Proposed Main Modifications

Thank you for the further opportunity to submit comments for consideration with regard to the Council's proposed amendments to the draft Local Plan and the Inspector's further questions posed to them. I am Respondent 4411 and 5878, and write now specifically with regard to Housing site LG6, land forming a buffer strip between Radburn Way and Baldock Road, Letchworth.

With regard to this site, I consider the Council's comments to be inaccurate and misleading and the inclusion of this site in the Local Plan is therefore unsound.

The Council were unable to answer the queries raised at the Examination in Public in February 2018. In particular the Inspector asked them
1) whether there was anything in the original Compulsory Purchase Order which might restrict development, and
2) to explain why the trees in the orchard had been removed.
The Council's response is the first time they have supplied to the Inspector the documents relating to this site. Sadly, their comments with regard to them are inaccurate and indeed misleading. They are therefore unsound.

I wish first to say that I was astounded at the Council's unwillingness to comment further at the Examination, as they already had the requested information. I obtained the paperwork regarding the promise made on this land in 1974, and have since then supplied the Council with copies on at least four separate occasions when they have claimed not to have any such information. On the last occasion, in 2012, the papers were scanned in to the Council's electronic records by their Senior Estates Officer (who was present at the Examination). However, it appeared that their Counsel had not been briefed in the matter.

To explain further, I am the former Estates Officer of the Council who, advised to do so by my Chief Officer, rescued the various papers from the Town Hall loft. The Council remarks that some papers appear to be missing, and this is because when I returned a couple of days later, the remaining paperwork in the loft had been removed and destroyed.

I note that in their response (ED146B and ED95 Matter 10), the Council correctly quotes the correspondence that I had supplied to them. However, whilst the Council makes a great play of the fact that there is no restrictive covenant on the land, this is actually an irrelevance. The Compulsory Purchase Order is mainly a schedule of the various ownerships being acquired, and I would not expect it to contain any restrictions on usage of the land. This is because when a local authority compulsorily purchases land, it obtains it with "clean title", with no restrictive covenants other than access rights. This is why the promise made to obtain withdrawal of the objections to the CPO is so important.

When buying my home in 1974, I was the North Herts District Council Senior Estates Surveyor and had the benefit of working with a Mr Tom Sparrow, a Council solicitor who had previously worked for the Letchworth Urban District Council, and my Chief Officer, Mr Frederick Such had been the Letchworth UDC Chief Technical Officer. They both confirmed to me that the promise was that the land would never be developed, as "the sprat to catch the mackerel of the CPO", and indeed that the Jackmans Estate development had been altered as a result, to include the four storey block of 20 maisonettes on Radburn Way just ten metres from the buffer strip.

The promise has therefore not just been made to the original objectors by the Council, but repeated to me and to other purchasers of properties backing on to the land, by those at the Council with "ostensible authority".

The letter referred to by the Council in paragraph 9 specifically states that the land to be reserved from development "will fall within the buffer strip to be preserved...". In other words, the buffer strip had been agreed as a separate issue along that whole section of Baldock Road, affecting 18 existing dwellings, and not created merely to satisfy the three objectors.

The Local Plan makes specific reference to the creation of wildlife corridors and buffer strips, and the retention of "green infrastructure" and it surely cannot be the intention that such provision, created as part of the layout of a new development, would be sacrificed at a later date, at the whim of the Council which happens to own it. Indeed this particular strip of land provides an important amenity to 65 dwellings which back on to it, in particular the maisonettes mentioned earlier. Historically, the land has been let to private individuals, but this has not stopped it being an important amenity. Indeed there is nothing to stop it becoming publicly accessible in the future. It is also worth mentioning that any development of the land behind the maisonettes would suffer appallingly from overlooking and lack of light, the maisonettes being to the south-east of the buffer strip.

Letchworth Garden City is a town of great historic value, being the World's First Garden City. Garden City principles, which have been adhered to over the 116 years since its founding, indicate that the town should be surrounded by agricultural land, and should contain garden/parkland areas within the developments. There are a number of such buffer areas in the town, and this one (belonging to the Council) appears to be the only one proposed for development.

I do not know whether the Local Plan is the right place to mention this, but there is nothing in the paperwork regarding the asbestos contamination on the land, despite the Council having been made fully aware of it during a meeting I had with the Chief Executive on 11 May 2016.

Page 139 of the Schedule of Main Modifications talks of "off-site compensatory reprovision of former priority orchard habitat", but gives no indication of where such a new orchard is intended to be planted. If it is the Council's intention to dedicate an area of land for reprovision, where could be better than the existing buffer strip already providing amenity for the 65 dwellings backing on to it?

I turn now to the reason given for the removal of the trees. The report supplied to the Council by Ian Keen remarks on the land being "overgrown and derelict". However, that is only a recent occurrence. Until 2012, all the land was well-managed, with mown lawns under the orchard trees. The area behind No.179 Baldock Road remains let and is indicative of the condition of the entire buffer strip prior to 2012.

The land behind my own house was tenanted by my neighbour, but by 2012 his state of health meant that he was unable to continue. On 16 March 2012, the Council wrote to me asking whether I would like to take over the tenancy. I replied in the affirmative, but heard no more. The land was allowed to become overgrown, and of course the necessary care and husbandry of the productive fruit trees ceased. The neglect noted by Mr Keen is therefore the direct result of the Council's own negligence over a period of some five years. Indeed in June 2018 I asked the Council to attend to the brambles etc that are invading my garden, but no action has been taken by them.

Area 21 in Mr Keen's report is described as an overgrown area, but it was in fact a substantial hedgerow, running fully across the buffer strip, which was an important foraging habitat for bats. The Council employed contractors to destroy this and other trees in direct contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is of course now too late to save those trees that have been removed, but Mr Keen himself remarks that his report is his view alone and that he has not consulted with any other party.

It has been reported in the media that the Office for National Statistics has recently revised downwards the shortfall in housing in England. In the case of north Hertfordshire, I believe this has reduced the need from about 14,400 to approximately 9,000 dwellings. Despite this, the Council has stated that it does not intend to reduce any of its proposals. This buffer strip, site LG6, offers a mere 35 homes in the Local Plan, and I would therefore ask the Inspector to recommend to the Council that the historical situation coupled with its importance as an amenity for 65 existing dwellings (in particular the 20 maisonettes on Radburn Way) is such that it should be removed as a development site from the Local Plan.

Thank you for the further opportunity to submit comments for consideration with regard to the Council's proposed amendments to the draft Local Plan and the Inspector's further questions posed to them. I am Respondent 4411 and 5878, and write now specifically with regard to Housing site LG6, land forming a buffer strip between Radburn Way and Baldock Road, Letchworth.

With regard to this site, I consider the Council's comments to be inaccurate and misleading and the inclusion of this site in the Local Plan is therefore unsound.

The Council were unable to answer the queries raised at the Examination in Public in February 2018. In particular the Inspector asked them
1) whether there was anything in the original Compulsory Purchase Order which might restrict development, and
2) to explain why the trees in the orchard had been removed.
The Council's response is the first time they have supplied to the Inspector the documents relating to this site. Sadly, their comments with regard to them are inaccurate and indeed misleading. They are therefore unsound.

I wish first to say that I was astounded at the Council's unwillingness to comment further at the Examination, as they already had the requested information. I obtained the paperwork regarding the promise made on this land in 1974, and have since then supplied the Council with copies on at least four separate occasions when they have claimed not to have any such information. On the last occasion, in 2012, the papers were scanned in to the Council's electronic records by their Senior Estates Officer (who was present at the Examination). However, it appeared that their Counsel had not been briefed in the matter.

To explain further, I am the former Estates Officer of the Council who, advised to do so by my Chief Officer, rescued the various papers from the Town Hall loft. The Council remarks that some papers appear to be missing, and this is because when I returned a couple of days later, the remaining paperwork in the loft had been removed and destroyed.

I note that in their response (ED146B and ED95 Matter 10), the Council correctly quotes the correspondence that I had supplied to them. However, whilst the Council makes a great play of the fact that there is no restrictive covenant on the land, this is actually an irrelevance. The Compulsory Purchase Order is mainly a schedule of the various ownerships being acquired, and I would not expect it to contain any restrictions on usage of the land. This is because when a local authority compulsorily purchases land, it obtains it with "clean title", with no restrictive covenants other than access rights. This is why the promise made to obtain withdrawal of the objections to the CPO is so important.

