HT5 Land at Junction of Grays Lane and Lucas Lane

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 938

Received: 26/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Bruce Goulding

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Objection to HT5:
- houses will not be in keeping with the area
- this isn't greenbelt land so should not be developed

Full text:

This small patch of land needs to stay free from development, the houses will not be in keeping with the area, plus this isn't greenbe,t land so should not be developed.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1272

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Roger De Ste Croix

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Objection to HT5 on the grounds of:
- Green Belt
- will change the character of the town
- traffic problems - Lucas Lane is a narrow unmade road
- planning permission has already been granted for houses adjacent to the cricket ground

Full text:

This land is precious Green Belt which should not be used for what is a relatively small amount of housing, but will change the character of the town, as being close the countryside, dramatically. This would also create huge traffic problems. Lucas lane is a narrow unmade road which can't sustain the number of vehicles, both private and commercial, that are likely to want to use is as a thoroughfare were J5 &J6 to be developed, bearing in mind that planning permission has already been granted for houses to be built adjacent to the Cricket Ground.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1698

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Des Stephens

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Objection to HT5 on the grounds of:
- increased air pollution
- increased traffic pollution
- new housing should be developed away from existing houses and roads

Full text:

We are concerned that the proposed new housing will lead to increased air pollution and traffic pollution.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1819

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Angela CB Cannon

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to HT5: The area is green belt, already congested with traffic and parked cars. Pollution, noise, traffic and more people will negatively impact on such a small area. local nature reserve should be protected. The infrastructure is inadequate for any further development.

Full text:

I object to further development in HT5-a green belt area should be preserved as just that, and building on it should be a last resort if at all.The area is already congested with traffic and parked cars. Developments such as Samuel Lucas School and Talbot Street have caused an increase in these problems. The roads are insufficient, and lorries and dust carts mount the pavements to get to this area. At peak times such as weekdays mornings and afternoons, the area is gridlocked and traffic is slow to move. Emergency vehicles have difficulty accessing the area. Road cleaning cannot happen properly due to the parked cars now, so this will worsen with more people living here.
Oughton Head Way is often like a one way street, due to parked vehicles and a lot of traffic. I frequently see pedestrians at risk trying to walk along the pavements. In addition there are frequently children walking here, and mothers trying to negotiate pushchairs. The foot paths are narrow, and children are unable to walk by their parents' side. This development would increase the danger to pedestrians.
The area is used as a cut through, and residents along Lucas Lane have witnessed an increase in traffic, that is often going at a greater speed than is safe to do so. We will see more of this in the future if these unwanted developments occur.
The town lacks infrastructure- the NHS services locally are struggling to cope. Social Care services are similarly stretched. More people in the area will demand more services from Health and Social Care and other support services.
The Oughton Head Nature Reserve will be negatively affected by more traffic, light,noise and pollution. We should take pride in having these areas of scientific interest, and not spoil them for future generations. There is already litter and dog fouling spoiling this area- a factor that will increase with more people.
All local roads to HT5 will have people using them in addition to any new roads that may be proposed, and these new roads are not wanted in such a small and built up area.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1826

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Richard I Cannon

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to HT5: The area is green belt, already congested with traffic and parked cars. Pollution, noise, traffic and more people will negatively impact on such a small area. The local nature reserve should be protected fully by not developing around here anymore. The infrastructure is inadequate for any further development.

Full text:

I object to further development in HT5-a green belt area should be preserved as just that, and building on it should be a last resort if at all.The area is already congested with traffic and parked cars. Developments such as Samuel Lucas School and Talbot Street have caused an increase in these problems. The roads are insufficient, and lorries and dust carts mount the pavements to get to this area. At peak times such as weekdays mornings and afternoons, the area is gridlocked and traffic is slow to move. Emergency vehicles have difficulty accessing the area. Road cleaning cannot happen properly due to the parked cars now, so this will worsen with more people living here.
Oughton Head Way is often like a one way street, due to parked vehicles and a lot of traffic. I frequently see pedestrians at risk trying to walk along the pavements. In addition there are frequently children walking here, and mothers trying to negotiate pushchairs. The foot paths are narrow, and children are unable to walk by their parents' side. This development would increase the danger to pedestrians.
The area is used as a cut through, and residents along Lucas Lane have witnessed an increase in traffic, that is often going at a greater speed than is safe to do so. We will see more of this in the future if these unwanted developments occur.
The town lacks infrastructure- the NHS services locally are struggling to cope. Social Care services are similarly stretched. More people in the area will demand more services from Health and Social Care and other support services.
The Oughton Head Nature Reserve will be negatively affected by more traffic, light,noise and pollution. We should take pride in having these areas of scientific interest, and not spoil them for future generations. There is already litter and dog fouling spoiling this area- a factor that will increase with more people.
All local roads to HT5 will have people using them in addition to any new roads that may be proposed, and these new roads are not wanted in such a small and built up area.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1906

