PR1 Land off Templars Lane

This land is a small field located behind Templars Lane (named Castlefield). The 5 existing Castlefield homes are built upon a fragile drainage and road infrastructure (the road cannot even support a bin lorry, with residents having to bring their bins to where the road is solid, where Castlefield meets Templars Lane. The drainage system under Castlefield is also reportedly (by contractors hired by Howard Cottage Housing Association) full of sand and debris, and are poorly built, with drains sinking as they were not properly installed). Building 21 additional homes on this field will cause the existing Castlefield homes to suffer potentially dangerous consequences due to building site traffic and continuous residential traffic when actually built. The existing road and infrastructure of Castlefield will need to be seriously addressed before any more housing can even be considered.

See attachment

Preston Parish Council is aware that local residents will be submitting their own comments to this site, some of which raise new issues. We would be very grateful if full consideration could be given to them by the Planning Inspector and their views taken into account when a decision is made as to whether this site should be included in the final Local Plan.

The number of houses proposed is too high for this site given the limited infrastructure leading to the site. My preference would be to build the same number of houses within Preston but spread over a number of sites.

See attached

See attached

I strongly object to the Local Plan 2011-2031 proposal for the PR1 site in Preston.
The allocation of the PR1 site in Preston for 21 houses in the Local Plan is unsound for the reasons provided below. Furthermore, it is unclear why Preston Parish Council decided not to object to the Local Plan during this consultation period (Oct/Nov 2016). An overwhelming majority of residents in Preston strongly object and this suggests that Preston Parish Council have been given little choice by NHDC not to do so. There are many other more suitable areas for development than Preston that will not have such a dramatic and harmful impact on the environment and have more amenities and better transport already in place.

In summary:
The plan is not positively prepared - the plan should be based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements - The best option for Preston Parish is to infill, NOT to densely pack houses into a green space which has only been recently placed within the Settlement Boundary of Preston village that now appears in the Local Plan. This has not been objectively assessed. NHDC ignored the objections by the Parish Council and residents in the previous consultations and an Ecology report relating to the Wain Wood SSSI is completely unsound (see objections below). The infrastructure does not exist now for the current residents and will not support the 20-25% more houses or the people living in them. The requirements necessary will not exist by 2031. The cost and environmental impact is enormous. The Local Plan does not provide a sound strategy for providing the infrastructure that will be required specifically for PR1. The demand for affordable housing in Preston does not exist as evidenced by the vacant affordable houses (finally filled through renting because they were not affordable to those who demanded them in previous surveys).

The Plan is not justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence - This is not the most appropriate strategy given the size of the village and no. of houses proposed (nowhere in the parish is as densely packed) on a green space. The Parish Council strongly objected to the PR1 site previously and the changes to the Settlement Boundary in the second consultation round and reasonable alternatives were provided (including infilling within the Parish) that would meet the Local plan targets for Preston Parish by 2031. Residents also strongly objected. These views have been ignored. The infrastructure does not exist now for the current residents and will not exist by 2031.

More detailed objections to the Local Plan for the proposed PR1 site in Preston

Policy SP2 Settlement Hierarchy
Preston village has been defined as a Category A village because it contains a primary school. This method for categorising the villages makes no sense at all. A proper ranking of all facilities and infrastructure should have been undertaken across North Herts. Preston currently has an inadequate infrastructure, road access and public transport to support the current needs of existing residents, without the proposed 21 houses at PR1. The cost of improving the infrastructure is huge compared to the net housing gain and the impact upon the character of the village and the rural environment is immense (see objections below).

The Settlement Boundary proposed by the Parish Council since 2007 has been continually ignored by NHDC and has been changed by NHDC during the Local Plan 2011-2031 consultation period. The Parish Council strongly objected to the changes in the Settlement Boundary in February 2016 (2nd Consultation), together with residents, including myself and, according to Parish Council Meeting Minutes, the District Councillor. The Parish Council met with NHDC and were told they had 'little leeway'. The Settlement Boundary proposed in this Local Plan has been devised by NHDC to ensure that land owned by them is now included (the proposed site PR1) and, in addition another 3rd of the village has been included at the opposite end which includes land owned by a developer. This move appears underhand especially when the current infrastructure and the true situation within Preston village is taken into account.

Furthermore, this development would completely spoil the unique character of this small and pleasant rural village that sits neatly within its surrounding environment. Historically, the north western part of the village near this proposed site (around the junction of Butchers Lane/Charlton Road/Chequers Lane) was known as The Wilderness for obvious reasons which still remain today but would be instantly destroyed if this development went ahead (see History of Preston website http://www.prestonherts.co.uk/ ).

The Wrays of Preston, Hertfordshire
www.prestonherts.co.uk
My family and ancestors have lived in Preston for more than 260 years - from at least 1751 until now. I was curious to discover how they lived.


Policy SP6 Sustainable transport
This is unclear. Sustainable transport is not possible for Preston village. These statements cannot be met (see Policy T1 and objections below).

Policy SP7 Infrastructure requirements and developer contributions
The proposed 21 houses at the PR1 site will certainly 'place unreasonable burdens on the existing community AND the existing infrastructure'. It is also unclear how they can 'mitigate any adverse impacts' without completely changing the ancient rural environment and surroundings at huge cost (see objections below).

Policy SP9 Design and Sustainability
The PR1 site in Preston for 21 houses 'does not respond positively to its local context'. This will be high density housing, more dense than anywhere in the rest of the Parish. It will change the character and rural environment. Preston cannot sustain this high proportion of houses on this site (see objections below). Infilling across the Parish should be used if NHDC wish to respond positively to the local context for development.

Policy T1 Assessment of transport matters & Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Key Infrastructure. Development at the PR1 site WILL 'adversely impact upon highway safety'. There is no clear plan provided here for Preston village. It is based on predictions and mitigations are not explained (see objections below).

Policy NE6 Designated biodiversity and geological sites (note 11.46 pg. 123)
The PR1 site is in very close proximity to Wain Wood SSSI. NHDC commissioned an ecological survey/report in response to Natural England's and concerns of residents in the previous consultation. This report is unscientific, seriously flawed (see objections below) and, as such, its conclusions that mitigation is unnecessary are not justified. It is incorrect and it does not address the concerns of Natural England or residents of Preston.

MAP SHEET 1 SIDE B Southern Area & Luton Borders
The map is not up to date. The borders for my property in Preston village have not looked as they do on this map since 1970. Therefore, this outdated map does not truly represent the current situation, certainly for Preston and the PR1 site proposed in the Local Plan.

In land searches in 2005, NHDC documented that my property was in the conservation area and the 'Local Plan no.2 with alterations adopted 23rd April 1996' is stated in these documents. However, the map suggests that my property is no longer in the conservation area but I have not been informed of this.

Objections to Development of the Field adjoining Templars Lane "PR1"
The Wain Wood Site of Scientific Interest Impact document is a desk-based study prepared by BSG Ecology in Derbyshire (June 2016). These consultants use freely available data (mostly outdated), extrapolated averages and estimates to make their conclusions and, as such, these do not truly reflect local reality. The assessment, methodology, assumptions and conclusions are not robust. The document does not properly address the concerns raised by Natural England who commented on the Local Plan (letter dated 13 February 2013) as to 'the potential impacts that the development of the PR1 site for residential purposes will have on Wain Wood SSSI'. The allocation of housing proposed at PR1 is certain to impact upon Wain Wood SSSI.
* The credibility of the document produced by BSG Ecology can immediately be called into question by the erroneous and irrelevant reference to Royston (Section 1.1) which is 18+ miles away from the PR1 site. Another error (Section 4.1) suggests that the PR1 site (SG4 7TU) lies within the Impact Risk Zone for the Therfield Heath SSSI (SG8 9NU), 16.9 miles away (Google Maps). Presumably, these same consultants, with clearly no knowledge of North Hertfordshire or ability to research, review or check their information, were also commissioned by NHDC to provide a desk study on Local Plan proposed sites in the Royston area. How many other mistakes, errors or miscalculations are present in this document for PR1?
* It is a fact that Wain Wood SSSI already has a larger volume of human and dog traffic than is reported by BSG Ecology, who predicted visitor numbers using a 'Ramblers Association participation rate' taken from data compiled by Sports England in 2009. Walking for recreational purposes has significantly increased since 2009. Active People Surveys per local authority in England are conducted and published for Sports England every 6 months (gov.uk) and quote >50% higher rates (2014-15) than those used here. These latest figures have been ignored by the consultants who have not researched this adequately.

Welcome to GOV.UK
gov.uk
GOV.UK - The place to find government services and information - Simpler, clearer, faster
*
* A properly robust scientific survey should be undertaken on visitor and dog numbers. This should be conducted, over more than one season, to include weekdays, weekends and holidays, when children regularly use the wood for recreational purposes as can be evidenced by the numerous dens and tree swings within the wood.
* The attraction to Wain Wood SSSI by the occupants of PR1 will be high and frequent because there will then be a complete lack of green space within Preston village for recreational purposes if the PR1 site is developed for housing. Lack of green space alone will increase current footfall and activities within Wain Wood by existing villagers as well as additional occupants of the PR1 site. Furthermore, the majority of occupants are likely to be families (based upon the recently built and occupied affordable houses located adjacent to the site) and they will naturally be attracted to their nearest open space which is Wain Wood SSSI.
The green space currently at PR1 site could be used for a village green. Other green spaces in the village are a small roundabout and a cricket ground. The use of general recreation in either of these spaces is limited. The roundabout is surrounded by roads, limited in size and broken up by trees preventing ball games and general recreation. The cricket ground is in frequent use May to October and has to be maintained and is, therefore, restricted accordingly.

There are established ponds bordering the field at PR1 abundant with declining amphibians including newts, frogs and toads. The ponds, being at the border of the field, have suspicion of containing Great Crested Newts. Field surveys are needed to assess this ecosystem further.

Preston village benefits from the amenity value provided by the field at the PR1 site. The field is widely used by dog walkers, ramblers and walkers who enter the field from the public footpath and the gate in the boundary creating established paths that criss-cross in the field. The allocation of this site for residential development is likely to facilitate a Village Green Application by the local residents. In addition, some of the house owners with rear gardens backing on to the field have gates opening onto the field which has provided access to the field for generations.

The local road infrastructure within and around Preston is mainly narrow lanes rather than roads. This infrastructure would be unable to cope with the increased volume of traffic which the proposed housing development would generate. There continue to be issues with speeding without an additional 20+ cars. The road access to and from the site is mostly single carriage and is inadequate. Both Chequers Lane, leading to Templars Lane, and Butchers Lane struggle to cope with the amount of traffic using them at present and Butcher's Lane is single carriage with blind sharp bends. Widening would not only cause substantial upheaval at an enormous cost but such changes would also be destructive to the existing character of these ancient country lanes and would change the whole character of Preston Village.

