LG6 Land off Radburn Way

See attachment

This is the Orchard land at the rear of the private houses on Baldock Road between Letchworth Gate and the BP garage. The land was acquired at the time the council compulsorily purchased Jackman's Estate land from the Letchworth Garden City Corporation. A provision of the Arbitrator/Inspector's decision on the compulsory purchase was that the land should be left as Garden City style green space between the estate and the private, original Garden City houses, NHDC obviously wishes to avoid that decision since the sale of the land to a developer would bring in a million or two in addition to the presently 35 x £10,000 (new homes bonus). There also doesn't appear to be a good place to enter the site (roadway) as the current access is too narrow for a road.

I wish to make an objection to building on plot behind Radburn Way Letchworth in the NHDC Local Plan 2011 - 2031, Proposed submission, dated October 2016.

This is the site of an existing, old, culturally significant and well established orchard where the oldest trees were likely to have been planted when Letchworth Garden City was first established in 1908 or soon afterwards.

Traditional orchards are Priority habitat and they deserve protection. This orchard is part of the cultural legacy of the early Garden City movement.

In two major respects the loss of an existing old well established and culturally significant orchard does not meet the aims of Government Strategy on Biodiversity 2020 in that there should be no net loss of habitat. Also the ecological aim of the NPPF of net gains in habitat outlined below is not met.

11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
109. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
● protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;
● recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
● 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;
118. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:
● if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;


In the NHDC Local Plan Proposed Submission, Section 3.7 Strategic objectives, ENV5, and Section 4 Natural and Historic environment, sections 4.145, 4.148, and 4.165 (the consideration of applying TPOs) afford protection to a site such as this.

I am concerned on p183 LG6 states
'Retention of an area of priority orchard habitat within any scheme with appropriate compensatory provision for any habitat lost as a result of development.'

There are no details as to what area would be retained nor any details as to what compensation is considered nor where a new orchard would be sited. The retained area could be two trees!! Nothing can replace old existing trees. It will be difficult to avoid damage to existing habitat if building work were to take place in adjacent areas.

Particularly I also want to comment on Draft Sustainability Appraisal of North Hertfordshire Proposed Submission Local Plan by CAG consultants from September 2016.

Appendix 6 p 96
'Objective 2a Greenfield site within an urban area -former orchard / smallholding overgrown - no amenity value. Development would remove an urban eyesore.'

I am surprised this traditional orchard site is still referred to as an urban eyesore when it has been acknowledged as an orchard in the Local Plan Proposed Submission. It has amenity value on an ecological and visual basis and as a resource such as improved pollination for surrounding areas. It is neglected but that it because it has been compulsorily purchased and not been looked after by its owners.

'Open spaces and footpaths in walking distance. Site has no public access, i.e. no loss of open space for informal recreation.' The space is open ie not developed but because it is fenced there is no public access. This does not mean there is no loss of open space if it were to be built on.

3a' The overgrown nature of the site would indicate a number of wildlife habitats on site - survey should be conducted.' Because specialist nature of orchards, expert help should be sought particularly on identification of apple, pear, plum and cherry cultivars existing on this site.
Potential to preserve those as part of the new site layout. The very fact that this is suggested here must mean that the space has habitat value.

3c 'There is no historical designation on the site.' This is unfortunate as the oldest trees are of an age that it is likely they were planted when Letchworth was created around 1908 or soon afterwards.

5a 'On the other hand development would remove an urban eyesore.' So there is greater benefit destroying an orchard to put in houses with minimal gardens as is the current trend. Only manicured plots permitted.

5c 'The site is a major development and appears to be in a residential area.' I am interested that the allotments adjacent to this site are being retained for growing fruit and vegetables engendering a sense of wellbeing. However the orchard which could be utilised for the benefit of the local community by making it into a community resource is not being considered. Retaining only a few trees would not understand how an orchard works as an ecosystem.

Appendix 9 p 65/6 for site LG6. Nothing has been included under Mitigation for the loss of a large traditional orchard Priority Habitat. Currently the extent of the orchard is unknown as the site has not been surveyed but large surviving trees can be observed from all corners of the site. This is unacceptable. Proper expert surveys should be carried out.

Appendix 11 p 22 states that policy CGB5 Offers protection to urban open land on the urban fringes, much of which is valuable green space. If that is the case then clearly this site falls under this remit.

I would strongly urge that this whole site remain as a traditional orchard. If this is not possible then the majority of the orchard should remain. If this is not possible then adequate provision should be made for a large orchard five times the current site be planted in compensation. However this goes against the spirit of habitat preservation.

