FM 164

As a resident of Chequers Lane, Preston, I understand the need for new development within the village, however, the large scale of development proposed for the land adjacent to Castlefield appears inappropriate in the extreme and will have an adverse impact on the character of the village and the lives of its resident There are numerous points to be made, however, I will touch upon just a few issues; Firstly, the size of the development and the number of dwellings proposed, along with squeezing in car parking, gardens, green spaces, storage for upwards of forty-six refuse bins, with the option of a further twenty-three brown bins, all taking into consideration, ‘adequate separation between existing and proposed properties.’ As a resident of Chequers Lane, with a property backing on to the proposed site, there are already on-going issues with water supply/pressure to homes along Chequers Lane, which have yet to be resolved, alongside problems regarding sewage and drainage. We do not see how an additional twenty-three dwellings will improve the situation. Another worrying area of concern addresses the huge increase of traffic, not only in Chequers Lane, but also to and from the village itself which is accessed by country lanes which, on the whole, are narrow, poorly maintained with few or no passing places. In theory, if the new development is passed, as it stands, this would mean an increase of up to one hundred additional car journeys each day in to and out of the village, all accessed through Chequers Lane. This does not take in to account additional delivery vans and other service vehicles coming in to the village. This will have a huge negative effect on the village and greatly endanger pedestrians and other road users. Other issues to raise include; the lack of provision within the village for young famillies, teenagers and the elderly; poor public transport; lack of amenities; increase in noise and light pollution; impact on local environment, flora and fauna. Preston village is a ‘tranquil, rural community’. It is highly questionable as to how a new, modern development of twenty-three homes, crammed in to a pocket of green space alongside Castlefield, will enhance the character and environment of the parish.

See Attached

1. Looking at the proposed plans of the housing, it seems extremely cramped to fit into such a small field. 23 houses and 59 car parking spaces seems excessive.
2. When we moved in, we were told that the Castlefield Road isn't capable of withholding large vehicles/large volumes of cars. You can already see pot holes in the road constantly appearing. Also, it is a very small and narrow Road so can see this having a massive impact on current families living on Castlefield whilst having building work and the constant ongoing of cars from the new development.
3.Drainage and Sewerage. When we moved in, we were also told that the sewerage is not strong enough to maintain so many houses. There are constantly affinity water engineers fixing burst pipes and leaks on the Road.
4. Castlefield is a road where a lot of children live. If building does take place could the van restrict their timing they arrive/leave to avoid key times children are around such as school opening and closing times, as we are concerned about the safety of the Children.
5 There will be a negative impact to wildlife as this field is often visited by dear and other animal, also the cutting back of hedges and tree will affect them.
6. There are some houses that have been built in Preston which have been on the market for along time and still haven't sold.
6. No consideration seems to have been given to the current residents of Castlefield at all and the amount of disruption and safety concerns there will be for them. This will have a massive impact on our families.

I strongly object the the density of housing proposed to be built on Castlefield Preston.
This is in relation to the “Further Main Modifications of the Local Plan - 2021.
There are too many houses proposed and these should be reduced to mitigate the issues with traffic, drainage, noise, wild life disruption, access, etc.

I am a resident of Preston and I am writing to raise some objections to the proposals under consideration by housing developer Osprey Homes affecting the field off Back Lane, Preston, Herts - Castlefield.

• I fail to see how the current infrastructure in Preston will be able to cope with such a development. The building project projected to take over 18 months creating 20+ homes will have a huge and terribly overbearing impact on the village and particularly the Chequers Lane community; the geography of which is tight and serviced only by narrow lane access.

• Chequers Lane is as stated a narrow village lane and will not be able to cope with construction traffic. It's barely wide enough to fit the dustbin lorry and has several blind driveways and cars parked along the road particularly in the lower end of the lane.

• The lane is also used by children walking to and from the local village school and indeed going home from the bus drop off from schools in and around Hitchin. This in my mind presents a very dangerous situation. Surely safety must be a primary concern.

• This will lead to the removal of hedgerows, lane widening and general alteration to the village that we have and enjoy at the moment.

• I understand a traffic measure was taken but this was during a period of lockdown as no surprise that readings were low.

