Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Search representations
Results for W J Rendell Ltd search
New searchSupport
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Ickleford
Representation ID: 1694
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: W J Rendell Ltd
Agent: Barker Parry Town Planning Limited
Support Ickleford (general): Exclusion from the Green Belt, boundary review, new development.
Paragraph 13.155 - Ickleford exists as a village and community in its own right, but its close proximity to Hitchin affords easy access to the higher order facilities therein by foot, bike or public transport as alternatives to private motor vehicles. Indeed, the village is closer, and has easier access, to the town centre of Hitchin, than some of the towns own suburbs.
As a longstanding "Excluded Village" reclassification of Ickleford as one of the Category A villages is commended, as is the allocation of housing sites and the redefining and extension of the settlement boundary with the Green Belt, whilst still preserving the gap with Hitchin along the River Oughton.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy HS1: Local Housing Allocations
Representation ID: 1695
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: W J Rendell Ltd
Agent: Barker Parry Town Planning Limited
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: Land at Ickleford Manor, Ickleford
paragraph 13.157 - With the exception of allocation IC1, the promotion and assessment of which has been consistent and transparent throughout the very long process leading to this pre-submission Plan, the two larger sites, which make up over 99.5% of the allocations in the settlement, defy most tests of soundness. Leaving aside any assessment of their merit, IC2 was introduced at the Preferred Options stage and IC3 at this current advanced stage.
Others will no doubt comment on these latecomers, one of which alone accounts for over 75% of the Ickleford allocations. Each, however, comprises large areas of greenfield or non-previously developed land and each extends the existing settlement boundary either north into open countryside or south towards Hitchin.
There are alternatives and one such is land at Ickleford Manor, first drawn to the Council's attention in 2009 and again at the Preferred Options stage. Strangely, it does not feature in the current Regulation 18 statement of consultation. In this regard, it was rejected as being "too late for the site allocations process" in 2009, yet IC2 did not feature in a SHLAA until 2012 and IC3 has only just materialised in the current iteration of the Plan. Ignoring a suitable site either as an alternative or in addition, and the failure to carry out a comparative exercise is a serious failing on any application of the soundness test.
In order to ensure the land in question is considered by both NHDC and the Examination Inspector, we can but repeat what was said most recently at the Preferred Options Stage.
Ickleford Manor is the mirror image of proposed allocation IC2 on the Bedford Road. Unlike IC2, which is mostly not previously developed land, a significant part of Ickleford Manor is previously developed, including approximately 1,555m sq (16,750 sq ft) of mixed commercial floor space. Clearly, under the provisions of the NPPF (paragraph 89), parts of this site are, in principle, capable of appropriate redevelopment via the development management process, whilst remaining in the Green Belt, an option available to the land owner. Indeed, the westernmost portion of the site, bound by the A600 to the west and Turnpike Lane to the north is the subject of a current pending application for residential redevelopment (16/02012/1) for which the location plan is attached.
Mindful of the proposed extension of the settlement boundary, principally IC2, IC3, and the consequent adjustment of the Green Belt boundary along Bedford Road (A600), a comparable adjustment should be made in respect of Ickleford Manor, with the previously developed land at the core. Attached is a previously submitted sketch plan outlining the entire ownership, upon which an indication of the possible extent of development can be seen. This would extend no further towards Hitchin than existing or proposed development (the flour mill being a commercial site long excluded from the Green Belt and extending right down to the River Oughton) and respects existing vegetation in and around the site.
It is suggested as either an alternative to IC2 and/or IC3 (Ickleford Manor is previously developed, has an existing access and is closer to the core of the village) or in addition, in recognition of the sustainable location credentials of the village. Development here would help meet need in the Hitchin area of the district, in a sustainable location and include an element of previously developed land.
Land at Ickleford Manor is, therefore, commended for inclusion. The PDL (shown on the attached sketch and comprising the current application site and the Manor itself) should be excluded from the Green Belt as a matter of course and there is also no logical reason why some greenfield land running parallel with Turnpike Lane and towards Lodge Court should not also be added as, unlike IC2 and IC3, it is well related to the village centre, the 'right' side of the A600 and would not extend the settlement beyond either its existing northern or southern extremities.