Proposed Chesfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan

The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. As a statutory consultee, the Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas.

As North Herts Council lies outside the defined coalfield, the Coal Authority has no specific comments to make on any stages of your Local Plan process.

In the spirit of ensuring efficiency of resources and proportionality, it will not be necessary for the Council to provide the Coal Authority with any future drafts or updates to the emerging Plans. This email can be used as evidence for the legal and procedural consultation requirements at examination, if necessary.

My comment is that it would be good if the conservation area had some improved public access. The PRoW are currently all at the edge of the proposed area and it would be a pity if the public on non-mechanised transport are unable to see much of any conserved area. It seems to rather defeat the purpose of conservation.
I did spot an error; section 2.1 page 12 refers to FP Graveley 101. This should be 010.

See Attached

I am writing to notify that the Environment Agency will not be submitting a representation for this consultation as this strategic planning document falls outside of our remit as a statutory consultee.

We would like to object to your proposal and give our reasons why:

1) We don’t think 1 and 2 Manor Cottages (1930s houses which are not listed or have historical importance) should be within the proposed consultation area.
2) As regards other properties in Chesfield we don’t think one listed property, one church ruin (with no plans to stop it deteriorating) and a garden wall warrants a conservation area.
3) We don’t understand how Chesfield can be considered a conservation area with the additional traffic (especially from new residents in Roundwood using Back Lane to get to the A1) and pollution that will arise due to the decisions to grant planning permission for many properties on the Forster Way and Roundwood.
4) If Chesfield does become a conservation area more visitors will be attracted and there is no car parking available or footpaths (by roads) for walkers. The additional cars discussed in 3) would be a danger to horse riders, walkers and cyclists in the area.
5) If both councils continue to build housing estates around Chesfield and we decide to sell up, we would prefer to sell our house and land under the green belt regulations.
6) We don’t want the inconvenience and cost of applying for planning permission to erect sheds, greenhouses, fences hedges and tree maintenance.
7) All Chesfield residents are opposed to your proposal.

As well as the above we would like to make the following points:

Instead of spending money on a report to justify Chesfield becoming a conservation area surely tax payers money would have been better spent on a report to understand how the area’s infrastructure is going to deal with significant increase in population. Even before the new houses are built around Chesfield we are dealing with speeding cars, rush hour traffic and fly tiping.

At the recent consultation meeting the Councilor said “the residents of Chesfield need to move on from the decisions to grant planning permission on Forster way and Roundwood – that ship has sailed”. Unfortunately that ship will never sail for the residents of Chesfield as we have to live with the Council’s decisions destroy the countryside around our small village. Given the sensitivities around recent planning permissions we think the residents of Chesfield should have been consulted much sooner and in a face to face meeting.

Hopefully you take on board the comments of residents who are all opposed to your proposal.

See Attached

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England has no comments to make on the Conservation Area & Draft Conservation Area Appraisal & Management Plans for Chesfield

The lack of comment from Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment. Other bodies and individuals may wish to make comments that might help the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to fully take account of any environmental risks and opportunities relating to this document.
Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment, then in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, please consult Natural England again.

Firstly, the landowners of the whole area were not consulted before this exercise began and we collectively object to this infringement of our autonomy.

As private land this is not North Herts decision to make and we strongly object to the manner in which this process has been initiated.

Furthermore, as the owners of the private Parkland we will not be consenting to our inclusion in this scheme for the following reasons:

1. This new Conservation Area was not requested by us.
2. Chesfield Park is private property with no footpaths or public rights-of-way.
3. There are no listed buildings within Chesfield Park and several outbuildings and garden walls are already in a state of disrepair.
4. We have significant boundary issues with Great Ashby which require constant woodland and fencing management, therefore maintenance needs to happen daily without asking for permission from an intrusive management scheme.
5. There are several major new housing developments set to engulf the whole area compounding the above issues as new developments will border the Parkland and woodland.
6. St Etheldra’s ruined church is already protected as a Grade 2 Heritage Asset.
7. Increased traffic caused by the expansion of Great Ashby in recent years has already changed the area beyond recognition and this proposal is simply too little too late, especially considering North Herts council has approved NS1 for the building of 900 new homes on our doorstep.

Thank you for your interest but this is an unnecessary proposal as the land has been maintained independently for generations and will continue to be.

As a resident of Chesfield I would like to strongly oppose the proposed conservation area of Chesfield. The report was landed on the residents of Chesfield just before Christmas 2022 and I have struggled to get the information from NHDC regarding Skype meetings not happening and have cost me lots of time and worry.

I Live at No 1 Manor Cottages and have a small horse yard and 10 acres at the same address , I have lived here for nearly 7 years and have ridden and kept my horses here on and off for the past 23 years, since I moved to Graveley.

I find the conservation report inaccurate and misleading , it depicts lots of views that will not be here when NS1 and GA Roundwood ( Pic 32 in particular) buildings and proposed carparks are built. Thus encapsulating me and my neighbours in an area surrounded by 1300 + houses along with there thousands of cars and people , who will use Back Lane a single track dangerous inadequate road as the other thousands of Great Ashby residents already do. The 'conservation feel of the area' that report comments on simply does not exist , the area is a huge development area . NHDC have agreed to dig up and build on our greenbelt with NS1 and GA Roundwood as with previous Great Ashby building not facilitating proper access allowing Chesfield Back Lane to be a rat run for Great Ashby to the A1.

The residents of Chesfield will be the only people to suffer again at the hands of NHDC and the local plan . Entwining us in conservation red tape and inflated repair costs as we try to maintain insulate and improve our energy efficiency of our old delapedated very unhistoric houses.

With regard to he reports pictures of post and rail fencing surrounding Manor Farm , it is not always possible replace wood with wood some modern forms of fencing and gates are much more economic, I do not want to have to apply everytime i need to replace a gate or fencing and cannot always afford expensive replacement products that are like for like.

Any buildings that are historic already ie Chesfield manor and St Ethlreldas church have listed status and ancient building protection. All of our the area is green belt. I feel that the area is protected enough.

My house 1 Manor Cottages is less than 100 years old and the only Her marker that makes Manor Cottages included in this area is a undated and unproven marker on the ground at Ledgeside wood HEr 9801.

Indeed the only people I fear to benefit from this is the company who have put themselves forward to complete the report, which at most seems to be copied from History records that would probably be akin to any area of England.

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

Please accept my apologies for returning a response beyond the deadline of this consultation. HCC has no comments to make on this consultation at this time. HCC would like to continue to be notified of updates or consultations associated with the Chesfield Conservation Area and draft CAAMP.