• I fail to see how a development of this size is adequately serviced by just one route in and one route out - Chequers Lane. The congestion faced by the residents of Chequers Lane (and surrounding lanes) will be enormous.

• There are many elderly residents in the locale to Castlefield (my parents included) who's lives will be dramatically affected by this development as it stands. Their quality of life, peace and safety will in my mind be undoubtedly compromised. The routes into Preston from Stevenage, Luton and from Hitchin are also very narrow; often with only limited spaces to pass.

• At the bottom of Chequers Lane is a house called The Chequers. A listed building. Construction traffic would have to turn into the lane round a very tight corner in front of The Chequers and will no doubt mean damage to the fences and walls of this property. This house is lived in by my parents and where I grew up. Deliveries of building supplies will start early and throughout the day with no doubt umpteen trucks air-braking etc in front of this house. It will be terrible for a elderly couple in their mid-80's.

• The proposed homes by Osprey Homes to my mind are not in keeping with the village as it stands - known for its architectural standards and heritage.

• The proposal of 20+ houses is a huge undertaking for such a fragile environment. Preston should be allowed to develop slowly and considerately - which the Osprey Homes proposal is not. It smacks of over-development with little consideration for residents' lives as they are at the moment, the local environment, safety and general quality of life.

• There are presumably many better local locations as alternatives to a development of this size and magnitude - all with better access and an infrastructure able to cope and have far less impact to the quality of life.

• Castle Farm situated at the top of Chequers Lane utilises Chequers Lane and indeed Back Lane to run their business and has done so for several generations. Again, the increase in construction traffic will present a major issue to their business and operation.

• The Osprey Homes questionnaire as seen on their website isn't fit for purpose. Yes/No answers are pointless and only serve to make the proposals sound positive. Most residents would agree to some development in the village at times, done for with care, consideration and over a longer time period. The answers one is forced to give do not give suitable consideration to the issues.

I would appreciate it if these points are taken into consideration please - as well as all other submissions from worried local residents around this damaging proposal to our way of life in Preston.

See Attached

I wish to comment on Examination Documents ED178 and ED191B, specifically in the context of Preston village. I note that in ED191B, ref PR1 off Butchers Lane in Preston, 1.1 ha in size, is identified as a site for 21 houses. NHDC should be aware that the potential developers, Osprey Homes are currently consulting with a plan that has 23 homes on this same site https://chilternview.uk/proposed-new-homes/. No explanation is given as to why they are exceeding the number given in the Local Plan or ED191B, although it is obviously in excess of the number proposed by NHDC. Irrespective of that, I strongly object to the development of the PR1 in Preston, on the grounds that the land is unsuitable (prone to flooding) and the development will have multiple deleterious impacts ion the village (dark skies, rural environment), infrastructure and services (sewage, water, broadband) as well as increased traffic and associated air pollution. I note the NHDC recently approved planning for three (3) houses on a similar sized plot on Back Lane in Preston, setting a clear precedent for the density of new housing in Preston. For that reason alone, the number of houses proposed on the PR1 site should be reduced to between 3 and 4 (using this example set by NHDC Planning Control).

I wish to also comment on the document entitled “Schedule of Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031" - I note that the housing allocation for Preston has been increased from 38 to 50, although the number of houses already built meets the original target set in the LP. I do not understand why these numbers have been changed (increased) and I object to this increase as it was clearly not part of the process that went into the Local Plan.

I also note that NHDC Updated 5 Year Housing Land Supply Paper ED178 and Appendix 1: NHDC 5 year housing land supply at 1 April 2020 ED191B both fail to acknowledge the impact of the UK’s exit from the EU, in terms of economic uncertainty. Given that these new consultation documents appropriately recognise the extreme uncertainty that has been generated by the Covid19 pandemic, it is surprising that the economic uncertainties which already manifest themselves in e.g. the construction industry are not acknowledged as well. This is not a political point, but a simple reflection of yet another variable which makes predicting demand and housing needs even more difficult. As acknowledged in ED170, NHDC has relied on ad hoc input from developers and associated stakeholders, but it is questionable if their judgement is not conflicted and would clearly be seen through their own financial lens. Ultimately the future is unknown, and the housing needs of North Herts can most likely be sufficiently met by larger developments associated with pre-existing towns and infrastructures.