I object to North Herts District Council's Local Plan 2011 - 2031 as follows.
I object to NS1, GA1and GA2 proposed housing for Stevenage expansion into Hertfordshire Green Belt; EL1,EL2 and EL3 proposed housing for Luton overspill in to Hertfordshire Green Belt; BA1 proposed near doubling of the town of Baldock into Green Belt land; HT1 proposed incursion into Green Belt bringing Hitchin within a stone's throw of Letchworth. It is against Government policy to build on Green belt land unless "very special circumstances" pertain (see Appendix 1). Nowhere in the Local Plan are any "very special circumstance" identified. The Green Belt was expressly put into place to curb urban sprawl. The siting of these proposed developments, mostly adjoining already existing estates is typical of the urban sprawl long discredited by town planners for its poor environmental impact and weakening of community. Several hitherto distinct village communities such as Cockernhoe, Gravely and Bygrave will be either absorbed. The Green belt promotes physical and mental health by providing recreational space. It is vital for biodiversity, especially when 60% of British wild species are in decline. Up to the present, NHDC has a good record of management of the Green belt. In its Biodiversity Action Plan of 2005 it pledged to protect it (see Appendix 2). This measure, having had no formal modifications since, is deemed to be still in force. Therefore I question the legality of NHDC's proposed flagrant disregard of it.
The site LG1 is ancient cultivated land dating back to medieval times and probably far beyond. Its ditches, banks and hedges are artefacts of early agricultural systems of archaeological significance. There are a number of pollarded oak trees estimated to be over four centuries old. These features carry their own biodiversity which has evolved over the same time-span. The richness of biodiversity is also the result of soil diversity, generated by the particular mix of sand, gravel, chalk and boulder clay laid 500,000 years ago in the last glaciations and known to geologists as 'The Letchworth Gravels'. NHDC has played its part too, cutting down the use of agri-chemicals and encouraging wide field margins. 114 bird species have been recorded, 28 of which are endangered, together with Great Crested Newt, Brown Hare, Common Toad, Polecat and 3 rare butterfly species (see Appendix 3). There is a House Sparrow roost of over 300 birds, the biggest in the county which is now under consideration for a designation of protected status. There is in increasing currency an idea that land lost to the Green Belt can be balanced by new Green belt designation elsewhere. Quite apart from the fact that there is no spare land in North Herts for such new designation, an eco-system such as that of LG1 cannot be moved as its centuries of evolution has been specific to that site.

I object to site LG1 because of the threat it poses to the unique heritage of Letchworth. This heritage is that of the world's first garden city, embodying influential principles of town planning and social welfare. Proximity to the open countryside was one of them, to which end the founding father, Ebenezer Howard, proposed to limit the population to 32,000 (thereby limiting the footprint of the town) (see Appendix 4). He further stated nowhere on the urban boundary should be more than 15 minutes walk from the town centre. Such principles have already been infringed but this is no reason to abandon the spirit of them; there is still a heritage to be preserved if tourists and visiting students of town-planning from all over the world are not to be disappointed. Another principle was the town should be self-sustaining, in the sense that the population would work locally, so housing and industry were carefully balanced. Rather than use the opportunity to restore this balance, the Local Plan proposes to upset it further. With the increase in population generated by LG1, plus the change of use from industrial to residential of many of the smaller sites in the town under the Plan, the percentage of residents employed locally will sharply decrease. Letchworth will become predominantly a dormitory town with all the weakening of community that entails. The increase in commuter numbers will cause insuperable problems for road infrastructure as Letchworth's narrow roads were designed for low car use. In a self-sustaining town everybody could walk to work or school. The crucial routes from LG1 into the town centre and station are already bottlenecks: narrow roads lined with grass verges and specimen trees, some rare, which cannot be removed for road widening without completely destroying the distinctive garden city ambience.

I object to site LG1 because of the circumstances of its proposed sale by the owners. The owners, Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation, propose to abdicate its responsibilities to protect and preserve the site. The Foundation was set up by Parliament in 1993 to continue the town's development by Ebenezer Howard's the principles, of which the Green Belt was one - the world's first Green Belt. The sale of this land is a betrayal of principle by those whom Parliament has charged to be its protector. The sale of the land could be (and should be) open to legal challenge.

I wish to object to the development site LG6. This land was compulsorily purchased by Letchworth Urban District Council as part of the Jackman Estate land. The Inspector at the time stipulated that it should be left as a Garden City-style green space. NHDC now wants to forget this decision, together with its own Biodiversity Action Plan (2005) which identified the same piece of land as an Urban Wildlife Site to be protected.
I wish to oppose the LG10 which would nearly double the number of households using Croft Lane, part of Norton old village. The pond at Norton is a breeding area for toads and other species which make their way to the pond inevitably crossing local roads especially Croft Lane. Doubling of the traffic would risk wiping them out.

