An earlier than usual start, dealing with the housing elements of the General Policies within the Social Progress category, and the policies in the Economic Prosperity category.
The Hereford Travellers Support team asked the Inspector to make sure neutral language was used in the Travellers H4 policy, and she agreed to do so. The other housing policies H1 (Affordable housing thresholds and targets), H2 (Rural exceptions) and H3 (Appropriate range and mix) were considered, and the Inspector asked for them to be made more clear, and tied in to assessment, and monitoring.
Next up were the “E” Policies : employment, redevelopment of employment land, home working, tourism and town centres. Queries were raised about why there was so much mention of the “Hereford Glos Canal Basin” but no mention of Hereford’s other assets such as the Cathedral; Chained Library; and in particular the importance of the River Wye that flows right across the County.
The tourism policy was also queried in relation to the earlier movement policy which specified a Western Relief Road for Hereford, which would sever cycling trails, damage tourist opportunities on the SAC River Wye, and harm the settings of important landscapes, such as those painted by the Edwardian artist and child prodigy, Brian Hatton
The Inspector recommended the inclusion of a contemporary map of the City of Hereford, rather than the out-dated one currently in the draft Core Strategy. For the first time during these Hearings, the morning session finished early at 11.25 a.m. and the afternoon session was over by 4.15 p.m. This was a reflection of the limited number of attendees for the discussions on General Policies, as opposed to those on Spatial Strategy. Developers were noticeable by their absence.
Once the Local Distinctiveness categories had been dealt with, and concerns about the Council’s failure to support adequate bio-diversity and heritage asset records had been aired, a local resident asked the question : what about the roads and footpaths that are not mapped? There was no real answer to this; it was a known unknown, a bit like the ‘scientific uncertainty’ of the Nutrient Management Plan. The Inspector did ask the Council to look at the possibility of adding a reference to travel plans in the MT1 Transport policy to assist, in particular, more sustainable means of getting children to school and workers to work. There seemed to be little support for the Council’s Open Space policy which recommended that Hereford should be the main focus for the staging of sporting and other outdoor events.
As the day drew to a close, there was another incident of late arrival of Council documents which had only just been made available. This time, it was the Water Cycle Study Addendum and the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, both dated February 2015, and totalling 68 pages of densely argued evidence, which none of the attendees had had time to read. The policy under discussion was SD4, Waste water treatment and River water quality. It seems now that each application for development will have to satisfy the integrity test, rather than simply rely on conforming to policy SD4. There is also a broader point about deliverability within the timescale of the plan period, and a risk of the Council, and/or Natural England breaching the Habitats Directive if certain strategic housing proposals go ahead.
Topics to be discussed next week are the Infrastructure Delivery plan to support the proposed growth and the Strategic policies SS6 Environmental Quality & Local Distinctiveness & SS7 Addressing Climate Change. Monitoring will also be considered along with any Main Modifications. The EIP starts again on Tuesday 24th February at 10am at Hedley Lodge, Belmont Abbey.