All the access roads in and out of Preston have single carriage sections and are liable to flooding and snow fall leading to the village being cut off from the surrounding areas which is compounded by the absence of no Preston village shop, medical or dental practices. The roads include Preston Rd (Hitchin Rd), Charlton Road, Back Lane, St Albans Highway, School Lane, Little Almshoe Rd and Hitchwood Lane. The main access road (Preston/Hitchin road) has a steep incline close to the Preston where cars regularly get stuck in snow. Close to this inclination there is a 90 degree bend; a consistent site of cars skidding off the road into adjoining hedge and field. A few hundred yards further towards Gosmore, the road narrows to single carriage way, with another 90 degree bend at Dermal Laboratories. The narrow road continues with multiple sharp bends (site of recent fatality) to a blind cross roads where the road becomes single carriage way at the Bull Pub at Gosmore, where pedestrians become vulnerable to traffic. A few hundred yards beyond, there is regular flooding where the road has become impassable. Flooding also regularly occurs on Hitchwood Lane, close to the the B651, Almshoe Rd a few hundred yards before the B656 and Charlton Road approximately a quarter of a mile before Preston Village.

There is inadequate infrastructure in the village including no shops, no nearby medical practice, poor bus service (No 88. Luton to Hitchin between 8 am and 6 pm, 5 per weekday/4 on Saturdays and School Holidays; school children are regularly driven past and left behind because the buses are already full before they reach Preston) and inadequate sewage provision.

Since the building of 6 new dwellings adjacent to the PR1 field site, the manholes on Templars Lane are now prone to the back flooding of sewage. This is not only causing undesirable odours three times a day when sewage is pumped from the new dwellings, but also the flooding of raw sewage on to the open road is a potential public health hazard. Children have been observed playing in these puddles of raw sewage. This has continued despite quarterly rodding by professional sewer maintenance contractors.

The sewage problem has been investigated by a fully qualified experienced plumber. In the opinion of the plumber the addition of these 6 dwellings are overwhelming the current sewage capacity. The additional 21 houses will exacerbate this problem and would have the potential to cause back up of sewage to the top of Chequers lane and extending the hazard zone further.

If 35% of the new housing delivered on this site is affordable then the Council should seriously consider how sustainable this location will be for younger families who do not benefit from car ownership. A report published by University College London in July 2014 entitled 'Transport and Poverty - a review of the evidence' finds that ''lower incomes and unemployment benefits mean that the cost of owning and running a car are prohibitive for many young people (Commission for Rural Communities, 2012) and that the large distances and the higher cost of fuel in rural areas may exacerbate these barriers to travel.'' It is well evidenced that the level of car ownership of affordable housing tenants on low incomes is well below the national average and coupled with poor transport links begs the question just how sustainable is this location is for people in affordable housing to access shops, services and employment.

Furthermore, it was a struggle to fill the 6 affordable houses that were recently built adjacent to the PR1 site, with 2 being having to be converted to rented accommodation so they wouldn't remain empty. Thus, it appears that the demand for affordable housing does not exist in Preston.

The development of this site will lead to an increase in class sizes at Preston Primary School and a corresponding increase in pressure on the school's limited infrastructure. Currently 94 pupils attend the school, close to the full capacity of 100. The current year 3 /4 class size is already at full capacity. Capacity has also been a problem in the recent past where class sizes exceeded 30. Moreover, the school, which is open to children between the years of 4 - 11 has only 4 available classrooms. With Reception year children benefiting from their own classroom there are only three other classes available to service the educational needs of school years 1 to 6. This means the children are educated in mixed year groups where pupils of different school ages are educated in the same class room. Increased housing, particularly for young families will exacerbate this disadvantage to current and future pupils attending the school.

A 20-25% increase in dwellings in this small historic village will endanger the nature of the settlement. This increase is unsustainable and overwhelming for a village of this size. Given the high density of housing proposed for this site in comparison to the rest of the village dwellings, the unique character of Preston would be badly affected.
Much, if not all of Preston's housing demands could be met by in filling of other sites within the village development boundary. In addition there is an unsightly field adjoining Back lane, within the village envelope owned by a builder / developer which has now been included in the Settlement Boundary given in this Local Plan document. This field lies closer to the limited Preston facilities such as the school, Pub and village hall, and is further away from the SSSI than the field at PR1. Importantly, this field is not in recreational use and, in contrast to the PR1 field, is unlikely to be subjected to a potential future village green application from local residents.

I wish to object to the following proposals in the District 'Local Plan':-

1. Preston parish: Site PR1 off Templars Lane. This site does not pass the 'test of soundness' as it is is not positively prepared nor is it justified.

2. Sites EL1, EL2, EL3: East of Luton. These sites are all in the Green Belt, and do not meet the 'very special circumstances' test; development there would very seriously harm the Green Belt.

Objections to Development of the Field adjoining Templars Lane "PR1"
The Wain Wood Site of Scientific Interest Impact document is a desk-based study prepared by BSG Ecology in Derbyshire (June 2016). These consultants use freely available data (mostly outdated), extrapolated averages and estimates to make their conclusions and, as such, these do not truly reflect local reality. The assessment, methodology, assumptions and conclusions are not robust. The document does not properly address the concerns raised by Natural England who commented on the Local Plan (letter dated 13 February 2013) as to 'the potential impacts that the development of the PR1 site for residential purposes will have on Wain Wood SSSI'. The allocation of housing proposed at PR1 is certain to impact upon Wain Wood SSSI.
* The credibility of the document produced by BSG Ecology can immediately be called into question by the erroneous and irrelevant reference to Royston (Section 1.1) which is 18+ miles away from the PR1 site. Another error (Section 4.1) suggests that the PR1 site (SG4 7TU) lies within the Impact Risk Zone for the Therfield Heath SSSI (SG8 9NU), 16.9 miles away (Google Maps). Presumably, these same consultants, with clearly no knowledge of North Hertfordshire or ability to research, review or check their information, were also commissioned by NHDC to provide a desk study on Local Plan proposed sites in the Royston area. How many other mistakes, errors or miscalculations are present in this document for PR1?
* It is a fact that Wain Wood SSSI already has a larger volume of human and dog traffic than is reported by BSG Ecology, who predicted visitor numbers using a 'Ramblers Association participation rate' taken from data compiled by Sports England in 2009. Walking for recreational purposes has significantly increased since 2009. Active People Surveys per local authority in England are conducted and published for Sports England every 6 months (gov.uk) and quote >50% higher rates (2014-15) than those used here. These latest figures have been ignored by the consultants who have not researched this adequately.
* A properly robust scientific survey should be undertaken on visitor and dog numbers. This should be conducted, over more than one season, to include weekdays, weekends and holidays, when children regularly use the wood for recreational purposes as can be evidenced by the numerous dens and tree swings within the wood.
* The attraction to Wain Wood SSSI by the occupants of PR1 will be high and frequent because there will then be a complete lack of green space within Preston village for recreational purposes if the PR1 site is developed for housing. Lack of green space alone will increase current footfall and activities within Wain Wood by existing villagers as well as additional occupants of the PR1 site. Furthermore, the majority of occupants are likely to be families (based upon the recently built and occupied affordable houses located adjacent to the site) and they will naturally be attracted to their nearest open space which is Wain Wood SSSI.
The green space currently at PR1 site could be used for a village green. Other green spaces in the village are a small roundabout and a cricket ground. The use of general recreation in either of these spaces is limited. The roundabout is surrounded by roads, limited in size and broken up by trees preventing ball games and general recreation. The cricket ground is in frequent use May to October and has to be maintained and is, therefore, restricted accordingly.
There are established ponds bordering the field at PR1 abundant with declining amphibians including newts, frogs and toads. The ponds, being at the border of the field, have suspicion of containing Great Crested Newts. Field surveys are needed to assess this ecosystem further.
Preston village benefits from the amenity value provided by the field at the PR1 site. The field is widely used by dog walkers, ramblers and walkers who enter the field from the public footpath and the gate in the boundary creating established paths that criss-cross in the field. The allocation of this site for residential development is likely to facilitate a Village Green Application by the local residents. In addition, some of the house owners with rear gardens backing on to the field have gates opening onto the field which has provided access to the field for generations.
The local road infrastructure within and around Preston is mainly narrow lanes rather than roads. This infrastructure would be unable to cope with the increased volume of traffic which the proposed housing development would generate. There continue to be issues with speeding without an additional 20+ cars. The road access to and from the site is mostly single carriage and is inadequate. Both Chequers Lane, leading to Templars Lane, and Butchers Lane struggle to cope with the amount of traffic using them at present and Butcher's Lane is single carriage with blind sharp bends. Widening would not only cause substantial upheaval at an enormous cost but such changes would also be destructive to the existing character of these ancient country lanes and would change the whole character of Preston Village.
All the access roads in and out of Preston have single carriage sections and are liable to flooding and snow fall leading to the village being cut off from the surrounding areas which is compounded by the absence of no Preston village shop, medical or dental practices. The roads include Preston Rd (Hitchin Rd), Charlton Road, Back Lane, St Albans Highway, School Lane, Little Almshoe Rd and Hitchwood Lane. The main access road (Preston/Hitchin road) has a steep incline close to the Preston where cars regularly get stuck in snow. Close to this inclination there is a 90 degree bend; a consistent site of cars skidding off the road into adjoining hedge and field. A few hundred yards further towards Gosmore, the road narrows to single carriage way, with another 90 degree bend at Dermal Laboratories. The narrow road continues with multiple sharp bends (site of recent fatality) to a blind cross roads where the road becomes single carriage way at the Bull Pub at Gosmore, where pedestrians become vulnerable to traffic. A few hundred yards beyond, there is regular flooding where the road has become impassable. Flooding also regularly occurs on Hitchwood Lane, close to the the B651, Almshoe Rd a few hundred yards before the B656 and Charlton Road approximately a quarter of a mile before Preston Village.
There is inadequate infrastructure in the village including no shops, no nearby medical practice, poor bus service (No 88. Luton to Hitchin between 8 am and 6 pm, 5 per weekday/4 on Saturdays and School Holidays; school children are regularly driven past and left behind because the buses are already full before they reach Preston) and inadequate sewage provision.
Since the building of 6 new dwellings adjacent to the PR1 field site, the manholes on Templars Lane are now prone to the back flooding of sewage. This is not only causing undesirable odours three times a day when sewage is pumped from the new dwellings, but also the flooding of raw sewage on to the open road is a potential public health hazard. Children have been observed playing in these puddles of raw sewage. This has continued despite quarterly rodding by professional sewer maintenance contractors.
The sewage problem has been investigated by a fully qualified experienced plumber. In the opinion of the plumber the addition of these 6 dwellings are overwhelming the current sewage capacity. The additional 21 houses will exacerbate this problem and would have the potential to cause back up of sewage to the top of Chequers lane and extending the hazard zone further.
If 35% of the new housing delivered on this site is affordable then the Council should seriously consider how sustainable this location will be for younger families who do not benefit from car ownership. A report published by University College London in July 2014 entitled 'Transport and Poverty - a review of the evidence' finds that ''lower incomes and unemployment benefits mean that the cost of owning and running a car are prohibitive for many young people (Commission for Rural Communities, 2012) and that the large distances and the higher cost of fuel in rural areas may exacerbate these barriers to travel.'' It is well evidenced that the level of car ownership of affordable housing tenants on low incomes is well below the national average and coupled with poor transport links begs the question just how sustainable is this location is for people in affordable housing to access shops, services and employment.
Furthermore, it was a struggle to fill the 6 affordable houses that were recently built adjacent to the PR1 site, with 2 being having to be converted to rented accommodation so they wouldn't remain empty. Thus, it appears that the demand for affordable housing does not exist in Preston.
The development of this site will lead to an increase in class sizes at Preston Primary School and a corresponding increase in pressure on the school's limited infrastructure. Currently 94 pupils attend the school, close to the full capacity of 100. The current year 3 /4 class size is already at full capacity. Capacity has also been a problem in the recent past where class sizes exceeded 30. Moreover, the school, which is open to children between the years of 4 - 11 has only 4 available classrooms. With Reception year children benefiting from their own classroom there are only three other classes available to service the educational needs of school years 1 to 6. This means the children are educated in mixed year groups where pupils of different school ages are educated in the same class room. Increased housing, particularly for young families will exacerbate this disadvantage to current and future pupils attending the school.
A 25% increase in dwellings in this small historic village will endanger the nature of the settlement. This increase is unsustainable and overwhelming for a village of this size. Given the high density of housing proposed for this site in comparison to the rest of the village dwellings, the unique character of Preston would be badly affected.
Much, if not all of Preston's housing demands could be met by in filling of other sites within the village development boundary. In addition there is an unsightly field adjoining Back lane, within the village envelope owned by a builder / developer. This field lies closer to the limited Preston facilities such as the school, Pub and village hall, and is further away from the SSSI than the field at PR1. Importantly, this field is not in recreational use and, in contrast to the PR1 field, is unlikely to be subjected to a potential future village green application from local residents.

This is to register an objection to the proposed development site on the grounds of insufficient infrastructure and services to sustain increased population in this village.

This is to register an objection to the proposed development site on the grounds of insufficient infrastructure and services to sustain increased population in this village.

I have lived in Preston since 1982, and have enjoyed the experience. Preston is a very unique village, having it's own public house, thriving cricket teams, a delightful Church, which is very well supported.

Alas I can see all the positive things about living in Preston disappearing. The proposal to build 29 houses in the site called PR1 is poor . Certainly there is an argument for limited expansion in the village , but I feel the proposal to build 29 so called starter homes is a non starter, One only has to look at the so called starter homes, that have already been built and the take-up thereof. How you could build more houses when you have the evidence of the previous ones, I really do not know.

May I suggest that an accurate assessment be carried out, to see if indeed there is a requirement at all!

Having been a resident in this village for 34 years I strongly oppose this unrealistic plan for many reasons.
Much of the information re Wain Wood is not correct.
The infrastructure does not exist for present residents and would certainly not cope with another 24% more housing. The demand in Preston for low cost housing is just not there. The last Low cost houses where finally rented to people -not Prestonians for whom they were supposed to be commissioned!
The realities with regard to schooling, traffic and narrow lanes, not to mention sewerage have simply not been addressed logically.
I recall several years ago that many areas in Preston were deemed "Areas of high outstanding natural beauty. This survey being undertaken by North Herts Council.
The Parish Council have previously provided various alternatives which include infilling within the Parish
Which would be far less costly and totally more suitable for our beautiful village.
We are often described as one of North Herts most desirable villages, please let us take time in the decision-making so we remain just that.

The Wain Wood Site of Scientific Interest Impact document is a desk-based study prepared by BSG Ecology in Derbyshire (June 2016). These consultants use freely available data (mostly outdated), extrapolated averages and estimates to make their conclusions and, as such, these do not truly reflect local reality. The assessment, methodology, assumptions and conclusions are not robust. The document does not properly address the concerns raised by Natural England who commented on the Local Plan (letter dated 13 February 2013) as to 'the potential impacts that the development of the PR1 site for residential purposes will have on Wain Wood SSSI'. The allocation of housing proposed at PR1 is certain to impact upon Wain Wood SSSI.
* The credibility of the document produced by BSG Ecology can immediately be called into question by the erroneous and irrelevant reference to Royston (Section 1.1) which is 18+ miles away from the PR1 site. Another error (Section 4.1) suggests that the PR1 site (SG4 7TU) lies within the Impact Risk Zone for the Therfield Heath SSSI (SG8 9NU), 16.9 miles away (Google Maps). Presumably, these same consultants, with clearly no knowledge of North Hertfordshire or ability to research, review or check their information, were also commissioned by NHDC to provide a desk study on Local Plan proposed sites in the Royston area. How many other mistakes, errors or miscalculations are present in this document for PR1?
* It is a fact that Wain Wood SSSI already has a larger volume of human and dog traffic than is reported by BSG Ecology, who predicted visitor numbers using a 'Ramblers Association participation rate' taken from data compiled by Sports England in 2009. Walking for recreational purposes has significantly increased since 2009. Active People Surveys per local authority in England are conducted and published for Sports England every 6 months (gov.uk) and quote >50% higher rates (2014-15) than those used here. These latest figures have been ignored by the consultants who have not researched this adequately.
* A properly robust scientific survey should be undertaken on visitor and dog numbers. This should be conducted, over more than one season, to include weekdays, weekends and holidays, when children regularly use the wood for recreational purposes as can be evidenced by the numerous dens and tree swings within the wood.
* The attraction to Wain Wood SSSI by the occupants of PR1 will be high and frequent because there will then be a complete lack of green space within Preston village for recreational purposes if the PR1 site is developed for housing. Lack of green space alone will increase current footfall and activities within Wain Wood by existing villagers as well as additional occupants of the PR1 site. Furthermore, the majority of occupants are likely to be families (based upon the recently built and occupied affordable houses located adjacent to the site) and they will naturally be attracted to their nearest open space which is Wain Wood SSSI.
The green space currently at PR1 site could be used for a village green. Other green spaces in the village are a small roundabout and a cricket ground. The use of general recreation in either of these spaces is limited. The roundabout is surrounded by roads, limited in size and broken up by trees preventing ball games and general recreation. The cricket ground is in frequent use May to October and has to be maintained and is, therefore, restricted accordingly.
There are established ponds bordering the field at PR1 abundant with declining amphibians including newts, frogs and toads. The ponds, being at the border of the field, have suspicion of containing Great Crested Newts. Field surveys are needed to assess this ecosystem further.
Preston village benefits from the amenity value provided by the field at the PR1 site. The field is widely used by dog walkers, ramblers and walkers who enter the field from the public footpath and the gate in the boundary creating established paths that criss-cross in the field. The allocation of this site for residential development is likely to facilitate a Village Green Application by the local residents. In addition, some of the house owners with rear gardens backing on to the field have gates opening onto the field which has provided access to the field for generations.
The local road infrastructure within and around Preston is mainly narrow lanes rather than roads. This infrastructure would be unable to cope with the increased volume of traffic which the proposed housing development would generate. There continue to be issues with speeding without an additional 20+ cars. The road access to and from the site is mostly single carriage and is inadequate. Both Chequers Lane, leading to Templars Lane, and Butchers Lane struggle to cope with the amount of traffic using them at present and Butcher's Lane is single carriage with blind sharp bends. Widening would not only cause substantial upheaval at an enormous cost but such changes would also be destructive to the existing character of these ancient country lanes and would change the whole character of Preston Village.
All the access roads in and out of Preston have single carriage sections and are liable to flooding and snow fall leading to the village being cut off from the surrounding areas which is compounded by the absence of no Preston village shop, medical or dental practices. The roads include Preston Rd (Hitchin Rd), Charlton Road, Back Lane, St Albans Highway, School Lane, Little Almshoe Rd and Hitchwood Lane. The main access road (Preston/Hitchin road) has a steep incline close to the Preston where cars regularly get stuck in snow. Close to this inclination there is a 90 degree bend; a consistent site of cars skidding off the road into adjoining hedge and field. A few hundred yards further towards Gosmore, the road narrows to single carriage way, with another 90 degree bend at Dermal Laboratories. The narrow road continues with multiple sharp bends (site of recent fatality) to a blind cross roads where the road becomes single carriage way at the Bull Pub at Gosmore, where pedestrians become vulnerable to traffic. A few hundred yards beyond, there is regular flooding where the road has become impassable. Flooding also regularly occurs on Hitchwood Lane, close to the the B651, Almshoe Rd a few hundred yards before the B656 and Charlton Road approximately a quarter of a mile before Preston Village.
There is inadequate infrastructure in the village including no shops, no nearby medical practice, poor bus service (No 88. Luton to Hitchin between 8 am and 6 pm, 5 per weekday/4 on Saturdays and School Holidays; school children are regularly driven past and left behind because the buses are already full before they reach Preston) and inadequate sewage provision.
Since the building of 6 new dwellings adjacent to the PR1 field site, the manholes on Templars Lane are now prone to the back flooding of sewage. This is not only causing undesirable odours three times a day when sewage is pumped from the new dwellings, but also the flooding of raw sewage on to the open road is a potential public health hazard. Children have been observed playing in these puddles of raw sewage. This has continued despite quarterly rodding by professional sewer maintenance contractors.
The sewage problem has been investigated by a fully qualified experienced plumber. In the opinion of the plumber the addition of these 6 dwellings are overwhelming the current sewage capacity. The additional 21 houses will exacerbate this problem and would have the potential to cause back up of sewage to the top of Chequers lane and extending the hazard zone further.
If 35% of the new housing delivered on this site is affordable then the Council should seriously consider how sustainable this location will be for younger families who do not benefit from car ownership. A report published by University College London in July 2014 entitled 'Transport and Poverty - a review of the evidence' finds that ''lower incomes and unemployment benefits mean that the cost of owning and running a car are prohibitive for many young people (Commission for Rural Communities, 2012) and that the large distances and the higher cost of fuel in rural areas may exacerbate these barriers to travel.'' It is well evidenced that the level of car ownership of affordable housing tenants on low incomes is well below the national average and coupled with poor transport links begs the question just how sustainable is this location is for people in affordable housing to access shops, services and employment.
Furthermore, it was a struggle to fill the 6 affordable houses that were recently built adjacent to the PR1 site, with 2 being having to be converted to rented accommodation so they wouldn't remain empty. Thus, it appears that the demand for affordable housing does not exist in Preston.
The development of this site will lead to an increase in class sizes at Preston Primary School and a corresponding increase in pressure on the school's limited infrastructure. Currently 94 pupils attend the school, close to the full capacity of 100. The current year 3 /4 class size is already at full capacity. Capacity has also been a problem in the recent past where class sizes exceeded 30. Moreover, the school, which is open to children between the years of 4 - 11 has only 4 available classrooms. With Reception year children benefiting from their own classroom there are only three other classes available to service the educational needs of school years 1 to 6. This means the children are educated in mixed year groups where pupils of different school ages are educated in the same class room. Increased housing, particularly for young families will exacerbate this disadvantage to current and future pupils attending the school.
A 25% increase in dwellings in this small historic village will endanger the nature of the settlement. This increase is unsustainable and overwhelming for a village of this size. Given the high density of housing proposed for this site in comparison to the rest of the village dwellings, the unique character of Preston would be badly affected.
Much, if not all of Preston's housing demands could be met by in filling of other sites within the village development boundary. In addition there is an unsightly field adjoining Back lane, within the village envelope owned by a builder / developer. This field lies closer to the limited Preston facilities such as the school, Pub and village hall, and is further away from the SSSI than the field at PR1. Importantly, this field is not in recreational use and, in contrast to the PR1 field, is unlikely to be subjected to a potential future village green application from local residents.