Received: 22/11/2016

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Leigh & Christine Childs

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Objection to HT5:
- traffic congestion
- road safety
- emergency services access
- bridleway extremely busy

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1988

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Chris & Gill Langley

Number of people: 29

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to HT5: well used ROW and bridleways, rural character, Green Belt, biodiversity, AONB, housing numbers unjustified, landscape impact, traffic, access impact on bridleway.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3235

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Bob Burstow

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to HT5:
- Wildlife, habitats and biodiversity
- Protected habitats
- Local Flora and fauna
- Agricultural land
- Loss of open green space
- Not commitment to mitigate or offsetting for loss to local ecology
- Consistency with the NPPF
- Historic community
- Landscape and historic character
- First Garden City
- Sustainability Appraisal


Full text:

I would like to comment on two particular areas of land/habitat/ecosystem that are familiar to me and being put forward as potential sites for future development in your Draft Local Plan for 2011-2031.

I would like to suggest that you reconsider any development of the mature orchard at Radburn Way (Site LG6, I believe.) and the interconnected, diverse habitats along the Western boundary of Hitchin (HT 3, 4, 5 & 6.).

The various habitats along the Western boundary of Hitchin are without doubt important and diverse ecosystems for local flora and fauna. These areas, encompassing the remnants of an old orchard and pasture (HT6, adjacent to Crow Furlong), open grassland/meadow (HT5, along Lucas Lane), open amenity playfields with mature established hedgerows (HT4, further along Lucas Lane) and mixed, open scrubland (HT3, along Oughtonhead Lane) together create diverse but ecologically valuable and endangered habitats - refuges for all manner of local wildlife - whilst also collectively creating a unique mosaic and network of habitats as an invaluable and irreplaceable corridor and buffer between what is arguably ecologically unfavourable and sterile agricultural land and the mixed and variable quality of habitat which is the urban and developed landscape.

When considered in conjunction with the recent loss of the ancient and thriving open green space that was the Gaping Lane Pleasure Gardens and allotments (Lost to ongoing development and expansion of Samuel Lucas School.) any further development here could effectively double the impact and shock to create the tipping point and aftershock that drives any remaining wildlife further out of the area with a rapid and successive loss of established and healthy green infrastructures and habitats.

I can find no mention or detail of any real commitment or truly balanced, genuine mitigation or offsetting for such losses to local ecology in your plans and this disturbs me in times that it is almost universally recognised that we need to counteract the national decline of biodiversity. For all these aforementioned reasons I strongly object any such inappropriate development in this area. Your own ecological and habitat surveys can only have drawn the same conclusions, without even considering the National Planning Policy Frameworks (NPPF) such developments ignore (Including the development of the Gaping Lane allotments), which state "Development proposals which affect sites or features of local biodiversity will not be permitted where there is an adverse impact on the ecological, geological or biodiversity interests of the site unless it can be demonstrated that adverse effects could be satisfactorily minimised through mitigation measures" and that authorities need to plan for the "creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure" ensuring "that features of biodiversity value are not lost as a result of a development proposal and that where possible opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around development will be sought". There are many other references to the importance of such habitats in the NPPF which also states that the "planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures". A breach of such legislation would effectively and wilfully undermine the Government's strategies for Biodiversity 2020 wherein we could help foster and pioneer a more inclusive and progressive ethos instead for the long-term benefit of the wider environment.

Likewise, the negative effect on the health and wellbeing of local residents with the loss of such green space should not be overlooked wherein such developments would completely change the context and environment of the historic community whilst leaving the neighbourhood to jerk abruptly into barren agricultural land without a buffer and with few remaining historic and character features. Such developments would effectively and drastically scar the greenbelt and surviving habitats permanently.

