Local Plan review – Inspectors questions about Singlers Marsh sites


Matter 2 – Sites Wel1, 2, 6 and 15, Land at Fulling Mill Lane and

Kimpton Road.

This proposal contains four individually promoted sites that are located on the

north-western side of Welwyn village and surround its cemetery. Together, their

development could provide about 250 dwellings. When assessed either

cumulatively or individually, the sites are considered to cause moderate-high harm to the Green Belt’s purposes. Because of infrastructure concerns, relating to the need to widen the bridge on Fulling Mill Lane and the highway along that lane and along Kimpton Road, it is not considered economically viable to develop these sites, other than on a comprehensive basis.


13. Is there any objective basis on which the assessed Green Belt harm could be

challenged, or the weight given to the findings reduced?

14. There would clearly be a need to establish a new permanent and easily

recognisable boundary to the Green Belt.

Where should this be located within Site Wel1, in order to prevent any impact from built development, on the four sites, causing harm to the wider Green Belt to the south?

15. What harm would result from the coalescence of Oakhill Drive with the main built up part of Welwyn village?

16. Would the necessary off-site highway infrastructure work impact upon the site of the Local Nature Reserve at Singlers Marsh?

17. If there would be any harm to the Local Wildlife site, how extensive would this be, and would it be significant?

18. Could such harm be adequately mitigated or compensated for?

19. What impact would the proposed development have on ecological assets within or adjacent to any of the individual sites and to what extent could this be mitigated or compensated for?

20. Should some or all of the trees on the site(s) be retained and their retention

referred to in the policy criteria?

21. To what extent could development on any of the sites harm heritage assets

(including archaeology)?

22. Could any of this be significant?

23. Could any perceived harm be appropriately mitigated?

24. In the context of the site’s proximity to retail and community facilities and frequent public transport; to what extent can each of the constituent parts be considered to be a sustainable location for development?

25. Are there any issues affecting highway safety and/or the free flow of traffic in this part of Welwyn that are incapable of satisfactory resolution?

26. Are there any perceived infrastructure constraints that are incapable of resolution before the end of the plan period?

27. What is the nature of the alleged flood risk and is it incapable of resolution through mitigation?

28. Are there any noise or air pollution issues affecting any or all of these sites that are incapable of resolution through mitigation?

29. Does the infrastructure evidence actually confirm that it is necessary to develop these sites as a complete whole and together?

30. Is third party land involved in providing the off-site infrastructure and is agreement to use this legally secured?

31. Has any formal consultation with North Hertfordshire District Council been

undertaken? Particularly but not exclusively in the context of Site WEl6 and the

adjoining land to its south-west?

32. To what extent would it be feasible or practicable to bring these sites forward for development in a phased manner?

33. If developed, should a masterplan be prepared to ensure the comprehensive

development of the area proposed for development?

34. Could any of these sites clearly deliver dwellings within the first five years following adoption?

35. Are there any other matters that weigh against any of these sites being proposed for residential development?