The proposal to densely pack new houses into a green space rather than infilling within the village envelope is unsound.
The close proximity of the Wain Wood SSSI, which is already threatened by over usage by the public will cause further damage to the SSSI.
The relevant infrastructure of services, transport and local facilities simply does not exist to support a dense new development out of character with the rest of the village.
The recent construction of 6 affordable dwellings immediately adjacent to the site has clearly shown that constructing further affordable dwellings would be of no benefit to the local neighbourhood

It must be wrong to densely pack new houses into a green space rather than infilling within the village envelope.
The Wain Wood SSSI is already threatened by over usage by the public and any new development in close proximity will cause further damage to the SSSI.
The relevant infrastructure of services, transport and local facilities simply does not exist to support a dense new development out of character with the rest of the village.
The recent construction of 6 affordable dwellings immediately adjacent to the site has clearly shown that constructing further affordable dwellings would be of no benefit to the local neighbourhood.

Objections to Development of the Field adjoining Templars Lane "PR1"
The Wain Wood Site of Scientific Interest Impact document is a desk-based study prepared by BSG Ecology in Derbyshire (June 2016). These consultants use freely available data (mostly outdated), extrapolated averages and estimates to make their conclusions and, as such, these do not truly reflect local reality. The assessment, methodology, assumptions and conclusions are not robust. The document does not properly address the concerns raised by Natural England who commented on the Local Plan (letter dated 13 February 2013) as to 'the potential impacts that the development of the PR1 site for residential purposes will have on Wain Wood SSSI'. The allocation of housing proposed at PR1 is certain to impact upon Wain Wood SSSI.
* The credibility of the document produced by BSG Ecology can immediately be called into question by the erroneous and irrelevant reference to Royston (Section 1.1) which is 18+ miles away from the PR1 site. Another error (Section 4.1) suggests that the PR1 site (SG4 7TU) lies within the Impact Risk Zone for the Therfield Heath SSSI (SG8 9NU), 16.9 miles away (Google Maps). Presumably, these same consultants, with clearly no knowledge of North Hertfordshire or ability to research, review or check their information, were also commissioned by NHDC to provide a desk study on Local Plan proposed sites in the Royston area. How many other mistakes, errors or miscalculations are present in this document for PR1?
* It is a fact that Wain Wood SSSI already has a larger volume of human and dog traffic than is reported by BSG Ecology, who predicted visitor numbers using a 'Ramblers Association participation rate' taken from data compiled by Sports England in 2009. Walking for recreational purposes has significantly increased since 2009. Active People Surveys per local authority in England are conducted and published for Sports England every 6 months (gov.uk) and quote >50% higher rates (2014-15) than those used here. These latest figures have been ignored by the consultants who have not researched this adequately.
* A properly robust scientific survey should be undertaken on visitor and dog numbers. This should be conducted, over more than one season, to include weekdays, weekends and holidays, when children regularly use the wood for recreational purposes as can be evidenced by the numerous dens and tree swings within the wood.
* The attraction to Wain Wood SSSI by the occupants of PR1 will be high and frequent because there will then be a complete lack of green space within Preston village for recreational purposes if the PR1 site is developed for housing. Lack of green space alone will increase current footfall and activities within Wain Wood by existing villagers as well as additional occupants of the PR1 site. Furthermore, the majority of occupants are likely to be families (based upon the recently built and occupied affordable houses located adjacent to the site) and they will naturally be attracted to their nearest open space which is Wain Wood SSSI.
The green space currently at PR1 site could be used for a village green. Other green spaces in the village are a small roundabout and a cricket ground. The use of general recreation in either of these spaces is limited. The roundabout is surrounded by roads, limited in size and broken up by trees preventing ball games and general recreation. The cricket ground is in frequent use May to October and has to be maintained and is, therefore, restricted accordingly.
There are established ponds bordering the field at PR1 abundant with declining amphibians including newts, frogs and toads. The ponds, being at the border of the field, have suspicion of containing Great Crested Newts. Field surveys are needed to assess this ecosystem further.
Preston village benefits from the amenity value provided by the field at the PR1 site. The field is widely used by dog walkers, ramblers and walkers who enter the field from the public footpath and the gate in the boundary creating established paths that criss-cross in the field. The allocation of this site for residential development is likely to facilitate a Village Green Application by the local residents. In addition, some of the house owners with rear gardens backing on to the field have gates opening onto the field which has provided access to the field for generations.
The local road infrastructure within and around Preston is mainly narrow lanes rather than roads. This infrastructure would be unable to cope with the increased volume of traffic which the proposed housing development would generate. There continue to be issues with speeding without an additional 20+ cars. The road access to and from the site is mostly single carriage and is inadequate. Both Chequers Lane, leading to Templars Lane, and Butchers Lane struggle to cope with the amount of traffic using them at present and Butcher's Lane is single carriage with blind sharp bends. Widening would not only cause substantial upheaval at an enormous cost but such changes would also be destructive to the existing character of these ancient country lanes and would change the whole character of Preston Village.
All the access roads in and out of Preston have single carriage sections and are liable to flooding and snow fall leading to the village being cut off from the surrounding areas which is compounded by the absence of no Preston village shop, medical or dental practices. The roads include Preston Rd (Hitchin Rd), Charlton Road, Back Lane, St Albans Highway, School Lane, Little Almshoe Rd and Hitchwood Lane. The main access road (Preston/Hitchin road) has a steep incline close to the Preston where cars regularly get stuck in snow. Close to this inclination there is a 90 degree bend; a consistent site of cars skidding off the road into adjoining hedge and field. A few hundred yards further towards Gosmore, the road narrows to single carriage way, with another 90 degree bend at Dermal Laboratories. The narrow road continues with multiple sharp bends (site of recent fatality) to a blind cross roads where the road becomes single carriage way at the Bull Pub at Gosmore, where pedestrians become vulnerable to traffic. A few hundred yards beyond, there is regular flooding where the road has become impassable. Flooding also regularly occurs on Hitchwood Lane, close to the the B651, Almshoe Rd a few hundred yards before the B656 and Charlton Road approximately a quarter of a mile before Preston Village.
There is inadequate infrastructure in the village including no shops, no nearby medical practice, poor bus service (No 88. Luton to Hitchin between 8 am and 6 pm, 5 per weekday/4 on Saturdays and School Holidays; school children are regularly driven past and left behind because the buses are already full before they reach Preston) and inadequate sewage provision.
Since the building of 6 new dwellings adjacent to the PR1 field site, the manholes on Templars Lane are now prone to the back flooding of sewage. This is not only causing undesirable odours three times a day when sewage is pumped from the new dwellings, but also the flooding of raw sewage on to the open road is a potential public health hazard. Children have been observed playing in these puddles of raw sewage. This has continued despite quarterly rodding by professional sewer maintenance contractors.
The sewage problem has been investigated by a fully qualified experienced plumber. In the opinion of the plumber the addition of these 6 dwellings are overwhelming the current sewage capacity. The additional 21 houses will exacerbate this problem and would have the potential to cause back up of sewage to the top of Chequers lane and extending the hazard zone further.
If 35% of the new housing delivered on this site is affordable then the Council should seriously consider how sustainable this location will be for younger families who do not benefit from car ownership. A report published by University College London in July 2014 entitled 'Transport and Poverty - a review of the evidence' finds that ''lower incomes and unemployment benefits mean that the cost of owning and running a car are prohibitive for many young people (Commission for Rural Communities, 2012) and that the large distances and the higher cost of fuel in rural areas may exacerbate these barriers to travel.'' It is well evidenced that the level of car ownership of affordable housing tenants on low incomes is well below the national average and coupled with poor transport links begs the question just how sustainable is this location is for people in affordable housing to access shops, services and employment.
Furthermore, it was a struggle to fill the 6 affordable houses that were recently built adjacent to the PR1 site, with 2 being having to be converted to rented accommodation so they wouldn't remain empty. Thus, it appears that the demand for affordable housing does not exist in Preston.
The development of this site will lead to an increase in class sizes at Preston Primary School and a corresponding increase in pressure on the school's limited infrastructure. Currently 94 pupils attend the school, close to the full capacity of 100. The current year 3 /4 class size is already at full capacity. Capacity has also been a problem in the recent past where class sizes exceeded 30. Moreover, the school, which is open to children between the years of 4 - 11 has only 4 available classrooms. With Reception year children benefiting from their own classroom there are only three other classes available to service the educational needs of school years 1 to 6. This means the children are educated in mixed year groups where pupils of different school ages are educated in the same class room. Increased housing, particularly for young families will exacerbate this disadvantage to current and future pupils attending the school.
A 25% increase in dwellings in this small historic village will endanger the nature of the settlement. This increase is unsustainable and overwhelming for a village of this size. Given the high density of housing proposed for this site in comparison to the rest of the village dwellings, the unique character of Preston would be badly affected.
Much, if not all of Preston's housing demands could be met by in filling of other sites within the village development boundary. In addition there is an unsightly field adjoining Back lane, within the village envelope owned by a builder / developer. This field lies closer to the limited Preston facilities such as the school, Pub and village hall, and is further away from the SSSI than the field at PR1. Importantly, this field is not in recreational use and, in contrast to the PR1 field, is unlikely to be subjected to a potential future village green application from local residents.

RE: NORTH HERTS LOCAL PLAN 2011-2031 PRESTON LAND OFF TEMPLARS LANE PR1

I wish to put on record my objection to the plans being submitted in respect of a development in Preston - specifically the 21 properties allocated to the land off Templars Lane.

I have always favoured spreading developments around rather than in "a lump" .. whether it be a small development .. or a "New Town". If ALL villages "accepted" say 5% of their current housing for new properties then it would be unlikely that the nature of the villages would be spoilt !! With current dwellings of 175 ( a few have yet to be built within this figure) - to put a group of 21 properties in one spot is not best for the village .. the impact it will have on the one particular area will be extremely negative - and no consideration appears to have been given to "spreading the load" over the village as a whole .. there are a number of suitable alternatives around the village to get close to the figures allocated. In any case adding a further 21 properties is a greater number than I feel acceptable.

A number of properties (six) have been built in the land off Templars Lane over the last year or so .. and although the intention was that these should be "affordable housing" .. there was little interest and two had to be changed to rented properties.

Chequers Lane and Butchers Lane, the two roads that would service the Templars Lane development, are both extremely narrow and would struggle to cope with the additional traffic. Widening would not be feasible.

Infrastructure issues would also be a concern - bus services, schooling etc. and I am aware that since the six properties built off Templars Lane problems have arisen in connection with sewage.

I would ask that this proposal be withdrawn .. or at the very least substantially reduced and spread around the village.

I wish to put on record my objection to the plans being submitted in respect of a development in Preston - specifically the 21 properties allocated to the land off Templars Lane.

I have always favoured spreading developments around rather than in "a lump" .. whether it be a small development .. or a "New Town". If ALL villages "accepted" say 5% of their current housing for new properties then it would be unlikely that the nature of the villages would be spoilt !! With current dwellings of 175 ( a few have yet to be built within this figure) - to put a group of 21 properties in one spot is not best for the village .. the impact it will have on the one particular area will be extremely negative - and no consideration appears to have been given to "spreading the load" over the village as a whole .. there are a number of suitable alternatives around the village to get close to the figures allocated. In any case adding a further 21 properties is a greater number than I feel acceptable.

A number of properties (six) have been built in the land off Templars Lane over the last year or so .. and although the intention was that these should be "affordable housing" .. there was little interest and two had to be changed to rented properties.

Chequers Lane and Butchers Lane, the two roads that would service the Templars Lane development, are both extremely narrow and would struggle to cope with the additional traffic. Widening would not be feasible.

Infrastructure issues would also be a concern - bus services, schooling etc. and I am aware that since the six properties built off Templars Lane problems have arisen in connection with sewage.

I would ask that this proposal be withdrawn .. or at the very least substantially reduced and spread around the village.

I am writing to express my objection to the proposed development Site PR1 (off Templar Lane) in Preston, Herts. It is my professional opinion that the arguments put forward in support of this site are flawed and inaccurate, discrediting the new rationales put forward by NHDC. I outline these significant concerns below, and would also point out that all the previous reasons for not progressing this development remain unresolved , such as lack of infrastructure, poor travel links, and no local services. Ignoring these problems doesn't mean they have gone away.

Specifically, I would like to draw attention to the flawed and factually-incorrect document entitled "The Wain Wood Site of Scientific Interest Impact", a desk-based study prepared by BSG Ecology in Derbyshire (June 2016), apparently to rebut issues raised by Natural England. These consultants use out-dated) publically-available data of extrapolated averages and estimates to make their conclusions and, as such, these do not truly reflect local reality. The assessment, methodology, assumptions and conclusions are not robust - I say these as a Professor of Agricultural Research with over 25 years' experience in both reading and preparing scientific analyses . The BSG Ecology document does not properly address the concerns raised by Natural England who commented on the Local Plan (letter dated 13 February 2013) as to 'the potential impacts that the development of the PR1 site for residential purposes will have on Wain Wood SSSI'. Contrary to the assertion of the BSG Ecology report, the allocation of housing proposed at PR1 is certain to impact upon Wain Wood SSSI. I point out below some of the primary problems with this report.
* The credibility of the document produced by BSG Ecology can immediately be called into question by the erroneous and irrelevant reference to Royston (Section 1.1) which is 18+ miles away from the PR1 site. Another error (Section 4.1) suggests that the PR1 site (SG4 7TU) lies within the Impact Risk Zone for the Therfield Heath SSSI (SG8 9NU), 16.9 miles away (Google Maps). Presumably, these same consultants with clearly no knowledge of North Hertfordshire (or ability to research, review or check their information), were also commissioned by NHDC to provide a desk study on Local Plan proposed sites in the Royston area. How many other mistakes, errors or miscalculations are present in this document for PR1? Below are some examples, but this may not be a complete list. It is very worrying that tax-payers money was spent on such a flawed report, and equally, one must ask why no-one at NHDC checked it for accuracy.
* It is a fact that Wain Wood SSSI already has a larger volume of human and dog traffic than is reported by BSG Ecology, who predicted visitor numbers using a 'Ramblers Association participation rate' taken from data compiled by Sports England in 2009. Walking for recreational purposes has significantly increased since 2009. Active People Surveys per local authority in England are conducted and published for Sports England every 6 months (gov.uk) and quote >50% higher rates (2014-15) than those used here. These latest figures have been ignored by the consultants who have not researched this adequately.
* A properly robust scientific survey should be undertaken on visitor and dog numbers. This should be conducted, over more than one season, to include weekdays, weekends and holidays, when children regularly use the wood for recreational purposes as can be evidenced by the numerous dens and tree swings within the wood.
* The attraction to Wain Wood SSSI by the occupants of PR1 will be high and frequent because there will then be a complete lack of green space within Preston village for recreational purposes if the PR1 site is developed for housing. Lack of green space alone will increase current footfall and activities within Wain Wood by existing villagers as well as additional occupants of the PR1 site. Furthermore, the majority of occupants are likely to be families (based upon the recently built and occupied affordable houses located adjacent to the site) and they will naturally be attracted to their nearest open space which is Wain Wood SSSI.
In general, the local road infrastructure within and around Preston is mainly narrow lanes rather than roads. This infrastructure would be unable to cope with the increased volume of traffic which the proposed housing development would generate. There continue to be issues with speeding without an additional 20+ cars. The road access to and from the site is mostly single carriage and is inadequate. Both Chequers Lane, leading to Templars Lane, and Butchers Lane struggle to cope with the amount of traffic using them at present and Butcher's Lane is single carriage with blind sharp bends. Widening would not only cause substantial upheaval at an enormous cost but such changes would also be destructive to the existing character of these ancient country lanes and would change the whole character of Preston Village.
All the access roads in and out of Preston have single carriage sections and are liable to flooding and snow fall leading to the village being cut off from the surrounding areas which is compounded by the absence of no Preston village shop, medical or dental practices. The roads include Preston Rd (Hitchin Rd), Charlton Road, Back Lane, St Albans Highway, School Lane, Little Almshoe Rd and Hitchwood Lane. The main access road (Preston/Hitchin road) has a steep incline close to the Preston where cars regularly get stuck in snow. Close to this inclination there is a 90 degree bend; a consistent site of cars skidding off the road into adjoining hedge and field. A few hundred yards further towards Gosmore, the road narrows to single carriage way, with another 90 degree bend at Dermal Laboratories. The narrow road continues with multiple sharp bends (site of recent fatality) to a blind cross roads where the road becomes single carriage way at the Bull Pub at Gosmore, where pedestrians become vulnerable to traffic. A few hundred yards beyond, there is regular flooding where the road has become impassable. Flooding also regularly occurs on Hitchwood Lane, close to the the B651, Almshoe Rd a few hundred yards before the B656 and Charlton Road approximately a quarter of a mile before Preston Village.
There is inadequate infrastructure in the village including no shops, no nearby medical practice, poor bus service (No 88. Luton to Hitchin between 8 am and 6 pm, 5 per weekday/4 on Saturdays and School Holidays; school children are regularly driven past and left behind because the buses are already full before they reach Preston) and inadequate sewage provision.
Since the building of 6 new dwellings adjacent to the PR1 field site, the manholes on Templars Lane are now prone to the back flooding of sewage. This is not only causing undesirable odours three times a day when sewage is pumped from the new dwellings, but also the flooding of raw sewage on to the open road is a potential public health hazard. Children have been observed playing in these puddles of raw sewage. This has continued despite quarterly rodding by professional sewer maintenance contractors.
The sewage problem has been investigated by a fully qualified experienced plumber. In the opinion of the plumber the addition of these 6 dwellings are overwhelming the current sewage capacity. The additional 21 houses will exacerbate this problem and would have the potential to cause back up of sewage to the top of Chequers lane and extending the hazard zone further.
If 35% of the new housing delivered on this site is affordable then the Council should seriously consider how sustainable this location will be for younger families who do not benefit from car ownership. A report published by University College London in July 2014 entitled 'Transport and Poverty - a review of the evidence' finds that ''lower incomes and unemployment benefits mean that the cost of owning and running a car are prohibitive for many young people (Commission for Rural Communities, 2012) and that the large distances and the higher cost of fuel in rural areas may exacerbate these barriers to travel.'' It is well evidenced that the level of car ownership of affordable housing tenants on low incomes is well below the national average and coupled with poor transport links begs the question just how sustainable is this location is for people in affordable housing to access shops, services and employment.
Furthermore, it was a struggle to fill the 6 affordable houses that were recently built adjacent to the PR1 site, with 2 being having to be converted to rented accommodation so they wouldn't remain empty. Thus, it appears that the demand for affordable housing does not exist in Preston.
The development of this site will lead to an increase in class sizes at Preston Primary School and a corresponding increase in pressure on the school's limited infrastructure. Currently 94 pupils attend the school, close to the full capacity of 100. The current year 3 /4 class size is already at full capacity. Capacity has also been a problem in the recent past where class sizes exceeded 30. Moreover, the school, which is open to children between the years of 4 - 11 has only 4 available classrooms. With Reception year children benefiting from their own classroom there are only three other classes available to service the educational needs of school years 1 to 6. This means the children are educated in mixed year groups where pupils of different school ages are educated in the same class room. Increased housing, particularly for young families will exacerbate this disadvantage to current and future pupils attending the school.
A 25% increase in dwellings in this small historic village will endanger the nature of the settlement. This increase is unsustainable and overwhelming for a village of this size. Given the high density of housing proposed for this site in comparison to the rest of the village dwellings, the unique character of Preston would be badly affected.
Much, if not all of Preston's housing demands could be met by in filling of other sites within the village development boundary. In addition there is an unsightly field adjoining Back lane, within the village envelope owned by a builder / developer. This field lies closer to the limited Preston facilities such as the school, Pub and village hall, and is further away from the SSSI than the field at PR1. Importantly, this field is not in recreational use and, in contrast to the PR1 field, is unlikely to be subjected to a potential future village green application from local residents. It is puzzling that this site is not considered as an option.

I object to this development if it would require road widening for Butchers Lane which would ruin the local village environment and change the peaceful setting where our house is located.

I strongly object to the proposal detailed in the plan PR1. There are many detrimental affects this would have on the village and the inhabitants here. My key concerns are the increase in residents. The infrastructure is already under strain with school children sometimes unable to get a place on the bus in the morning to school because it's over subscribed. The roads are already busy, sometimes treacherous and littered with pot-holes from insufficient investment.

The boundary of the village should not be changed and there should be no more housing within the village.

I wish to object to the zoning of the field adjoining Templars Lane "PR1" as suitable for 21 houses.
You will have received a paper entitled "Objections to Development of the Field adjoining Templars Lane"PR1" I support the reasons put forward in this.

I am writing to you to say that I wish to object to the proposal that the Field adjoining Templars Lane "PR1" be zoned as suitable for 21 new houses.

You have received a document headed "Objections to Development of the Field adjoining Templars Lane"PR1" giving reasons for opposing this and I support the reasoning in this document.

Objection to development of the field adjoining Templars Lane 'PR1'

I would like to express the following concerns over the development of the field adjoining Templars Lane which lead me to believe that building houses there is not a reasonable option for the village of Preston and its residents.
6 houses were built adjacent to PR1 just over a year ago and since then we have had numerous problems with the flooding back of sewerage which causes undesirable odours when the sewerage is pumped from the 6 new dwellings. An increase in the sewerage pumped (from the proposed new housing) may result in the further flooding of raw sewerage onto an open road which would create a public health hazard.
There is inadequate infrastructure in the village including no shops, no nearby medical practice and a poor bus service (my daughter continues to struggle to get to her school due to the no 88 being over loaded). Furthermore, the roads giving access to the proposed development (which would be used by the new residents) are struggling with the current traffic that passes down Chequers Lane and Butchers Lane. There is very little off road parking towards the opening of Chequers lane which results in cars being regularly parked outside 1-6 Chequers Cottages. As there is no foot path, all residents (and ramblers) are forced to walk in the road, around the parked cars which can prove very dangerous. There is no street lighting which adds to the problem at night and on winter evenings especially for children returning home on the bus from The Priory and Hitchin Girls' and Boys' school (the school bus returns at 16.30, when it is dark). The building of 21 family homes would potentially increase the number of vehicles using this narrow road by 42 (2 per household); 42 vehicles using this part of the road (the other entrance at Butchers Lane is even more dangerous, see later comments)would add significantly to the risk of serious injury to anyone walking down Chequers Lane.
Butchers Lane (the other end of Chequers Lane) is a single track road with many blind corners and no passing spaces. This road would become very dangerous if the amount of traffic was increased, particularly at the peak times of going to work and returning and school collection times. The new residents would be forced to use their vehicles to get to work as there is no local shop or prospect of employment in the village.
In addition, it was clearly a struggle to fill the 6 houses that were recently build adjacent to the PR1 site, with 2 having to be converted to rented accommodation so they would not remain empty and one remaining empty for over a year. Thus, it appears that a demand for housing (even affordable) does not exist in Preston.
The area of land designated for the new housing could be put to much better use. The village does not have a designated village green which means that open space for community events is limited. The current use of the roundabout by the village pub for village events is on the busiest junction of the village making it an undesirable spot to encourage a high volume of foot fall particularly that of young children.

The Wain Wood Site of Scientific Interest Impact document is a desk-based study prepared by BSG Ecology in Derbyshire (June 2016). These consultants use freely available data (mostly outdated), extrapolated averages and estimates to make their conclusions and, as such, these do not truly reflect local reality. The assessment, methodology, assumptions and conclusions are not robust. The document does not properly address the concerns raised by Natural England who commented on the Local Plan (letter dated 13 February 2013) as to 'the potential impacts that the development of the PR1 site for residential purposes will have on Wain Wood SSSI'. The allocation of housing proposed at PR1 is certain to impact upon Wain Wood SSSI.
* The credibility of the document produced by BSG Ecology can immediately be called into question by the erroneous and irrelevant reference to Royston (Section 1.1) which is 18+ miles away from the PR1 site. Another error (Section 4.1) suggests that the PR1 site (SG4 7TU) lies within the Impact Risk Zone for the Therfield Heath SSSI (SG8 9NU), 16.9 miles away (Google Maps). Presumably, these same consultants, with clearly no knowledge of North Hertfordshire or ability to research, review or check their information, were also commissioned by NHDC to provide a desk study on Local Plan proposed sites in the Royston area. How many other mistakes, errors or miscalculations are present in this document for PR1?
* It is a fact that Wain Wood SSSI already has a larger volume of human and dog traffic than is reported by BSG Ecology, who predicted visitor numbers using a 'Ramblers Association participation rate' taken from data compiled by Sports England in 2009. Walking for recreational purposes has significantly increased since 2009. Active People Surveys per local authority in England are conducted and published for Sports England every 6 months (gov.uk) and quote >50% higher rates (2014-15) than those used here. These latest figures have been ignored by the consultants who have not researched this adequately.
* A properly robust scientific survey should be undertaken on visitor and dog numbers. This should be conducted, over more than one season, to include weekdays, weekends and holidays, when children regularly use the wood for recreational purposes as can be evidenced by the numerous dens and tree swings within the wood.
* The attraction to Wain Wood SSSI by the occupants of PR1 will be high and frequent because there will then be a complete lack of green space within Preston village for recreational purposes if the PR1 site is developed for housing. Lack of green space alone will increase current footfall and activities within Wain Wood by existing villagers as well as additional occupants of the PR1 site. Furthermore, the majority of occupants are likely to be families (based upon the recently built and occupied affordable houses located adjacent to the site) and they will naturally be attracted to their nearest open space which is Wain Wood SSSI.
The green space currently at PR1 site could be used for a village green. Other green spaces in the village are a small roundabout and a cricket ground. The use of general recreation in either of these spaces is limited. The roundabout is surrounded by roads, limited in size and broken up by trees preventing ball games and general recreation. The cricket ground is in frequent use May to October and has to be maintained and is, therefore, restricted accordingly.
There are established ponds bordering the field at PR1 abundant with declining amphibians including newts, frogs and toads. The ponds, being at the border of the field, have suspicion of containing Great Crested Newts. Field surveys are needed to assess this ecosystem further.
Preston village benefits from the amenity value provided by the field at the PR1 site. The field is widely used by dog walkers, ramblers and walkers who enter the field from the public footpath and the gate in the boundary creating established paths that criss-cross in the field. The allocation of this site for residential development is likely to facilitate a Village Green Application by the local residents. In addition, some of the house owners with rear gardens backing on to the field have gates opening onto the field which has provided access to the field for generations.
The local road infrastructure within and around Preston is mainly narrow lanes rather than roads. This infrastructure would be unable to cope with the increased volume of traffic which the proposed housing development would generate. There continue to be issues with speeding without an additional 20+ cars. The road access to and from the site is mostly single carriage and is inadequate. Both Chequers Lane, leading to Templars Lane, and Butchers Lane struggle to cope with the amount of traffic using them at present and Butcher's Lane is single carriage with blind sharp bends. Widening would not only cause substantial upheaval at an enormous cost but such changes would also be destructive to the existing character of these ancient country lanes and would change the whole character of Preston Village.
All the access roads in and out of Preston have single carriage sections and are liable to flooding and snow fall leading to the village being cut off from the surrounding areas which is compounded by the absence of no Preston village shop, medical or dental practices. The roads include Preston Rd (Hitchin Rd), Charlton Road, Back Lane, St Albans Highway, School Lane, Little Almshoe Rd and Hitchwood Lane. The main access road (Preston/Hitchin road) has a steep incline close to the Preston where cars regularly get stuck in snow. Close to this inclination there is a 90 degree bend; a consistent site of cars skidding off the road into adjoining hedge and field. A few hundred yards further towards Gosmore, the road narrows to single carriage way, with another 90 degree bend at Dermal Laboratories. The narrow road continues with multiple sharp bends (site of recent fatality) to a blind cross roads where the road becomes single carriage way at the Bull Pub at Gosmore, where pedestrians become vulnerable to traffic. A few hundred yards beyond, there is regular flooding where the road has become impassable. Flooding also regularly occurs on Hitchwood Lane, close to the the B651, Almshoe Rd a few hundred yards before the B656 and Charlton Road approximately a quarter of a mile before Preston Village.
There is inadequate infrastructure in the village including no shops, no nearby medical practice, poor bus service (No 88. Luton to Hitchin between 8 am and 6 pm, 5 per weekday/4 on Saturdays and School Holidays; school children are regularly driven past and left behind because the buses are already full before they reach Preston) and inadequate sewage provision.
Since the building of 6 new dwellings adjacent to the PR1 field site, the manholes on Templars Lane are now prone to the back flooding of sewage. This is not only causing undesirable odours three times a day when sewage is pumped from the new dwellings, but also the flooding of raw sewage on to the open road is a potential public health hazard. Children have been observed playing in these puddles of raw sewage. This has continued despite quarterly rodding by professional sewer maintenance contractors.
The sewage problem has been investigated by a fully qualified experienced plumber. In the opinion of the plumber the addition of these 6 dwellings are overwhelming the current sewage capacity. The additional 21 houses will exacerbate this problem and would have the potential to cause back up of sewage to the top of Chequers lane and extending the hazard zone further.
If 35% of the new housing delivered on this site is affordable then the Council should seriously consider how sustainable this location will be for younger families who do not benefit from car ownership. A report published by University College London in July 2014 entitled 'Transport and Poverty - a review of the evidence' finds that ''lower incomes and unemployment benefits mean that the cost of owning and running a car are prohibitive for many young people (Commission for Rural Communities, 2012) and that the large distances and the higher cost of fuel in rural areas may exacerbate these barriers to travel.'' It is well evidenced that the level of car ownership of affordable housing tenants on low incomes is well below the national average and coupled with poor transport links begs the question just how sustainable is this location is for people in affordable housing to access shops, services and employment.
Furthermore, it was a struggle to fill the 6 affordable houses that were recently built adjacent to the PR1 site, with 2 being having to be converted to rented accommodation so they wouldn't remain empty. Thus, it appears that the demand for affordable housing does not exist in Preston.
The development of this site will lead to an increase in class sizes at Preston Primary School and a corresponding increase in pressure on the school's limited infrastructure. Currently 94 pupils attend the school, close to the full capacity of 100. The current year 3 /4 class size is already at full capacity. Capacity has also been a problem in the recent past where class sizes exceeded 30. Moreover, the school, which is open to children between the years of 4 - 11 has only 4 available classrooms. With Reception year children benefiting from their own classroom there are only three other classes available to service the educational needs of school years 1 to 6. This means the children are educated in mixed year groups where pupils of different school ages are educated in the same class room. Increased housing, particularly for young families will exacerbate this disadvantage to current and future pupils attending the school.
A 25% increase in dwellings in this small historic village will endanger the nature of the settlement. This increase is unsustainable and overwhelming for a village of this size. Given the high density of housing proposed for this site in comparison to the rest of the village dwellings, the unique character of Preston would be badly affected.
Much, if not all of Preston's housing demands could be met by in filling of other sites within the village development boundary. In addition there is an unsightly field adjoining Back lane, within the village envelope owned by a builder / developer. This field lies closer to the limited Preston facilities such as the school, Pub and village hall, and is further away from the SSSI than the field at PR1. Importantly, this field is not in recreational use and, in contrast to the PR1 field, is unlikely to be subjected to a potential future village green application from local residents.

Objections to Development of the Field adjoining Templars Lane "PR1"
The Wain Wood Site of Scientific Interest Impact document is a desk-based study prepared by BSG Ecology in Derbyshire (June 2016). These consultants use freely available data (mostly outdated), extrapolated averages and estimates to make their conclusions and, as such, these do not truly reflect local reality. The assessment, methodology, assumptions and conclusions are not robust. The document does not properly address the concerns raised by Natural England who commented on the Local Plan (letter dated 13 February 2013) as to 'the potential impacts that the development of the PR1 site for residential purposes will have on Wain Wood SSSI'. The allocation of housing proposed at PR1 is certain to impact upon Wain Wood SSSI.
* The credibility of the document produced by BSG Ecology can immediately be called into question by the erroneous and irrelevant reference to Royston (Section 1.1) which is 18+ miles away from the PR1 site. Another error (Section 4.1) suggests that the PR1 site (SG4 7TU) lies within the Impact Risk Zone for the Therfield Heath SSSI (SG8 9NU), 16.9 miles away (Google Maps). Presumably, these same consultants, with clearly no knowledge of North Hertfordshire or ability to research, review or check their information, were also commissioned by NHDC to provide a desk study on Local Plan proposed sites in the Royston area. How many other mistakes, errors or miscalculations are present in this document for PR1?
* It is a fact that Wain Wood SSSI already has a larger volume of human and dog traffic than is reported by BSG Ecology, who predicted visitor numbers using a 'Ramblers Association participation rate' taken from data compiled by Sports England in 2009. Walking for recreational purposes has significantly increased since 2009. Active People Surveys per local authority in England are conducted and published for Sports England every 6 months (gov.uk) and quote >50% higher rates (2014-15) than those used here. These latest figures have been ignored by the consultants who have not researched this adequately.
* A properly robust scientific survey should be undertaken on visitor and dog numbers. This should be conducted, over more than one season, to include weekdays, weekends and holidays, when children regularly use the wood for recreational purposes as can be evidenced by the numerous dens and tree swings within the wood.
* The attraction to Wain Wood SSSI by the occupants of PR1 will be high and frequent because there will then be a complete lack of green space within Preston village for recreational purposes if the PR1 site is developed for housing. Lack of green space alone will increase current footfall and activities within Wain Wood by existing villagers as well as additional occupants of the PR1 site. Furthermore, the majority of occupants are likely to be families (based upon the recently built and occupied affordable houses located adjacent to the site) and they will naturally be attracted to their nearest open space which is Wain Wood SSSI.
The green space currently at PR1 site could be used for a village green. Other green spaces in the village are a small roundabout and a cricket ground. The use of general recreation in either of these spaces is limited. The roundabout is surrounded by roads, limited in size and broken up by trees preventing ball games and general recreation. The cricket ground is in frequent use May to October and has to be maintained and is, therefore, restricted accordingly.
There are established ponds bordering the field at PR1 abundant with declining amphibians including newts, frogs and toads. The ponds, being at the border of the field, have suspicion of containing Great Crested Newts. Field surveys are needed to assess this ecosystem further.
Preston village benefits from the amenity value provided by the field at the PR1 site. The field is widely used by dog walkers, ramblers and walkers who enter the field from the public footpath and the gate in the boundary creating established paths that criss-cross in the field. The allocation of this site for residential development is likely to facilitate a Village Green Application by the local residents. In addition, some of the house owners with rear gardens backing on to the field have gates opening onto the field which has provided access to the field for generations.
The local road infrastructure within and around Preston is mainly narrow lanes rather than roads. This infrastructure would be unable to cope with the increased volume of traffic which the proposed housing development would generate. There continue to be issues with speeding without an additional 20+ cars. The road access to and from the site is mostly single carriage and is inadequate. Both Chequers Lane, leading to Templars Lane, and Butchers Lane struggle to cope with the amount of traffic using them at present and Butcher's Lane is single carriage with blind sharp bends. Widening would not only cause substantial upheaval at an enormous cost but such changes would also be destructive to the existing character of these ancient country lanes and would change the whole character of Preston Village.
All the access roads in and out of Preston have single carriage sections and are liable to flooding and snow fall leading to the village being cut off from the surrounding areas which is compounded by the absence of no Preston village shop, medical or dental practices. The roads include Preston Rd (Hitchin Rd), Charlton Road, Back Lane, St Albans Highway, School Lane, Little Almshoe Rd and Hitchwood Lane. The main access road (Preston/Hitchin road) has a steep incline close to the Preston where cars regularly get stuck in snow. Close to this inclination there is a 90 degree bend; a consistent site of cars skidding off the road into adjoining hedge and field. A few hundred yards further towards Gosmore, the road narrows to single carriage way, with another 90 degree bend at Dermal Laboratories. The narrow road continues with multiple sharp bends (site of recent fatality) to a blind cross roads where the road becomes single carriage way at the Bull Pub at Gosmore, where pedestrians become vulnerable to traffic. A few hundred yards beyond, there is regular flooding where the road has become impassable. Flooding also regularly occurs on Hitchwood Lane, close to the the B651, Almshoe Rd a few hundred yards before the B656 and Charlton Road approximately a quarter of a mile before Preston Village.
There is inadequate infrastructure in the village including no shops, no nearby medical practice, poor bus service (No 88. Luton to Hitchin between 8 am and 6 pm, 5 per weekday/4 on Saturdays and School Holidays; school children are regularly driven past and left behind because the buses are already full before they reach Preston) and inadequate sewage provision.
Since the building of 6 new dwellings adjacent to the PR1 field site, the manholes on Templars Lane are now prone to the back flooding of sewage. This is not only causing undesirable odours three times a day when sewage is pumped from the new dwellings, but also the flooding of raw sewage on to the open road is a potential public health hazard. Children have been observed playing in these puddles of raw sewage. This has continued despite quarterly rodding by professional sewer maintenance contractors.
The sewage problem has been investigated by a fully qualified experienced plumber. In the opinion of the plumber the addition of these 6 dwellings are overwhelming the current sewage capacity. The additional 21 houses will exacerbate this problem and would have the potential to cause back up of sewage to the top of Chequers lane and extending the hazard zone further.
If 35% of the new housing delivered on this site is affordable then the Council should seriously consider how sustainable this location will be for younger families who do not benefit from car ownership. A report published by University College London in July 2014 entitled 'Transport and Poverty - a review of the evidence' finds that ''lower incomes and unemployment benefits mean that the cost of owning and running a car are prohibitive for many young people (Commission for Rural Communities, 2012) and that the large distances and the higher cost of fuel in rural areas may exacerbate these barriers to travel.'' It is well evidenced that the level of car ownership of affordable housing tenants on low incomes is well below the national average and coupled with poor transport links begs the question just how sustainable is this location is for people in affordable housing to access shops, services and employment.
Furthermore, it was a struggle to fill the 6 affordable houses that were recently built adjacent to the PR1 site, with 2 being having to be converted to rented accommodation so they wouldn't remain empty. Thus, it appears that the demand for affordable housing does not exist in Preston.
The development of this site will lead to an increase in class sizes at Preston Primary School and a corresponding increase in pressure on the school's limited infrastructure. Currently 94 pupils attend the school, close to the full capacity of 100. The current year 3 /4 class size is already at full capacity. Capacity has also been a problem in the recent past where class sizes exceeded 30. Moreover, the school, which is open to children between the years of 4 - 11 has only 4 available classrooms. With Reception year children benefiting from their own classroom there are only three other classes available to service the educational needs of school years 1 to 6. This means the children are educated in mixed year groups where pupils of different school ages are educated in the same class room. Increased housing, particularly for young families will exacerbate this disadvantage to current and future pupils attending the school.
A 25% increase in dwellings in this small historic village will endanger the nature of the settlement. This increase is unsustainable and overwhelming for a village of this size. Given the high density of housing proposed for this site in comparison to the rest of the village dwellings, the unique character of Preston would be badly affected.
Much, if not all of Preston's housing demands could be met by in filling of other sites within the village development boundary. In addition there is an unsightly field adjoining Back lane, within the village envelope owned by a builder / developer. This field lies closer to the limited Preston facilities such as the school, Pub and village hall, and is further away from the SSSI than the field at PR1. Importantly, this field is not in recreational use and, in contrast to the PR1 field, is unlikely to be subjected to a potential future village green application from local residents.

Objections to Development of the Field adjoining Templars Lane "PR1"
The Wain Wood Site of Scientific Interest Impact document is a desk-based study prepared by BSG Ecology in Derbyshire (June 2016). These consultants use freely available data (mostly outdated), extrapolated averages and estimates to make their conclusions and, as such, these do not truly reflect local reality. The assessment, methodology, assumptions and conclusions are not robust. The document does not properly address the concerns raised by Natural England who commented on the Local Plan (letter dated 13 February 2013) as to 'the potential impacts that the development of the PR1 site for residential purposes will have on Wain Wood SSSI'. The allocation of housing proposed at PR1 is certain to impact upon Wain Wood SSSI.
* The credibility of the document produced by BSG Ecology can immediately be called into question by the erroneous and irrelevant reference to Royston (Section 1.1) which is 18+ miles away from the PR1 site. Another error (Section 4.1) suggests that the PR1 site (SG4 7TU) lies within the Impact Risk Zone for the Therfield Heath SSSI (SG8 9NU), 16.9 miles away (Google Maps). Presumably, these same consultants, with clearly no knowledge of North Hertfordshire or ability to research, review or check their information, were also commissioned by NHDC to provide a desk study on Local Plan proposed sites in the Royston area. How many other mistakes, errors or miscalculations are present in this document for PR1?
* It is a fact that Wain Wood SSSI already has a larger volume of human and dog traffic than is reported by BSG Ecology, who predicted visitor numbers using a 'Ramblers Association participation rate' taken from data compiled by Sports England in 2009. Walking for recreational purposes has significantly increased since 2009. Active People Surveys per local authority in England are conducted and published for Sports England every 6 months (gov.uk) and quote >50% higher rates (2014-15) than those used here. These latest figures have been ignored by the consultants who have not researched this adequately.
* A properly robust scientific survey should be undertaken on visitor and dog numbers. This should be conducted, over more than one season, to include weekdays, weekends and holidays, when children regularly use the wood for recreational purposes as can be evidenced by the numerous dens and tree swings within the wood.
* The attraction to Wain Wood SSSI by the occupants of PR1 will be high and frequent because there will then be a complete lack of green space within Preston village for recreational purposes if the PR1 site is developed for housing. Lack of green space alone will increase current footfall and activities within Wain Wood by existing villagers as well as additional occupants of the PR1 site. Furthermore, the majority of occupants are likely to be families (based upon the recently built and occupied affordable houses located adjacent to the site) and they will naturally be attracted to their nearest open space which is Wain Wood SSSI.
The green space currently at PR1 site could be used for a village green. Other green spaces in the village are a small roundabout and a cricket ground. The use of general recreation in either of these spaces is limited. The roundabout is surrounded by roads, limited in size and broken up by trees preventing ball games and general recreation. The cricket ground is in frequent use May to October and has to be maintained and is, therefore, restricted accordingly.
There are established ponds bordering the field at PR1 abundant with declining amphibians including newts, frogs and toads. The ponds, being at the border of the field, have suspicion of containing Great Crested Newts. Field surveys are needed to assess this ecosystem further.
Preston village benefits from the amenity value provided by the field at the PR1 site. The field is widely used by dog walkers, ramblers and walkers who enter the field from the public footpath and the gate in the boundary creating established paths that criss-cross in the field. The allocation of this site for residential development is likely to facilitate a Village Green Application by the local residents. In addition, some of the house owners with rear gardens backing on to the field have gates opening onto the field which has provided access to the field for generations.
The local road infrastructure within and around Preston is mainly narrow lanes rather than roads. This infrastructure would be unable to cope with the increased volume of traffic which the proposed housing development would generate. There continue to be issues with speeding without an additional 20+ cars. The road access to and from the site is mostly single carriage and is inadequate. Both Chequers Lane, leading to Templars Lane, and Butchers Lane struggle to cope with the amount of traffic using them at present and Butcher's Lane is single carriage with blind sharp bends. Widening would not only cause substantial upheaval at an enormous cost but such changes would also be destructive to the existing character of these ancient country lanes and would change the whole character of Preston Village.
All the access roads in and out of Preston have single carriage sections and are liable to flooding and snow fall leading to the village being cut off from the surrounding areas which is compounded by the absence of no Preston village shop, medical or dental practices. The roads include Preston Rd (Hitchin Rd), Charlton Road, Back Lane, St Albans Highway, School Lane, Little Almshoe Rd and Hitchwood Lane. The main access road (Preston/Hitchin road) has a steep incline close to the Preston where cars regularly get stuck in snow. Close to this inclination there is a 90 degree bend; a consistent site of cars skidding off the road into adjoining hedge and field. A few hundred yards further towards Gosmore, the road narrows to single carriage way, with another 90 degree bend at Dermal Laboratories. The narrow road continues with multiple sharp bends (site of recent fatality) to a blind cross roads where the road becomes single carriage way at the Bull Pub at Gosmore, where pedestrians become vulnerable to traffic. A few hundred yards beyond, there is regular flooding where the road has become impassable. Flooding also regularly occurs on Hitchwood Lane, close to the the B651, Almshoe Rd a few hundred yards before the B656 and Charlton Road approximately a quarter of a mile before Preston Village.
There is inadequate infrastructure in the village including no shops, no nearby medical practice, poor bus service (No 88. Luton to Hitchin between 8 am and 6 pm, 5 per weekday/4 on Saturdays and School Holidays; school children are regularly driven past and left behind because the buses are already full before they reach Preston) and inadequate sewage provision.
Since the building of 6 new dwellings adjacent to the PR1 field site, the manholes on Templars Lane are now prone to the back flooding of sewage. This is not only causing undesirable odours three times a day when sewage is pumped from the new dwellings, but also the flooding of raw sewage on to the open road is a potential public health hazard. Children have been observed playing in these puddles of raw sewage. This has continued despite quarterly rodding by professional sewer maintenance contractors.
The sewage problem has been investigated by a fully qualified experienced plumber. In the opinion of the plumber the addition of these 6 dwellings are overwhelming the current sewage capacity. The additional 21 houses will exacerbate this problem and would have the potential to cause back up of sewage to the top of Chequers lane and extending the hazard zone further.
If 35% of the new housing delivered on this site is affordable then the Council should seriously consider how sustainable this location will be for younger families who do not benefit from car ownership. A report published by University College London in July 2014 entitled 'Transport and Poverty - a review of the evidence' finds that ''lower incomes and unemployment benefits mean that the cost of owning and running a car are prohibitive for many young people (Commission for Rural Communities, 2012) and that the large distances and the higher cost of fuel in rural areas may exacerbate these barriers to travel.'' It is well evidenced that the level of car ownership of affordable housing tenants on low incomes is well below the national average and coupled with poor transport links begs the question just how sustainable is this location is for people in affordable housing to access shops, services and employment.
Furthermore, it was a struggle to fill the 6 affordable houses that were recently built adjacent to the PR1 site, with 2 being having to be converted to rented accommodation so they wouldn't remain empty. Thus, it appears that the demand for affordable housing does not exist in Preston.
The development of this site will lead to an increase in class sizes at Preston Primary School and a corresponding increase in pressure on the school's limited infrastructure. Currently 94 pupils attend the school, close to the full capacity of 100. The current year 3 /4 class size is already at full capacity. Capacity has also been a problem in the recent past where class sizes exceeded 30. Moreover, the school, which is open to children between the years of 4 - 11 has only 4 available classrooms. With Reception year children benefiting from their own classroom there are only three other classes available to service the educational needs of school years 1 to 6. This means the children are educated in mixed year groups where pupils of different school ages are educated in the same class room. Increased housing, particularly for young families will exacerbate this disadvantage to current and future pupils attending the school.
A 25% increase in dwellings in this small historic village will endanger the nature of the settlement. This increase is unsustainable and overwhelming for a village of this size. Given the high density of housing proposed for this site in comparison to the rest of the village dwellings, the unique character of Preston would be badly affected.
Much, if not all of Preston's housing demands could be met by in filling of other sites within the village development boundary. In addition there is an unsightly field adjoining Back lane, within the village envelope owned by a builder / developer. This field lies closer to the limited Preston facilities such as the school, Pub and village hall, and is further away from the SSSI than the field at PR1. Importantly, this field is not in recreational use and, in contrast to the PR1 field, is unlikely to be subjected to a potential future village green application from local residents.

Objections to Development of the Field adjoining Templars Lane "PR1"
The Wain Wood Site of Scientific Interest Impact document is a desk-based study prepared by BSG Ecology in Derbyshire (June 2016). These consultants use freely available data (mostly outdated), extrapolated averages and estimates to make their conclusions and, as such, these do not truly reflect local reality. The assessment, methodology, assumptions and conclusions are not robust. The document does not properly address the concerns raised by Natural England who commented on the Local Plan (letter dated 13 February 2013) as to 'the potential impacts that the development of the PR1 site for residential purposes will have on Wain Wood SSSI'. The allocation of housing proposed at PR1 is certain to impact upon Wain Wood SSSI.
* The credibility of the document produced by BSG Ecology can immediately be called into question by the erroneous and irrelevant reference to Royston (Section 1.1) which is 18+ miles away from the PR1 site. Another error (Section 4.1) suggests that the PR1 site (SG4 7TU) lies within the Impact Risk Zone for the Therfield Heath SSSI (SG8 9NU), 16.9 miles away (Google Maps). Presumably, these same consultants, with clearly no knowledge of North Hertfordshire or ability to research, review or check their information, were also commissioned by NHDC to provide a desk study on Local Plan proposed sites in the Royston area. How many other mistakes, errors or miscalculations are present in this document for PR1?
* It is a fact that Wain Wood SSSI already has a larger volume of human and dog traffic than is reported by BSG Ecology, who predicted visitor numbers using a 'Ramblers Association participation rate' taken from data compiled by Sports England in 2009. Walking for recreational purposes has significantly increased since 2009. Active People Surveys per local authority in England are conducted and published for Sports England every 6 months (gov.uk) and quote >50% higher rates (2014-15) than those used here. These latest figures have been ignored by the consultants who have not researched this adequately.
* A properly robust scientific survey should be undertaken on visitor and dog numbers. This should be conducted, over more than one season, to include weekdays, weekends and holidays, when children regularly use the wood for recreational purposes as can be evidenced by the numerous dens and tree swings within the wood.
* The attraction to Wain Wood SSSI by the occupants of PR1 will be high and frequent because there will then be a complete lack of green space within Preston village for recreational purposes if the PR1 site is developed for housing. Lack of green space alone will increase current footfall and activities within Wain Wood by existing villagers as well as additional occupants of the PR1 site. Furthermore, the majority of occupants are likely to be families (based upon the recently built and occupied affordable houses located adjacent to the site) and they will naturally be attracted to their nearest open space which is Wain Wood SSSI.
The green space currently at PR1 site could be used for a village green. Other green spaces in the village are a small roundabout and a cricket ground. The use of general recreation in either of these spaces is limited. The roundabout is surrounded by roads, limited in size and broken up by trees preventing ball games and general recreation. The cricket ground is in frequent use May to October and has to be maintained and is, therefore, restricted accordingly.
There are established ponds bordering the field at PR1 abundant with declining amphibians including newts, frogs and toads. The ponds, being at the border of the field, have suspicion of containing Great Crested Newts. Field surveys are needed to assess this ecosystem further.
Preston village benefits from the amenity value provided by the field at the PR1 site. The field is widely used by dog walkers, ramblers and walkers who enter the field from the public footpath and the gate in the boundary creating established paths that criss-cross in the field. The allocation of this site for residential development is likely to facilitate a Village Green Application by the local residents. In addition, some of the house owners with rear gardens backing on to the field have gates opening onto the field which has provided access to the field for generations.
The local road infrastructure within and around Preston is mainly narrow lanes rather than roads. This infrastructure would be unable to cope with the increased volume of traffic which the proposed housing development would generate. There continue to be issues with speeding without an additional 20+ cars. The road access to and from the site is mostly single carriage and is inadequate. Both Chequers Lane, leading to Templars Lane, and Butchers Lane struggle to cope with the amount of traffic using them at present and Butcher's Lane is single carriage with blind sharp bends. Widening would not only cause substantial upheaval at an enormous cost but such changes would also be destructive to the existing character of these ancient country lanes and would change the whole character of Preston Village.
All the access roads in and out of Preston have single carriage sections and are liable to flooding and snow fall leading to the village being cut off from the surrounding areas which is compounded by the absence of no Preston village shop, medical or dental practices. The roads include Preston Rd (Hitchin Rd), Charlton Road, Back Lane, St Albans Highway, School Lane, Little Almshoe Rd and Hitchwood Lane. The main access road (Preston/Hitchin road) has a steep incline close to the Preston where cars regularly get stuck in snow. Close to this inclination there is a 90 degree bend; a consistent site of cars skidding off the road into adjoining hedge and field. A few hundred yards further towards Gosmore, the road narrows to single carriage way, with another 90 degree bend at Dermal Laboratories. The narrow road continues with multiple sharp bends (site of recent fatality) to a blind cross roads where the road becomes single carriage way at the Bull Pub at Gosmore, where pedestrians become vulnerable to traffic. A few hundred yards beyond, there is regular flooding where the road has become impassable. Flooding also regularly occurs on Hitchwood Lane, close to the the B651, Almshoe Rd a few hundred yards before the B656 and Charlton Road approximately a quarter of a mile before Preston Village.
There is inadequate infrastructure in the village including no shops, no nearby medical practice, poor bus service (No 88. Luton to Hitchin between 8 am and 6 pm, 5 per weekday/4 on Saturdays and School Holidays; school children are regularly driven past and left behind because the buses are already full before they reach Preston) and inadequate sewage provision.
Since the building of 6 new dwellings adjacent to the PR1 field site, the manholes on Templars Lane are now prone to the back flooding of sewage. This is not only causing undesirable odours three times a day when sewage is pumped from the new dwellings, but also the flooding of raw sewage on to the open road is a potential public health hazard. Children have been observed playing in these puddles of raw sewage. This has continued despite quarterly rodding by professional sewer maintenance contractors.
The sewage problem has been investigated by a fully qualified experienced plumber. In the opinion of the plumber the addition of these 6 dwellings are overwhelming the current sewage capacity. The additional 21 houses will exacerbate this problem and would have the potential to cause back up of sewage to the top of Chequers lane and extending the hazard zone further.
If 35% of the new housing delivered on this site is affordable then the Council should seriously consider how sustainable this location will be for younger families who do not benefit from car ownership. A report published by University College London in July 2014 entitled 'Transport and Poverty - a review of the evidence' finds that ''lower incomes and unemployment benefits mean that the cost of owning and running a car are prohibitive for many young people (Commission for Rural Communities, 2012) and that the large distances and the higher cost of fuel in rural areas may exacerbate these barriers to travel.'' It is well evidenced that the level of car ownership of affordable housing tenants on low incomes is well below the national average and coupled with poor transport links begs the question just how sustainable is this location is for people in affordable housing to access shops, services and employment.
Furthermore, it was a struggle to fill the 6 affordable houses that were recently built adjacent to the PR1 site, with 2 being having to be converted to rented accommodation so they wouldn't remain empty. Thus, it appears that the demand for affordable housing does not exist in Preston.
The development of this site will lead to an increase in class sizes at Preston Primary School and a corresponding increase in pressure on the school's limited infrastructure. Currently 94 pupils attend the school, close to the full capacity of 100. The current year 3 /4 class size is already at full capacity. Capacity has also been a problem in the recent past where class sizes exceeded 30. Moreover, the school, which is open to children between the years of 4 - 11 has only 4 available classrooms. With Reception year children benefiting from their own classroom there are only three other classes available to service the educational needs of school years 1 to 6. This means the children are educated in mixed year groups where pupils of different school ages are educated in the same class room. Increased housing, particularly for young families will exacerbate this disadvantage to current and future pupils attending the school.
A 25% increase in dwellings in this small historic village will endanger the nature of the settlement. This increase is unsustainable and overwhelming for a village of this size. Given the high density of housing proposed for this site in comparison to the rest of the village dwellings, the unique character of Preston would be badly affected.
Much, if not all of Preston's housing demands could be met by in filling of other sites within the village development boundary. In addition there is an unsightly field adjoining Back lane, within the village envelope owned by a builder / developer. This field lies closer to the limited Preston facilities such as the school, Pub and village hall, and is further away from the SSSI than the field at PR1. Importantly, this field is not in recreational use and, in contrast to the PR1 field, is unlikely to be subjected to a potential future village green application from local residents.

See attached