I wish to document my concern about the proposed building of 23 new homes on this site.
I have submitted the following comments to Osprey Homes:

1) While I accept the need for development of this site with the inclusion of some 'affordable' homes, the proposed number of 23 new homes is too high for a site of approx. one hectare (2.5 acres). A rough calculation shows that the development planned represents an increase in the Preston housing stock of nearly 20% squeezed into only about 5% of the area covered by the village. This density would render the site out of line with the very special character of our historic village; it would also act as a precedent for future planning applications on remaining plots of undeveloped land in the village.
2) The number of cars likely to be introduced by purchasers of the properties has adverse implications for road safety. The Templars Lane access road comes out - in either direction - onto quiet country lanes with no pavements or street lights (though the absence of light pollution is a benefit of living here). Butchers Lane so narrow that cars cannot pass in opposite directions without one or other reversing.
3) There is insufficient parking allocated in such a confined space. Even the one-bedroom properties are likely to have two cars but the commitment to more parking spaces is limited to the larger properties. Nine visitor spaces is woefully inadequate - other visitors will therefore need to park inappropriately on access streets. On Chequers Lane, residents of the Lutyens cottages already routinely park on the lane, requiring traffic to pass with care.
4) Is there a guarantee that the designated wild flower meadow will remain as an open space in perpetuity? At present it is unclear whether this part of the site could be built on in future.
5) In environmental interests, it would be preferable for the development to include heat pumps rather than gas.

See Attached

I am writing to object to the proposed housing development by Osprey homes in Preston SG4 for the following reasons.

1. The Neighbourhood plan states that
Objective H1: To ensure that any development is sensitively planned and phased over the period of the Plan, protecting and enriching the landscape and built setting. The plans submitted show 23 tightly packed houses which show no resemblance to houses in the village. The introduction of such a site would be an eyesore and not enrich the setting of the village.
2. Objective H4: To support developments which have a low carbon footprint and are eco-friendly. The builders are intending to use as boilers which do not suggest a low carbon footprint or eco friendly.
3. Objective H7: To seek to ensure that the impact of new development on sewage, surface water drainage and water pressure is assessed and that infrastructure, services and utilities to existing houses are improved or at least not exacerbated. To also ensure that new developments do not create flood risk and problems with the sewerage system and surface water drainage, while at the same time ensuring that any existing problems are not exacerbated. Living near Castlefield, there is already a strong smell of sewerage after heavy rainfall, and the roads around the village are in constant repair from busts watermains due to ancient pipes and increased traffic.
4. Objective H9: To seek to ensure any new housing scheme or infill development is of an appropriate scale and maintains or enhances the character of the village.
see note 1. Preston is a small village of just 182 houses, and extra 23 represents over 10% of the total house count in a very small acreage. The development would not be in scale of the village and would certainly not enhance or even maintain the character of the village.
5. Transport and Communication Objective T1: To support and encourage safe and sustainable transport, including walking and cycling.
Objective T2: To support and encourage safe use of roads, paths and bridleways for all users: walkers, joggers, cyclists and horse riders, as well as being safe for motorised vehicles. Objective T3: To support the development of efficient and effective broadband speed and mobile coverage throughout the parish, while maintaining a good landline service, meeting the domestic, social and business needs of the community. Children walking to the bus stop for school down Chequers Lane on dark mornings and evenings would have their safety jeopardized by the additional cars ( 59 car parking spaces allocated for the development and around 15 garages )using the road when the children are walking on the road (there are no foot paths on Chequers Lane) at peak times of traffic movement (particularly the morning around 8am). Dog walkers, cyclists and ramblers would also experience increased risk of accidents. The verges would most certainly suffer with traffic trying to pass each other (Chequers Lane and Butchers Lane are single lanes). Many villagers work from home where broadband is a necessity. The BT box on Chequers Lane is already damaged frequently by turning dustcarts.

I understand that our village has to help the housing crisis which we are suffering from, I do not see how the proposed development will fit into the neighbourhood plan and would suggest fewer houses resulting in less of an impact on it. The impending closure of Princess Helena school and the use of the land must be considered before a much loved, needed and used (prior to it being closed off by the council) green space is concreted over.

Re: Revised Schedule of Further Proposed Main Modifications Consultation - May 2021

With regard to site PR1 at Preston, I wish to object to the number of houses proposed for building on this site. (Refs. FM 163 and 164 on page 60).

The proposed number of houses is 21 which was prior to discovering there is a serious drainage/sewage problem in the southern area of the site.
A revised survey of the site should be undertaken and the number of houses should be reduced accordingly.
All new housing should be in-keeping with the rest of the village, be affordable and most importantly should have very adequate private gardens.

I trust you will take this into account with revised modifications.

I refer to Policy PR1 - Development of Castlefield, Preston.

I have lived in Preston since 1975, and I have been acutely aware of the District Council’s wish to see this site developed. With the ever demanding need for housing in North Hertfordshire, the scale of this demand has reached a ’numbers game’ based upon varying projections.

However, the consideration of impact upon the character and amenity of the existing community has not been considered sensitively, following wide consultation. The current proposal for this site to accommodate approx. 21 houses became adopted against considerable local opposition, for very good reasons that many residents feel have been ignored. I wish to object to the proposed development density of this site, and seek the Council to consult upon a Strategic Masterplan 'to support a co-ordinated and integrated approach to place- making and design’. (Ref Policy SP9)

When the site was absorbed within the village development boundary, despite considerable opposition, I recall the Parish Council reluctantly acquiesced in the hope that a smaller number of houses with a mix of smaller house sizes would be built for local families. It did not anticipate the impact of a far larger scheme, as currently proposed.

There are considerable drainage problems and other environmental matters to overcome but the critical issues that arise are due to the limited physical restrictions of access via narrow and twisty lanes, and the growing pressure upon the local character and the wider rural landscape due to a large and rapid growth in population. Preston is an attractive, rural village - not an inner city, urban area.

Policy SP9 is clear:
“The Council considers good design to be a key aspect of sustainable development. We will…support new development where it is well designed and located and responds positively to its local context;"

The current proposals by a prospective developer (Osprey Homes) were outlined by their MD at the last Parish Council meeting and he stated that the main reason their proposal was chosen by NHDC was because "it offered the greatest development area”. This flies in the face of the adopted Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan policies and while it does attempt to sympathetically address some design issues it fails to do so in many areas. However, 21, let alone 23 additional homes and families represents considerable growth and it will have a considerable detrimental impact upon the existing community and residential amenity for many residents.

I therefore object to the adoption in the Local Plan of a specific residential density for this site, until the Council consult upon a Strategic Masterplan 'to support a co-ordinated and integrated approach to place- making and design’. (Ref Policy SP9) There is a sensible period of time for this policy to be followed, as Preston has absorbed considerable growth in the last 10 years, and many, many lives are affected, representing a considerable proportion of this community.

The allocation of the PR1 site in Preston for 21 houses in the Local Plan is utterly ridiculous, especially as in recent months NHDC has given Conditional Permission to another site of the SAME SIZE in the Parish for just THREE dwellings, despite receiving objections that this number should be increased. Furthermore, it is unclear why Preston Parish Council decided not to object to the Local Plan but also have not provided information specific to Preston Parish with regard to this and many other documents since 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.

For NHDC, there are many more suitable locations on the periphery of existing towns that already have the necessary services and road/public transport networks required for such a development to succeed without imposing a whole host of further changes that will be needed for this new PR1 development to exist.

I am shocked that having almost reached the allocated no. of houses, here you are proposing (in this document - Schedule of Further Modifications….) to INCREASE the no. allocated for Preston Parish from 38 to 50! I strongly object to this. The parish has almost reached 38, if not about to exceed it and so, NHDC now think they can just wipe it out. Absolutely disgraceful behaviour. This should not be agreed.