When buying my home in 1974, I was the North Herts District Council Senior Estates Surveyor and had the benefit of working with a Mr Tom Sparrow, a Council solicitor who had previously worked for the Letchworth Urban District Council, and my Chief Officer, Mr Frederick Such had been the Letchworth UDC Chief Technical Officer. They both confirmed to me that the promise was that the land would never be developed, as "the sprat to catch the mackerel of the CPO", and indeed that the Jackmans Estate development had been altered as a result, to include the four storey block of 20 maisonettes on Radburn Way just ten metres from the buffer strip.

The promise has therefore not just been made to the original objectors by the Council, but repeated to me and to other purchasers of properties backing on to the land, by those at the Council with "ostensible authority".

The letter referred to by the Council in paragraph 9 specifically states that the land to be reserved from development "will fall within the buffer strip to be preserved...". In other words, the buffer strip had been agreed as a separate issue along that whole section of Baldock Road, affecting 18 existing dwellings, and not created merely to satisfy the three objectors.

The Local Plan makes specific reference to the creation of wildlife corridors and buffer strips, and the retention of "green infrastructure" and it surely cannot be the intention that such provision, created as part of the layout of a new development, would be sacrificed at a later date, at the whim of the Council which happens to own it. Indeed this particular strip of land provides an important amenity to 65 dwellings which back on to it, in particular the maisonettes mentioned earlier. Historically, the land has been let to private individuals, but this has not stopped it being an important amenity. Indeed there is nothing to stop it becoming publicly accessible in the future. It is also worth mentioning that any development of the land behind the maisonettes would suffer appallingly from overlooking and lack of light, the maisonettes being to the south-east of the buffer strip.

Letchworth Garden City is a town of great historic value, being the World's First Garden City. Garden City principles, which have been adhered to over the 116 years since its founding, indicate that the town should be surrounded by agricultural land, and should contain garden/parkland areas within the developments. There are a number of such buffer areas in the town, and this one (belonging to the Council) appears to be the only one proposed for development.

I do not know whether the Local Plan is the right place to mention this, but there is nothing in the paperwork regarding the asbestos contamination on the land, despite the Council having been made fully aware of it during a meeting I had with the Chief Executive on 11 May 2016.

Page 139 of the Schedule of Main Modifications talks of "off-site compensatory reprovision of former priority orchard habitat", but gives no indication of where such a new orchard is intended to be planted. If it is the Council's intention to dedicate an area of land for reprovision, where could be better than the existing buffer strip already providing amenity for the 65 dwellings backing on to it?

I turn now to the reason given for the removal of the trees. The report supplied to the Council by Ian Keen remarks on the land being "overgrown and derelict". However, that is only a recent occurrence. Until 2012, all the land was well-managed, with mown lawns under the orchard trees. The area behind No.179 Baldock Road remains let and is indicative of the condition of the entire buffer strip prior to 2012.

The land behind my own house was tenanted by my neighbour, but by 2012 his state of health meant that he was unable to continue. On 16 March 2012, the Council wrote to me asking whether I would like to take over the tenancy. I replied in the affirmative, but heard no more. The land was allowed to become overgrown, and of course the necessary care and husbandry of the productive fruit trees ceased. The neglect noted by Mr Keen is therefore the direct result of the Council's own negligence over a period of some five years. Indeed in June 2018 I asked the Council to attend to the brambles etc that are invading my garden, but no action has been taken by them.

Area 21 in Mr Keen's report is described as an overgrown area, but it was in fact a substantial hedgerow, running fully across the buffer strip, which was an important foraging habitat for bats. The Council employed contractors to destroy this and other trees in direct contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is of course now too late to save those trees that have been removed, but Mr Keen himself remarks that his report is his view alone and that he has not consulted with any other party.

It has been reported in the media that the Office for National Statistics has recently revised downwards the shortfall in housing in England. In the case of north Hertfordshire, I believe this has reduced the need from about 14,400 to approximately 9,000 dwellings. Despite this, the Council has stated that it does not intend to reduce any of its proposals. This buffer strip, site LG6, offers a mere 35 homes in the Local Plan, and I would therefore ask the Inspector to recommend to the Council that the historical situation coupled with its importance as an amenity for 65 existing dwellings (in particular the 20 maisonettes on Radburn Way) is such that it should be removed as a development site from the Local Plan.