Appendix 1

Extract from Hansard 15.7.2016
Green-belt Land
Next


Share this debate
18 July 2016
Volume 613
* Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Share this contribution
16. What his Department's policy is on the building of houses on green-belt land. [905899]
* The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)

Share this contribution
The Government are committed to the strong protection and enhancement of green-belt land. Within the green belt, most new building is inappropriate and should be refused planning permission except in very special circumstances.
* Philip Davies


Share this contribution
I welcome the Minister to his post, although I am sure he is disappointed to no longer be my Whip.
My constituents in Burley-in-Wharfedale, and other villages such as Baildon and Eldwick, to name but a few, are facing planning proposals for green-belt land, with 500 houses proposed for Burley-in-Wharfedale alone. Surely the whole point of the green belt is that it should not be subject to housing, and particularly not until all brownfield sites in the district have been built on. My constituents do not trust Bradford council to look after their interests, so they look to the Government to protect them. What can my hon. Friend do to protect their interests and stop that building on the green belt?
* Gavin Barwell

Share this contribution
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and wish his new Whip the best of luck.
If he looks through the national planning policy framework, he will see a clear description of what development is appropriate on the green belt, and a strong presumption that inappropriate development is harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
* Mr Speaker

Share this contribution
The Whip will certainly need to be a natural optimist.

Appendix 2

North Hertfordshire District Council Biodiversity Action Plan (2005)
Foreword
Diverse rural and urban landscapes, their integral habitats and wildlife, still make North Hertfordshire a very special place in which to live and work. However we should not become complacent, for all is not well. Many changes, some quite dramatic and others very subtle, continue to degrade local habitats, reduce the diversity of wildlife and threaten the qualities of our surroundings.
The importance that your Council places upon the environment that we share, not least with many important facets of wildlife that indicate its health, is clearly outlined within its corporate vision. Its priorities promote conservation of our historic towns and rural settlements together with protection of the countryside.
In the wake of national and international concerns about environmental degradations together with loss of biodiversity, including the tenet to 'think globally, act locally', the Council initiated measures to effect positive local conservation to both habitats and species. Detailed studies and correlation of holdings of data have facilitated a timely overview that elucidates the ranges and status of the District's wildlife and wild places, and have facilitated production of this, our very own Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
With policies and evolving programmes towards effective conservation of the environment we share, the North Hertfordshire Bio-diversity Action Plan meets criteria of the Council's vision and priorities. However, these can only be really workable if each and everyone of us share in the many challenges and commitments required to ensure appropriate care for our surroundings, whether it be in town or countryside
Your Council will lead these challenges but there will be opportunity for all of us to be involved, not least toward education at all levels, joining partnerships and actively supporting the care that our urban and rural countryside needs and deserves.
Local Actions make Global Changes
Leader North Hertfordshire District Council
Councillor F.J. Smith

Appendix 3
BIODIVERSITY OF SITE LG1
Red-listed species
(Red -listed species have the highest conservation priority. In addition, where indicated SAP, some are subject to national Species Action Plans )

Skylark (SAP)
Lesser Redpoll
Common Linnet (SAP)
Cuckoo
Corn Bunting (SAP)
Yellowhammer (SAP)
Reed Bunting (SAP)
Yellow wagtail
House Sparrow
Grey Partridge (SAP)
Dunnock
Common Bullfinch (SAP)
European Turtle Dove (SAP)
Common Starling
Song Thrush (SAP)
Northern Lapwing (SAP)
Woodcock
Grasshopper Warbler
Fieldfare Redwing
Mistle Thrush
Nightingale
Whinchat
Grey Wagtail
Bittern
Red Kite

A further 20 or so species found on the site are amber-listed: unfavourable status in Europe

Other red-listed fauna found on Local Plan site LG1
Brown Hare (SAP)
West European Hedgehog
Polecat
Common Toad
Great Crested Newt (SAP)
Small Heath butterfly
Small Blue butterfly
Wall butterfly

INFORMATION: Brian Sawford: NHDC Countryside Officer (Retd), Curator of Natural History for North Herts Museums Service (Retd).
:Trevor James: Curator of Natural History for North Herts Museums Service (Retd), Director of Herts Biological Records Centre (Retd).
Appendix 4

GARDEN CITIES OF TO-MORROW
Ebenezer Howard
Garden Cities of To-Morrow (London, 1902. Reprinted, edited with a Preface by F. J. Osborn and an Introductory Essay by Lewis Mumford. (London: Faber and Faber, [1946]):50-57, 138- 147.

Let me here introduce a very rough diagram, representing, as I conceive, the true principle on which all towns should grow, Garden City has, we will suppose, grown until it has reached a population of 32,000. How shall it grow? How shall it provide for the needs of others who will be attracted by its numerous advantages? Shall it build on the zone of agricultural land which is around it, and thus for ever destroy its right to be called a 'Garden City'? Surely not. This disastrous result would indeed take place if the land around the town were, as is the land around our present cities, owned by private individuals anxious to make a profit out of it. For then, as the town filled up, the agricultural land would become 'ripe' for building purposes, and the beauty and healthfulness of the town would be quickly destroyed. But the land around Garden City is, fortunately, not in the hands of private individuals: it is in the hands of the people: and is to be administered, not in the supposed interests of the few, but in the real interests of the whole community.

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.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached