Policy PNP 2 - Design and Character

Showing comments and forms 1 to 10 of 10

Support

Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2031

Representation ID: 5538

Received: 05/03/2017

Respondent: Dr Davina Ross-Anderson

Representation:

I agree

Full text:

I agree

Support

Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2031

Representation ID: 5847

Received: 22/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Parkin

Representation:

Criteria proposed are good.
The development by Howard Homes Housing association exemplifies what we are looking for.

Full text:

Attention to the design and character of the village is important to preserve the environment.
Development driven purely by the profit motive leads to big, tall houses crowded onto small plots and harms the quality of life for all in the village. Little attention is paid by these developers to the design standards listed here.
By contrast, sympathetic development, like the Howard Homes Housing association in Pirton provided what we need.
Their description of the development sums it up:
"In March 2015 we completed a scheme of 11 houses and bungalows in the desirable village of Pirton, Hertfordshire. Also delivered to meet an identified need, this scheme provides an opportunity for local people to continue to reside within the community in which they grew up."

Object

Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2031

Representation ID: 5914

Received: 17/03/2017

Respondent: CPRE Hertfordshire

Representation:

Object on the following grounds:
Paragraph 2.6 should be amended to delete from the end of this sentence the phrase 'or provide a convincing explanation why compliance is not possible' as we consider such phrase unenforceable by the District Council.

Full text:

Further to our letter of 13 May 2016 to Pirton Parish Council about the draft Plan, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Hertfordshire wishes to make the following representations on the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan (PNP). As with the consultation draft, the most important of these relate to the Plan's conformity with the Development Plan (a basic condition), and the assumptions made by the Parish Council in respect of the content of emerging North Hertfordshire Local Plan.

Paragraph 1.3.7, Village Development Boundary, and Preferred Options Map.

There is no explanation or justification in the PNP for the proposed change to include site PT1 within the redefined village boundary, other than to conform with the proposed boundary shown in the emerging North Herts Local Plan (NHLP) which has not yet been submitted for independent examination. Similarly, the Preferred Options Map has little status at least until the NHLP has been examined.

The proposed south-western boundary is currently defined by the Adopted North Herts District Local Plan (NHDLP), and this still reflects local landscape character. Indeed site PT1 and the adjacent land to the north-west are part of the same landscape character area, V2, shown in the PNP's evidence base, and not within the village itself. The proposed boundary would effectively split this local character area in two for no sound reason. The separate designation of PT1 as a scheduled monument, also referred to on page 4 of the PNP, has no material bearing on this boundary change.

A statutory requirement of the PNP is to conform to the Development Plan, in this case the NHDLP, not the proposed submission NHLP, which is still at an early stage in its progress, and which can therefore be given limited weight in decision making. Consequently in our view the PNP fails this basic condition because the adopted 'Rural Areas beyond the Green Belt' policy is strategic, and still consistent with national policy as set out in the NPPF in terms of countryside protection, and the proposal to amend the village boundary conflicts with it.

CPRE Hertfordshire is concerned that the inclusion of site PT1 within the defined village boundary would threaten not just future development, but also the release of the adjacent land within the same local landscape character area and which also abuts the Chilterns AONB. Both fields are highly prominent in views from the AONB as shown in the Plan's evidence documents, and which other policies in the PNP, and paragraph 14 and footnote 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seek to protect at both local and strategic levels.

CPRE Hertfordshire therefore considers that there is a risk that the PNP would fail to satisfy the 'basic condition' of compliance with the statutory Development Plan with the above elements of the Plan as currently drafted.

Policy PNP2 - Design and Character

CPRE Hertfordshire suggests that paragraph 2.6 should be amended to delete from the end of this sentence the phrase 'or provide a convincing explanation why compliance is not possible' as we consider such phrase unenforceable by the District Council.

For the above reasons CPRE Hertfordshire considers that amendments should be made to the PNP before it is submitted for examination.

Comment

Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2031

Representation ID: 6360

Received: 23/03/2017

Respondent: Cala Homes (North Homes Counties) Ltd

Agent: DLA Town Planning

Representation:

Tone of policy is restrictive. More flexibility is required and more emphasis on responding to the specific surroundings.

Density measurements should be treated with caution.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2031

Representation ID: 6372

Received: 23/03/2017

Respondent: North Hertfordshire District Council

Representation:

The Council has some reservations about the density figures referred to in the policy. In particular does Clause 2.3 mean that development proposals which are in excess of 22 dwellings per hectare will not be supported, even if the scheme fulfils all the other criteria?
It is unclear how Clause 2.5 of the policy can be enforced in determining development proposals.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Comment

Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2031

Representation ID: 6385

Received: 22/03/2017

Respondent: Mr Philip Cook

Representation:

The creation of Visual Character Areas round the village is an attempt to put up a barrier to build houses in those locations. At no time has representatives of the PPC nor steering group had discussions with those who own these sites to ascertain any agreement.

Full text:

* There has been no meaningful dialogue with landowners during the creation of the NDP. The calling of a meeting in July 2016 was a "tick the box exercise" as only short notice was given (2 weeks maximum) and that was the harvest / school holiday period. It was made clear it was not to hear our opinion but to tell us what they wanted. The plan was not open to amendment. To suggest in the Basic Conditions Statement, Page 2 "Building on the open nature of the steering group meetings, it is important to confirm that all decisions made within the Plan have been informed by significant community consultation and stakeholder engagement including engagement with strategic landowners or promoters". In my opinion this basically not true.

* No updates or correspondence has been forthcoming.

* The creation of Visual Character Areas round the village is an attempt to put up a barrier to build houses in those locations. At no time has representatives of the PPC nor steering group had discussions with those who own these sites to ascertain any agreement.

* The cap of 30 houses on any individual site is illogical and can only be seen as a way of reducing new houses in the future.

* I am along with owners of substantial parcels of land in the Pirton Parish disappointed that our views have not been sought on any aspects of the Plan over which we have a lot of experience.

Object

Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2031

Representation ID: 6391

Received: 20/03/2017

Respondent: F and P Property Management

Agent: Rapleys LLP

Representation:

Object on the following grounds:
not appropriate for the policy to seek arbitrary levels of density over a wide area;
criteria (3) and (5) should be replaced with a single criterion; and
criterion (13) should be deleted - the consideration that proposals should have to the surrounding areas is detailed in Policy PNP2(1).

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2031

Representation ID: 6394

Received: 14/03/2017

Respondent: Woolf Bond Planning

Representation:

Object on the following grounds:
the policy is too prescriptive as it attempts to limit density of development to only 22 dwellings per hectare;
limiting the density of development would also prejudice against the objectives of the plan to deliver smaller units for families and downsizers; and
the cumulative effect of the policy may result in the delivery of larger and high value dwellings that do not meet identified need.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2031

Representation ID: 6398

Received: 22/03/2017

Respondent: Gladman Developments Limited

Representation:

Object on the following grounds:
design policies should be made in accordance with paragraphs 59 and 60 of the NPPF;
policy should not deal with lighting design;
sections 2.2 and 2.13 are overly restrictive; and
the policy would act as a restraint to future sustainable development.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2031

Representation ID: 6412

Received: 23/03/2017

Respondent: Mr W Aspinall

Representation:

Object on the following grounds:
how can the Character Assessment be used to refuse planning applications?;
protected views from the Chilterns AONB into the village would prevent any house building or car parking;
gardens for all residents could include use of land defined as a Scheduled Monument, allowing bigger plots; and
how can innovative development be encouraged under the terms of the Character Assessment?

Full text:

See attached

Attachments: