, but Three Rivers is 76% Green Belt and has very little brownfield land that can be built on. Just limiting development to brownfield sites would mean that the district would be unable to provide the homes that are needed for local people.
It would be great if the surrounding districts could provide for the new homes required for our population that Three Rivers cannot accommodate on brownfield land. But they are struggling with the same problems. This means they are either having to build on their own Green Belt / greenfield land or, as is happening in Watford, building extremely high tower blocks.
The final stage of the process of agreeing this plan will be a Public Inquiry where a Government Inspector will review and challenge the plan to ensure it is fit for purpose. The Inspector can add sites into the plan if they feel it is required – something other nearby councils have experienced recently.
As this plan proposes less than half of the number of new homes given by the government formula, it is likely that the low housing figure and the removal of Green Belt sites listed in the earlier version of the plan will be challenged by the Inspector.
The clearer it is that local residents support the proposed Low Growth and Green Belt Restraint approach with its lower housing numbers, the more likely the Council is to be successful in getting this plan approved by the Inspector with the current lower new housing provision.
In summary:
• We support using the lower new home number as providing the full 11,466 new homes would result in the damage to too much of our invaluable Green Belt and would provide more new homes than are required to fulfill local needs.
• The Low Growth and Green Belt Restraint Option put forward by the Council provides sufficient new homes and protects Green Belt whilst the other options suggested would all result in far greater loss of Green Belt to develop new homes the local population do not need.
• We need residents to make it clear to Government Inspectors that this is the right approach for Three Rivers.
We would ask that all residents support the overall plan by replying to this consultation and agreeing to questions 1 and 3, whilst also raising any concerns you have with the individual sites proposed in the later questions.
Croxley Green sites: suggested comments
CFS20: Land at Croxley Station Watford Road: station, car park and timber yard. Indicative number of dwellings: 163.
Retention or increase of station parking capacity?
Retention of station facade (locally listed)?
Residential parking provision. The addition of a number of new dwellings the equivalent to the number of dwellings in, say, Frankland Road / Close will create significant vehicle parking requirements within an area already sensitive to residential and commuter parking issues. How will this be managed?
Vehicular access to / egress from site will significantly increase vehicle movements in this area. How will this be managed?
Step free access to station. Will this be provided as part of the development?
CG65: British Red Cross Community Way: Dwellings: 6 to 9.
Community asset. No consultation with local residents concerning availability of site for development.
Re-provision of community facility referred to but a) what is the minimum community facility provision? b) Who will manage this provision?
What is minimum vehicle parking provision on this site?
Relatively small building footprint - how many storeys are envisaged?
CFS61: Cinnamond House Cassiobridge: Indicative number of dwellings: 133.
Prevents the construction of MXL to Watford and is therefore a significant blow to sustainable public transport provision for the area.
Predominantly Green Belt site.
Vehicular access to / egress from site will significantly increase vehicle movements in this area. How will this be managed?
Residential parking provision. The addition of a number of new dwellings the equivalent to the number of dwellings in, say, Frankland Road will create significant vehicle parking requirements within an area already sensitive to residential and commuter parking issues. How will this be managed?
H9: 33 Baldwins Lane: car sales centre. Indicative number of dwellings: 10.
Prevents the construction of MXL to Watford and is therefore a significant blow to sustainable public transport provision for the area.
The Council have listened to residents - providing homes but protecting our Green Belt
Three Rivers District Council’s consultation on the list of sites to be included in the new Local Plan being developed has now commenced and will run until 10th December. Residents can find details of the consultation at:
https://www.threerivers.gov.uk/services/planning/planning-policy/new-local-plan.
For several years, Residents’ Associations from across the district have been working together to convince the Council to move forward with a plan with a lower new housing figure than that given by the Government’s methodology so as to better protect the Green Belt in the district.
We are delighted that this work has now paid dividends, with the Council now consulting on a plan with much lower proposed new housing levels, less than half the level given by the Government formula, which will massively reduce the amount of Green Belt that will be lost to housing.