The emerging plan for the PR1 site will have an enormous impact upon all parts of our village. Of course, it's favourable to have more dwellings to provide for new and adapted life in Preston but that should continue to occur via infilling and house building or extending as it currently is, allowing the village to evolve gradually. Not all at once as proposed for PR1. I am very surprised that this has been allowed to progress this far.

Road and transport links are poor and will not cope with this number of dwellings.
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. We have access to this site from our garden.

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 50+ 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 water and 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.

The water pressure at the Wilderness is very low especially at peak times.

NHDC very recently agreed Conditional Permission for just THREE houses in the field in Back lane, despite objections to increase dwelling numbers there. The site is about the same size as PR1! I do not know how NHDC can justify this when on PR1 they propose 7x more. There is nowhere with such high density as this in miles. It will overpower the village.

Note too that The Wilderness is Grade II listed and as such has no foundations.

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached Postcard

See Attached

LATE

I am writing to put forward my objection to the current plan for the proposed development of Chiltern Views in the village of Preston.

1. Traffic,

I currently live on Chequers Lane, there has been until lockdown a very high volume of traffic - not just residential but farm and commercial. It is a very small tight lane with parked cars on one section making access tight.

I understand that a survey was taken during lockdown to determine the traffic by the developers and/or council. In my opinion this has no validation - how can someone determine traffic density when no-one is driving a car as we are all locked down in our houses with only essential travel allowed. Even if this survey was taken on the easing of restrictions, this still in no way gives a true representation of the traffic density of Chequers Lane. In fact traffic has already increased due to more households working from home.

Chequers Lane has sewage and drainage problems already, this would add extra strain to services.


We already have the ‘rat run’ for cars cutting through preston to Luton as well.

2. Houses.

I do not understand why we have to accommodate Luton which is in Bedfordshire and we are not allowed to use their skip facilities anymore as we are Hertfordshire - why do we have to carry the can for their housing? Bedfordshire is a very underdeveloped county compared to Herts.

We have already met our quota of new homes for the 2011-2013 NHDC local plan by a factor of nearly 200%.

3. Princess Helena College
It has been suggested that this is used to provide an alternative site to accommodate the houses. I feel this must be looked at.

4. Resourses

Preston is supposed to a ‘classic sleepy English village’. This is fast being taken away from the character of the village. We have no shops, 1 pubs, no garage, no post office, an over-subscribed nursery and a primary school that currently accommodates most of the surrounding villages.

6. Communications.

We are supposed to a broadband fibre optic village. This may be so, but it doesn’t always work - more people work at home now and the dependency on wifi has increased a lot - we have an Open reach van on permanent standby at the junction box - how would this be addressed?

Bus service is Monday to Sats only - twice a day.

LATE

I have also objected to Osprey Homes compulsory questionnaire on their site which is very biased and reminds me of a Yes Minister Sketch
I have also left a comment on their portal to that effect.
Below is my comments on the proposed development

Castle Field Preston, Hitchin

Application for 23 homes

Although I do not object to the development of this site, I do have two major reservations about the proposed application.

1) The density is too high despite the emerging local plan. It is essential to keep developments in the village low density to avoid permanently changing the village environment.
The high density also raises concerns with infrastructure in the village, such as broadband and other facilities. I feel that some investment would be needed to provide a community facility such as a village hall.
Still related to density, I am highly concerned about the access, particularly for construction traffic but would be surprised if the current roads meet the access requirements required by County Highways.
I understand the pressure The NHDC are under to find sites. Still, I would suggest a much lower number here and perhaps look at locations around Princess Helena College (with its imminent closing) where the village can be expanded, and there is good access and space for community facilities.

2) As with all these applications, the NIMBY approach means a lot of focus on stopping development and not on the design. These properties will be standing for the next 100 -200 years, and it is a chance to build something that adds to the village. What is being shown in the design as the local vernacular is far from it. They look like standard house types built by any large housebuilder.
We have fantastic Lutyens designs in the village with wonderful chimneys and high pitched plain tile roofs. Or, of course, they could be ultra-modern in design. What is shown is neither. The use of a yellow brick shows the lack of thought that has gone into blending in with traditional housing in the village. Many original buildings were built using local red clay. The Bovingdon multi ATR is a good match.