This document outlines plans for a Local Development Order (LDO) for a 0.9 hectare brownfield site in Hatfield. The LDO would allow up to 90 dwellings on the site currently occupied by a cosmetics factory. It describes the objectives to deliver an exemplar housing scheme more quickly through the LDO process than conventional planning. It also establishes the governance structure and outlines the process and timetable for preparing the LDO over 2015, including masterplanning, consultation, viability assessment, and adoption. The total estimated cost is £24,640.

1. Local Development Order
Wellfield Road, Hatfield
Colin Haigh - Head of Planning

2. Town centre
University
Business Park
Railway station
Hatfield
New Town
Good range of
services but
needs a bit of
regeneration
Galleria
Hatfield House

4. Wellfield Road site
 0.9 hectare factory site
 Makes cosmetics applicators for high-end companies
 Identified as deliverable/developable in SHLAA
 Promoted for about 90 dwellings
 Lack of land use or environmental designations
 Subject to positive pre-application discussions
 Mix of local architectural styles = scope for range of
masterplan, landscape, design approaches

5. Council mentality
 New Director and Head of Planning in summer 2014
 Strong emphasis on pre-application advice and PPAs
 Local Plan raising challenging green belt issues
 Desire to bring forward brownfield sites
 Hatfield seen as bridesmaid to Welwyn Garden City
 Chance to explore new development mechanism

6. Caressa Kahn / Wakelin Associates
 Caressa Kahn in Hatfield for 50+ years
 Specialist manufacturing, complicated to relocate
 Ambition to grow but constrained by site size
 Want to leave legacy on site once gone
 Want to maximise value to cover relocation costs
 Most evidence already exists to support plan app
 Wakelin keen to explore new ways of working
 But hesitant about working with others, particularly
in respect of masterplanning/design issues

7. LDO Objectives
 Quality – to deliver exemplar scheme and at least as
good as through conventional plan app process
 Speed – to adopt LDO within timescales and deliver
scheme earlier than 2018, to demonstrate that LDOs
can boost delivery and free-up officer time
 Ease of replication – to gain experience of how best
to prepare an LDO and establish standard structure

8. Governance
 Political leadership = Executive Member for Planning
 Project manager = Head of Planning
 Project officers = from Policy and Dev Management
 Input from Wakelin Associates
 Input from URS on behalf of PAS
 Regular updates to Cabinet Planning Panel, with
expectation that LDO will be approved by DM Cmte
in same way as normal planning application

9. Process
 Sept 14 = Agreement with landowners and agents to
submit nomination. Wakelin Associates enthusiastic.
 Oct 2014 = Early preparation of clear project plan
with agreed milestones
 Nov 2014 = Initiation meeting and site
visit between Council, PAS, URS,
landowner, agents and ward cllrs.
First time all parties had met.

10. Process
 Dec 2014 = Landowner/agent worried that LDO will
be slower than plan app and ultimately less profit.
 Jan 2015 = Council, PAS, landowner/agent meeting
to offer reassurance. Agreement that indicative
masterplan and LDO will be prepared
in parallel to reassure landowner of
most profitable scheme.

11. Process
 Feb 2015 = Finalisation of clear project plan, agreed
milestones and use of project funding
 Feb 2015 = Council advise that LDO is far cheaper
than plan app route, which would cost circa £3,000
pre-app advice plus £24,000 plan fee
 Feb 2015 = Funding received from CLG
and project gets properly underway

12. Next steps
 Complete technical contamination evidence (Feb)
 Commission joint viability appraisal (Feb)
 Jointly prepare indicative masterplan &LDO (March)
- Absolutes such as building heights, overlooking distances
- Parameters such as number of units, density
- Palettes such as design styles, construction materials
 Informal local consultation (March)
 Prepare and consult on draft LDO (April)
 Agree final LDO at DM Cmte (June)

13. Timetable
8th
15th
22nd
29th
5th
12th
19th
26th
2nd
9th
16th
23rd
2nd
9th
16th
23rd
30th
6th
13th
20th
27th
4th
11th
18th
25th
1st
8th
15th
22nd
29th
6th
13th
20th
27th
Project Plan
Scoping of LDO and Project Plan
Project partner agreement to Project Plan
Preparatory work
Prepare brief for viability work
Appoint viability consultant
Viability work carried out
Stakeholder meetings
Contamination Assessment
Site survey work
Graphic design work
Preparation of the LDO
Drafting the core LDO wording
Producing the design aspects of the LDO
Revisions to the LDO
Communication and consultation
Prepare consultation materials
Mailouts and publish advert
Consultation period
Consultation events
Press releases
Post to PASHousing LDOs website
Formal LDO milestones
Draft reports
DMC - Approval for consultation
DMC - Report back consultation amendments
Cabinet - Adoption of LDO
Notify Secratary of State of adoption
June 2015 July 2015Dec 2014 Jan 2015 Feb 2015 Mar 2015 Apr 2015 May 2015

14. Scheme
Flatted blocks of 2,
3, 4 storeys
Modern architecture
and flat roofs
Parking courtyards
Landscaping

16. LDO Costs
 £12,000 for joint viability appraisal
 £1,500 for desktop contamination survey
 £650 for newspaper adverts
 £500 for letters to surrounding residents
 £250 for consultation boards / material
 £7,500 for graphic design work and more detailed
contamination evidence if needed
 Total £24,640 inc 10% contingency

17. Ambitions
 Learning experience
 Looking for transferable principles
 Template format with standardised headings and
text, so can be easily copied and re-applied to other
brownfield and potentially green belt sites
 Scope to be cheaper third alternative:
1) straight plan app = plan app fee
2) pre-app advice = pre-app fee + plan app fee
3) prepare LDO = joint work fee but free plan app

18. Risks
 LDO results in inappropriate development
 Difficult for supporters/objectors to comment on all
aspects of scheme if LDO enables flexibility
 LDO contains loopholes that are exploited
 LDO is incorrect or ineffective
 LDO preparation is delayed
 LDO is not seen as giving residents a voice
 Viability appraisal concludes that scheme does not
deliver sufficient returns