Whilst there are concerns about some of the sites proposed, overall, the Residents’ Associations strongly support the proposed plan as it achieves a good balance between providing new homes for local people and protecting Green Belt.
Analysis undertaken by the Residents’ Associations shows that the district will require between 4,500 and 5,500 new homes to provide for local people over the lifetime of the plan, including allowing more of the younger generations to afford homes in the district. This plan proposes 4,852 new homes and will minimise the amount of Green Belt lost whilst delivering the homes our district badly needs. Through the policies that support this plan, many of these homes will be smaller affordable homes rather than the large mansions many developers prefer.
None of us want to lose any of our precious Green Belt, but Three Rivers is 76% Green Belt and has very little brownfield land that can be built on. Just limiting development to brownfield sites would mean that the district would be unable to provide the homes that are needed for local people.
It would be great if the surrounding districts could provide for the new homes required for our population that Three Rivers cannot accommodate on brownfield land. But they are struggling with the same problems. This means they are either having to build on their own Green Belt / greenfield land or, as is happening in Watford, building extremely high tower blocks.
The final stage of the process of agreeing this plan will be a Public Inquiry where a Government Inspector will review and challenge the plan to ensure it is fit for purpose. The Inspector can add sites into the plan if they feel it is required – something other nearby councils have experienced recently.
As this plan proposes less than half of the number of new homes given by the government formula, it is likely that the low housing figure and the removal of Green Belt sites listed in the earlier version of the plan will be challenged by the Inspector.
The clearer it is that local residents support the proposed Low Growth and Green Belt Restraint approach with its lower housing numbers, the more likely the Council is to be successful in getting this plan approved by the Inspector with the current lower new housing provision.
In summary:
• We support using the lower new home number as providing the full 11,466 new homes would result in the damage to too much of our invaluable Green Belt and would provide more new homes than are required to fulfill local needs.
• The Low Growth and Green Belt Restraint Option put forward by the Council provides sufficient new homes and protects Green Belt whilst the other options suggested would all result in far greater loss of Green Belt to develop new homes the local population do not need.
• We need residents to make it clear to Government Inspectors that this is the right approach for Three Rivers.
We would ask that all residents support the overall plan by replying to this consultation and agreeing to questions 1 and 3, whilst also raising any concerns you have with the individual sites proposed in the later questions.
Croxley Green sites: suggested comments
CFS20: Land at Croxley Station Watford Road: station, car park and timber yard. Indicative number of dwellings: 163.
Retention or increase of station parking capacity?
Retention of station facade (locally listed)?
Residential parking provision. The addition of a number of new dwellings the equivalent to the number of dwellings in, say, Frankland Road / Close will create significant vehicle parking requirements within an area already sensitive to residential and commuter parking issues. How will this be managed?
Vehicular access to / egress from site will significantly increase vehicle movements in this area. How will this be managed?
Step free access to station. Will this be provided as part of the development?
CG65: British Red Cross Community Way: Dwellings: 6 to 9.
Community asset. No consultation with local residents concerning availability of site for development.
Re-provision of community facility referred to but a) what is the minimum community facility provision? b) Who will manage this provision?
What is minimum vehicle parking provision on this site?
Relatively small building footprint - how many storeys are envisaged?
CFS61: Cinnamond House Cassiobridge: Indicative number of dwellings: 133.
Prevents the construction of MXL to Watford and is therefore a significant blow to sustainable public transport provision for the area.
Predominantly Green Belt site.
Vehicular access to / egress from site will significantly increase vehicle movements in this area. How will this be managed?
Residential parking provision. The addition of a number of new dwellings the equivalent to the number of dwellings in, say, Frankland Road will create significant vehicle parking requirements within an area already sensitive to residential and commuter parking issues. How will this be managed?
H9: 33 Baldwins Lane: car sales centre. Indicative number of dwellings: 10.
Prevents the construction of MXL to Watford and is therefore a significant blow to sustainable public transport provision for the area.