The orchard at Radburn Way, Letchworth (LG6), from what information I have gathered, quite possibly predates the development of the Garden City itself (Listed as smallholdings on maps of the period) and fits in with the self-reliant and betterment ideals and aspirations of the Garden City movement's concepts and ethos. In this respect, the cultural legacy needs consideration and likewise appropriate historic designation with regards to any and all developmental proposals. Various specialists who have visited and studied the orchard believe some of the established and mature trees may exist as surviving plantings from that period, putting the older trees at possibly around 100 years old. We have identified some apple and pear varieties but there are still many more unknown which could be rare and/or lost local and regional varieties. Needless to say, for such reasons the site is undeniably of significant historical and cultural value and with much potential, with appropriate management, to be a truly valuable local asset for the surrounding neighbourhood and residents as well as the living and surviving ecology and future heritage of Letchworth as the world's first Garden City. While the orchard itself is unfortunately but wilfully neglected by the current owners, it does not fit and is not fairly described in the subjective report (Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment), which completely overlooks its ecological value and priority designation as well as its potential as a community amenity asset. The assertion that the orchard is an "eyesore" is purely subjective and cannot be regarded in a neutral, objective study of any sort and likewise ignores its genuine potential to be a focal point of local pride and community development etc. Amenity value is equally unrecognised with the inherent and wider benefits of ecosystem services to the surrounding residents, environment and wildlife blatantly ignored despite the potential benefits, in spite of its perceived unappealing appearance.

Orchards are now furthermore recognised properly for their unique importance as biodiverse and endangered ecological habitats and finally regarded as priority habitats by DEFRA in need of conservation under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and similarly in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (I believe the statistic to be something around 90% of our traditional orchards lost in the last 50 years.). As well as the NPPF policy criteria quoted before (Regarding HT3-6) which are also relevant here, deliberate and wanton neglect and destruction of such open spaces and natural corridors within urban areas goes against policy which requires planning to "minimise impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity... planning policies should promote the preservation, restoration and recreation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets...", and likewise "maintain patterns of open space or landscape features in the town by normally refusing development proposals which would have a significantly detrimental effect on the character, form, extent and structure of the pattern of open spaces". For other relevant legislation and guidance relating to such areas, please consult the Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment section of the National Planning Policy Framework for Achieving Sustainable Development which can be found easily by following the link below:

http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainable-development/delivering-sustainable-development/11-conserving-and-enhancing-the-natural-environment/

Even if legitimate compensation and/or mitigation were considered in any of these instances, these cannot be realistically regarded as immediate remediation for the loss of established and matured ecosystems and habitats, especially those deemed endangered, scarce and/or national priorities, such as traditional orchards. How do you plan to properly compensate for the loss of an established thriving greenfield orchard Priority Habitat? Though retention of some specimens is touched upon in some of the assessments and compensation mentioned as a possibility, there is no guarantee or confirmation that this would necessarily be sufficient and/or conducted appropriately. The fact that this is discussed, however, and that the adjacent allotments are being protected beside Radburn, for instance, proves such sites are recognised for their diverse values and worth retaining despite construction work, in many instances, having a detrimental and long-term effect on soil structure and surviving components to the effect that the long-term success is jeopardised and ill-considered.

For all the aforementioned reasons, I ask you to please reconsider your stance on sites HT 3, 4, 5 & 6 and LG 6 and to recognize their true value as vital components in the complex and often neglected fabric of ecology and community life which is overlooked flippantly and blindly in these derogatory and inadequate appraisals and assessments. Policy NE2 on Green Infrastructure alone offers protection for these sites under the diverse criteria and there are many others such instances reflected in the Consultation Papers for the Preferred Options, such as those discussed in Policy CGB1 regarding Green Belts and sections 9 and 10 etc. Given the range and value of such sites, I would also heed you consider full and proper assessment with specialist surveys giving appropriate and due weight and respect to the results and findings. In the case of Priority Habitats, for instance, I would say this is warranted and appropriate to say the least, regardless of the perception surrounding access issues (Radburn orchard being divided and fenced). The strategic objectives of the Proposed Submission alone (See Sections 3, 4 and ENV5) should offer protection to such sites given their true nature with TPO's a reasonable consideration etc.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3654

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr David Borner

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to HT6:
- Loss of Green Belt and 'exceptional circumstances'
- Wildlife habitats and biodiversity
- Amenity and landscape value
- Air Quality Management Area and further pollution
- Highway infrastructure and congestions

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3771

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Hill Residential

Agent: Savills

Representation Summary:

Support HT5: Support allocation as landowner / promoter, site deliverable in next five years, supporting evidence provided, no obstacles in terms of highways and access, ecology and trees, heritage and archaeology, flood risk, drainage & utilities or ground conditions

Full text:

See attached

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 5929

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Hitchin Town Action Group (HTAG)

Representation Summary:

Support HT5:
- Green Belt releases: concern over loss but accept that if well planned and developed in accordance with the policies set out elsewhere in the Local Plan could be integrated into the town and provide the long-term boundary between the urban area and the Green Belt.
- support mitigation measures indicated - amenity and safeguarding views from nearby countryside which extends westwards towards the Northern Chilterns AONB
- ensure traffic impacts are taken into account

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments: