LG10 Former Playing field, Croft Lane

The requirement in this allocation for the loss of open space to be justified and re-provision or contributions towards improvements to existing provision is welcomed in principle and positively responds to representations made earlier in the local plan process. This is because the proposal would involve the permanent loss of one of the former Norton School's detached playing fields which may offer potential to meet community playing pitch needs as identified in the Council's playing pitch strategy. The approach in the policy is considered to broadly accord with Government planning policy on playing fields in paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

If the land here is built on it will have a highly detrimental effect on the population of toads in the nearby Norton pond because of massively increased traffic along Croft Lane. In addition this area is prone to flooding and building houses is likely to make this worse

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.

Formal Response to consultation on North Hertfordshire District Council 3
Local Plan 2011-2031 (proposed submission)

We are writing to object to the proposed Local Plan 2011-2031 that NHDC has recently submitted for consultation.

Section 4.187 of the plan comments that "Letchworth holds a special place as the world's first garden city. Although development of the town to Ebenezer Howard's original vision of 32,000 residents has been achieved, it is considered there remains scope for a sensitive extension of the town to the north, which respects the town's original ideals while making provision for the needs of the 21st Century. "

Nowhere are these needs set out. We do not understand how removing the 'green lungs' and open spaces (notably around the Greenway) of the areas marked LG1, LG4 and LG10 and replacing them with 1000 houses can be characterised as 'sensitive'.

This area of the town is already under considerable pressure due to the low provision of doctors, dentists, schools and other amenities. Bus services have been reduced and the increase of traffic through the Grange Estate (estimated at 3000-6000 vehicles) would put immense pressure on the junction of Norton Road, Norton Way North, and Eastern Way. The alternative of a relief road connecting directly onto the Stotfold Road is likely to create a tempting and dangerous 'rat-run' for north-bound traffic through the estate.

With regard to LG10, we are also unclear as to how additional traffic through Croft Lane and Cashio Lane can be safely accommodated without a widening scheme that removes the 'country village' character so jealously preserved for so long and a key part of the Garden City Pioneer's vision for the town. The field is a relatively small site and 37 properties will have a significant impact - not least on the water table (the area is prone to flooding due to 'heave' - the same mechanism that fills Norton Pond).

Clearly this many additional residents will create additional commuter traffic, adding to the considerable current congestion at peak times on the approaches to Junction 9 and southbound am/northbound pm on the A1(M). There is already a shortage of public parking for commuters north of the railway - where can more cars go?

We believe that building on Greenbelt should be a last resort. There are several brownfield sites such as Icknield Way East, Radburn Way, Station Road, The Wynd and Arena Parade that would provide suitable sites and whose development would improve the local scene.

In summary, it is hard to see how developments LG1, LG4 and LG10 in any way reflect the "original ideals" of Ebenezer Howard of creating a healthy, safe, self-sustaining community.

I am writing to object to the proposed Local Plan 2011-2031 that NHDC has recently submitted for consultation. As a resident of Letchworth Garden City I do not feel that any of the plan relating to Letchworth and surrounding areas is in line with current Garden City developments or historic character housing.
Section 4.187 of the plan comments that "Letchworth holds a special place as the world's first garden city. Although development of the town to Ebenezer Howard's original vision of 32,000 residents has been achieved, it is considered there remains scope for a sensitive extension of the town to the north, which respects the town's original ideals while making provision for the needs of the 21st Century. "
This area, marked as LG1 in the plan is north of the Grange. This area of the town is GREENBELT LAND. The proposed area of development expands the town to nearer to Stotfold and comes within 50m of Bedfordshire border at Fairfield Park. This is such a huge development that I wonder if thought has really been given to how the town will cope with such an influx in its population? Doctors, dentists, schools and other amenities will be required. Along with the increase of traffic through the Estate (estimated at 3000-6000 vehicles) the pollution levels of the town will rocket - this is totally against the councils own policies!
It also alarms me greatly that NHDC are considering building on GREENBELT land. Land that has historically been there to preserve the green nature of our towns and cities. Surely it is well known that councils no longer need to invade greenbelt land to meet housing needs??
The true local need of housing in North Hertfordshire (as determined by Consultants for the Council) is 6000 new dwellings. Why then, does the Local plan suggest 12000? DOUBLE WHAT THE STATED NEED ACTUALLY REQUIRES.
Building on Greenbelt should be a last resort. We should utilise all the brownfield sites around the town (of which there are several - Icknield Way East, Radburn Way, Station Road, The Wynd and Arena Parade) In particular I would prefer to see the Wynd and Station Road shops redeveloped to include flats above.
Other developments in the north of Letchworth will also have a negative impact to the town. Building 37 houses on the old Norton School playing field (LG10) will negatively impact the conservation area within Norton and Norton Pond. Massively increased traffic around Cashio Lane, Croft Lane and Norton Road will be detrimental to the toads in the pond. The area is also prone to flooding and the field is a flood plain. Building houses on this area will be an unwise move. The field is also a relatively small areas -and packing 37 houses onto it will not be in keeping with the character heritage houses which surround the field and which the Heritage Foundation fight so hard to keep looking the same as when they were built!
Ton conclude, we need to be creative with our housing - not tacking huge developments on to the top of the town without a creative thought or process behind it. Not squashing houses onto every green space we can find regardless of wildlife! We need to save our green fields for future generations to enjoy. We should not build houses that are not currently required just because we can. We need to think about how to meet the need for local housing in a unique, creative and inspirational way. We should follow the example of Ebenezer Howard and create a Garden City nearby - a town that we can be proud of. A town that is not crowded, busy, polluted and without character!

We are writing to object to the proposed Local Plan 2011-2031 that NHDC has recently submitted for consultation. As a resident of Letchworth Garden City I do not feel that any of the plan relating to Letchworth has been accessed adequately with respect to impact on local infrastructure - schools, traffic load and environmental. Furthermore, the plans are not in line with current Garden City developments or historic character housing.
Section 4.187 of the plan comments that "Letchworth holds a special place as the world's first garden city. Although development of the town to Ebenezer Howard's original vision of 32,000 residents has been achieved, it is considered there remains scope for a sensitive extension of the town to the north, which respects the town's original ideals while making provision for the needs of the 21st Century."
The area, marked as LG1 in the plan is North of the Grange is GREENBELT LAND. The proposed area of development expands the town to nearer to Stotfold and comes within 50m of Bedfordshire border at Fairfield Park. This is such a huge development that I wonder if thought has really been given to how the town will cope with such an influx in its population? Doctors, dentists, schools and other amenities will be required. Traffic between Stotfold and Norton has already seen a dramatic increase since we moved to the area in 2012, with increased traffic speeds and indeed accidents. This area can not contain further development. Additionally with the increase of traffic through the Estate (estimated at 3000-6000 vehicles) the pollution levels of the town will greatly increase.
As a resident it also concerns me greatly that NHDC are considering building on GREENBELT land. Land that has historically been there to preserve the green nature of our towns and cities. Surely it is well known that councils no longer need to invade greenbelt land to meet housing needs??
The true local need of housing in North Hertfordshire (as determined by Consultants for the Council) is 6000 new dwellings. Why then, does the Local plan suggest 12000? DOUBLE WHAT THE STATED NEED ACTUALLY REQUIRES. This strikes of purely a fund raising exercise.
Building on Greenbelt should be a last resort. We should utilise all the brownfield sites around the town (of which there are several - Icknield Way East, Radburn Way, Station Road, The Wynd and Arena Parade) In particular I would prefer to see the Wynd and Station Road shops redeveloped to include flats above.

Also of great concern to our family is the proposed building of 37 houses on the old Norton School playing field (LG10). I can see no logical argument that can show 37 properties will positively impact housing shortages. This is clearly a money making exercise by NHDC. It will have a huge negative impact on the conservation area within Norton and Norton Pond. Massively increased traffic on the small roads of Cashio and Croft Lane and increase traffic on Norton Road, which is already far busier than a residential road should be. The school field is also rich with wildlife and plants (Woodpeckers, Herons, King Fishers, Foxes and Deer) and an area of beauty for the residents of Cashio Lane, Croft Lane and Norton Road. Additionally the area is also prone to flooding and the field is a flood plain. Building houses on this area will be an unwise move. The field is also a relatively small areas -and packing 37 houses onto it will not be in keeping with the character heritage houses which surround the field and which the Heritage Foundation fight so hard to keep looking the same as when they were built!

I agree there is a need to provide access to affordable housing for all, however the plans laid out in the North Hertfordshire District Council 3 Local Plan 2011-2031 are way above local needs will destroy GREENBELT and areas of natural beauty and have a massive negative impact on the local infrastructure of Letchworth and surrounding area. We are completely against these plans.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached