South West Hitchin - North Hertfordshire District Council

Transcription

Representations for Housing Options Growth Levels and Locations 2011-2031
Ref.
LDF/0025
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
29
Sustainable Places ,Environment Agency
South West of Hitchin
Comment
Agent
The site is underlain by complex superficial (some secondary aquifers) and chalk bedrock (principal aquifer). The depth to chalk is variable. Groundwater depths are variable
too due to size of site. There would be the potential for SuDS given the geology but this would need to be supported by a Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA). Landfills exist
on-site as do Source Protection Zones (SPZ) zones 1-3. This is a potentially sensitive site in places.
The site is underlain by complex superficial (some secondary aquifers) and chalk bedrock (principal aquifer). The depth to chalk is variable. Groundwater depths are variable
too due to size of site. Landfills exist on-site as do SPZ zones 1-3. This is a potentially sensitive site in places.
The site borders Oughton Head Common on the wetland sites eastern and southern boundary. The site is groundwater dependant-hence any disturbance of the aquifer in the
vicinity has the potential to impact on the wetland. SUDs may well not be appropriate over the whole of the proposed south west of Hitchin site.
The site borders a major Public Water Supply (PWS) at Oughton head (situated just north of the development). It also intercepts SPZ1 and 2 for this Source.
The site includes a major PWS source in the wellhead vicinity (and associated SPZ 1 and 2)
In the vicinity of wellhead/Charlton groundwater levels are very close to the ground surface and in some places where a confining layer exists are known to be artesian. One
implication of this is the suitability of SuDS drainage.
Fluvial Flood Risk
The sites 'Land South-West of Hitchin' and 'Rush Green' are located partly within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Ideally no built development will be situated within Flood Zone 3,
however where the sequential (and where necessary the exceptions tests) have deemed this necessary a sequential approach should be taken to the layout of the development
to ensure that any 'less vulnerable' developments are situated within the flood risk areas (Please note that in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, no
development will be permitted within the functional floodplain). Development will also only be permitted where it can be shown that the development does not increase the risk
of flooding elsewhere.
It should be noted that the identified flood risk at both site locations is associated with 'Non-main River'. In the absence of detailed hydraulic modelling, the development of
either site may require further investigation in order to ascertain modelled flood levels and to determine the extent of the functional flood plain associated with each watercourse.
Surface Water Drainage
A surface water strategy should be carried out to demonstrate that the proposed development will not create an increased risk of flooding from surface water. The surface water
strategy should be carried out in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and the PPS25 Practice Guide, giving preference to infiltration over discharge to a
watercourse, which in turn is preferable to discharge to surface water sewer.
For Information - After April 2014 it is anticipated that SuDS Approval Bodies would consider the adoption and maintenance of sustainable drainage assets. This process will be
subject to the details described in the Defra commencement order due April 2014. We would advise that early consultation is held with the Lead Local Flood Authority
(Hertfordshire County Council) prior to the development of any surface water drainage strategy. In the interim, Hertfordshire County Council have produced an 'Interim SuDS
Policy Statement', which states how development will meet SuDS standards in Hertfordshire. Development should be in line with this statement.
4. Water Framework Directive
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) came into effect in 2000 and became law in 2003. It recognises that development near water bodies can affect their quality and
ecology. WFD established a legal framework for the protection, improvement and sustainable use of the water environment. For planning purposes the framework means that
developments affecting any water body will be expected to contribute towards delivering benefits towards WFD objectives. This may include incorporating SUDs and green
infrastructure into new developments and/or de-culverting, restoring, re-profiling or naturalising river banks to promote natural flows and improve habitats.
5. Biodiversity
This site includes a SSSI and several county wildlife sites as well as the headwaters of the Rivers Hiz and Oughton and Ippollits and Ash Brooks. All of these sites and their
associated wildlife will be sensitive to the impacts of development with the potential for damage to occurr. Numerous public rights of way cross the site, developemnt would
affect their use.In addition there may be adverse impacts on wildlife associated with agricultural land.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/0027
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
46
The Chilterns Conservation Board
Comment
Agent
The Board is concerned that for the possible strategic site to the west and south west of Hitchin no real account has been taken thus far of the likely implications for the
Chilterns AONB and its setting. The site area occupies all of the land between Hitchin and the Chilterns AONB with no break at all. The Board considers that the area to the
east of the AONB should either be excluded from the strategic site or specifically excluded from the developable area due to both the site's proximity to the AONB and the
sensitivity of the landscape. Furthermore, any bypass route should be located wholly outside the AONB and should start at a point to the east of the AONB boundary where it
meets the A505. The text mentions an alignment that might follow the pylons that run to the south of Gosmore. Following this route would bring any road much closer to the
AONB and would be likely to impact on a sensitive area of countryside to the south of the A505. A full landscape character and visual impact assessment should be undertaken
to feed into the preparation of any future document. It is understood that the Council has instigated the undertaking of some landscape character work in this area and this
should clearly feed into the consideration of this site and any bypass. The area to the south of the A505 is high quality, sensitive landscape that may well be worthy of
designation as part of the Chilterns AONB should a review of the AONB boundary ever take place in the future.
LDF/0034
Document Section:
Representation:
27
Dimsdale
Comment
Phillips Planning Services
This site could in theory deliver between 6,000 and 7,400 new homes. However, it is noted that the site promoter does not own all of the land and has options with only some of
the landowners. If this site were to be seriously considered the deliverability of it would need to be investigated fully and assurances in the form of signed agreements provided
to demonstrate that all landowners are on board.
It seems likely that a development of this scale would take at least 3 ¿ 5 years from adoption of the plan to actually start delivering completions. Therefore if a first build year of
approximately 2018 / 2019 were assumed with say 100 in the first year then 200 building up to an average (Buchanan Study) of 330 thereafter the most that could be assumed
off this site would be approximately 3,500 by 2031.
This assumes that average build rates of 330 could be achieved for a significant period. We submit that given the relatively small scale of Hitchin and its housing market that
the market itself is unlikely to absorb this many completions on a strategic site west of the town?
LDF/0053
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Luton Borough Council - Environment and Regeneration
Comment
Of these strategic sites, the key proposals that affect Luton directly are:South-west of Hitchin (appendix 2) encompasses 442 ha that would straddle the A505 and extend as far as Oughton Farm to the north and Wellhead Farm to the south. The
scale of this development would include neighbourhood centres, schools, employment land and a southern bypass linking the A505 to the A602 Wymondley bypass.
The proposal for the major strategic development to the south west of Hitchin would have both benefits and drawbacks for Luton. On the plus side it would dramatically improve
road access to Luton from the east, delivering a continual dual carriageway road on to the A1 (M) and beyond. Luton would also welcome the opportunity that such a scheme
might offer to provide for the needs of Luton residents which cannot be delivered within Luton. However, on the negative side, the improved road access will undoubtedly put
additional traffic pressure onto the A505 within Luton which is already suffering from severe congestions during peak periods.
LDF/0079
31
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
This is an incredibly large site, and the number of houses proposed (6000-7400 homes) would constitute a significant and quite disproportionate increase in the size of Hitchin.
There will also be issues of coalescence with surrounding settlements (eg. Charlton, Gosmore, St Ippolyts).
Within the proposed strategic site is Oughtonhead Lane SSSI, which is designated based upon its geological interest. Natural England considers that with suitable mitigation,
development is unlikely to lead to any deterioration of its geological interest. As this is a geological site, HMWT has no comment to make.
The proposed site would extend the urban area to Oughtonhead Common Local Nature Reserve and Oughtonhead Local Wildlife Site 11/001. Along the margins of the river
Oughton nearby is HMWT's Oughtonhead Nature Reserve, which includes diverse habitats including alder and willow wet woodland and fen habitat rare in Hertfordshire (and
are local and national BAP priority habitats and NERC Act Section 41 habitats of principle importance) which provide habitat for some rare and protected species of birds and
plants. HMWT has significant concerns about the impact that development of this strategic site would have on the highly sensitive and ecological valuable habitats in this area.
In the event that this site is allocated, it must be assured that this area is protected from adverse impacts of development and that habitat restoration, creation and
enhancement is carried out in suitable areas of the allocated site to mitigate and compensate for any loss in habitat interest and ecological connectivity, as part of a site-wide
green infrastructure and ecological restoration plan.
The southern section of the strategic site (adjacent to non-strategic site 110 and 098) would result in Ippollitts Brook and Folly Alder Swamp Local Wildlife Site 20/057 being
enclosed by developed areas, which would seriously compromise their potential contribution to the local ecological and green infrastructure network. The habitats in and
around this river are recognised as having potential for ecological restoration and form the last section of the Hiz Valley/Ickleford/Oughtonhead/Purwell Key Biodiversity Area,
set out in the Hertfordshire Biodiversity Action Plan. HMWT's Purwell Ninesprings Nature Reserve (Local Wildlife Site 21/009) and other Local Wildlife Sites are found
upstream, increasing the river's wildlife value and significance in terms of strengthening ecological connectivity. Water voles, a protected species and BAP priority species, are
known to be present around Purwell Ninesprings.
The Oughton and Hiz River Valleys are identified as a Green Infrastructure priority for the Hitchin area within North Hertfordshire's Green Infrastructure Plan (Land Use
Consultants, 2009). Development of this site appears to conflict with the objectives of this plan, and would threaten the existing ecology and limit the potential opportunities to
improve the green infrastructure network in and around Hitchin.
Several other Local Wildlife Sites will be enclosed and cut off from connecting habitat by development of this area, including The Willows (Hitchin) (20/016) and Charlton Mill
Pool (20/018), which are both wet woodland sites. Attention must be paid to the impact of development on these sites, and mitigation and compensation will be required for
loss or deterioration of ecological interest. As previously, if the site is allocated, some habitat management, creation, enhancement and restoration should be implemented as
part of a wider Green infrastructure and ecological enhancement plan to maintain and improve these Local Wildlife Sites and maintain connectivity with the wider landscape.
The council should further give consideration to the valley of some of the farmland within this site in supporting rare and declining farmland bird populations. A local
ornithologist has provided HMWT with a set of bird monitoring data for a small site near Temple End covering 15 years, which shows at least 9 red-listed species (most of which
NERC section 41 species of principle importance in England) and 13 amber-listed species present and/or breeding on a regular basis on the site and adjacent fields, and other
red and amber-listed bird species which are recorded as occasional visitors. Information on the red and amber listings and Birds of Conservation Concern in general can be
found from the British Trust for Ornithology.
We have no other information on protected, priority or otherwise notable species present within the site or in the surrounding areas. Impacts on important species must be
taken into account and mitigation and compensation implemented as necessary if this site goes forward for development, based on suitable ecological surveys.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/0089
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
44
Woodruff
Object
The excess need related to Hitchin of about 2,150 homes is minor in the context of the scale of the strategic site shown south and west of Hitchin (for 6,000 to 7,400 homes)
that has been put forward as one alternative to address the needs of the District as a whole.
Hitchin Forum's view is that development of all or part of this area of Green Belt would be totally unacceptable in relation to three of the purposes of the Green Belt (National
Planning Policy Framework 2012 page 19):
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
Hitchin has been recognised by English Heritage as an important historic town (Urban Panel Review July 2012) and by the Council for British Archaeology as of national
importance. Hitchin is unusual in the retention of an extensive medieval street pattern and the close relationship of that core to the countryside. The development of the
strategic site would sever the centre from its rural setting, double the physical extent of the town and increase its population by 50%. The pressure on services, facilities and the
transport network would entail significant changes to the physical fabric of the town which would have a much greater impact than any benefits that might be claimed from the
associated construction of a bypass.
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Land Use Consultant's Landscape Sensitivity Study (LSS 2012) makes clear the significance and sensitivity of this attractive area of countryside as an open undulating valley
with its small villages and isolated farms lying between the historic town and the Chilterns AONB and Langley Scarp. The town has a very clear edge along the ridge line to west
and south so that even partial development into the valley would have very significant impact (which by the nature of the area could not be successfully mitigated by tree
planting). The area also provides an extremely important setting for informal recreation for a town with limited open space within its built up area.
To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
Part of the site area is also crucial in providing separation between Hitchin and Stevenage (LSS page 39); and much of it is also vital in retaining separation between Hitchin
and the villages of Charlton, Gosmore, St Ippollytts, Titmore Green and Little Wymondley (LSS pages 38 and 48).
4. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
A case can be made for Hitchin that it is reaching its environmental capacity, with significant constraints in terms of its historic centre and setting. The argument would be that
the excess needs have to be met beyond its Green Belt.
It is not yet clear how far Stevenage may be seeking housing sites outside its own built up area either adjacent to or within North Hertfordshire in the period up to 2031 (see 1.1
above). If it is, then there could be an argument that the additional housing need from Hitchin (and Letchworth) would contribute to a sustainable development adjacent to
Stevenage, depending on its location.
In fact the Letchworth/Hitchin/Stevenage area as a whole is becoming increasingly congested with significant difficulties in providing infrastructure and services, and with very
fragile gaps between settlements.
It may therefore be worth considering the development of a new settlement further north in a sustainable location with associated rail links. Such consideration would seem to
be appropriate in the context of the government's espousal of the building of new settlements built on Garden City principles (NPPF page 13), and its expectation that Local
Authorities will be co-operating:
The Stevenage and A1(M) housing sub market area includes much of Bedfordshire (SMHA page 7) and there could be an argument for needs to be met at a new settlement
elsewhere in the same functional sub market.
Or NHDC could take account of the growing economic base of Cambridge and the related employment opportunities. It might then be appropriate to look for a new settlement
in the north east of the District to meet these opportunities.
A new settlement could also provide for any additional needs not met by other towns or villages in the District.
Hitchin Forum therefore urges NHDC to take the significant opportunity provided by the government's support for new settlements and co-operation between authorities, in
order to break the cycle of continuous recourse to the most congested part of the District, and to undertake a more strategic planning approach to housing needs.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
LDF/0121
Document Section:
Representation:
Applicant
Agent
5
Keogh
Object
1. The proposed development in the strategic site South West of Hitchin would increase the size of the town in an unacceptable way increasing the number of dwellings by up
to 8,000.
2. This would change the nature of the town. The urban edge of Hitchin is currently well defined, situated on higher ground and generally integrated with the landscape. Any
intervention beyond this green boundary would damage the topography and the extensive views.
3. The proposed development would encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chiltern's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and both would be adversely affected.
4. The proposed development would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollyts and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin.
5. This is an area which includes SSSIs, archaeological sites, listed buildings and good agricultural land. The landscape is assessed as highly sensitive to development.
LDF/0162
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Short
Object
It appears from all the paperwork that Hitchin is being singled out to bear the brunt of NHDC housing requirements and to sacrifice much of the surrounding countryside in the
process. Development of this magnitude will destroy Hitchin as a market town. Whilst a new bypass would be beneficial it would only help that side of town. What about
Cambridge Rd and Bedford Rd? given the location of our town and street layout we need a total ring road. Traffic from this new development would flow into Hitchin and further
block circulation.Where is the parking coming from? Will a new development of this size compete with Hitchin for services? What about flood risks? There must be more
appropriate, less congested sites in N Herts where the impact of this size of development would be lessened or shared more equitably.
LDF/0214
Document Section:
Representation:
11
Hutson
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0229
Document Section:
Representation:
1.
11
Crouch
Comment
The proposed development in the strategic site South West of Hitchin would increase the size of the town in an unacceptable way increasing the number of dwellings by up
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/0249
Document Section:
Representation:
20
Foster
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/0280
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Ohlendorf
Comment
South West Hitchin: a large site, so offers flexibility. Developers have offered to assist with cost of a bypass, thus reducing congestion in the town, currently a nightmare at peak
hours. Infrastructure already in place.
LDF/0283
Document Section:
14
Little
Object
Representation:
to 8,000.
LDF/0302
Document Section:
29
Kennedy
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
While limited development south-west of Hitchin may come in the future, this should follow development of a Hitchin south-west bye-pass, when limited development inside the
line of the bye-pass may have a lower impact and the necessary transport infra-structure would be more easily accommodated.
LDF/0316
Document Section:
54
Tait
Object
Representation:
This would constitute a new town having few links with main town and could not be integrated into the main urban development.
Because of large scale infrastructure changes, development of this site would not be achieved within the forecast timescale
Project would require massive dual carriage road diversion and reconstruction before any development commenced.
Site split by two flood plain areas
Many land owners are unknown and availability undetermined
Would degrade large area of natural beauty to the west
Unsustainable by NHDC policy definitions with complete lack of any services
Private car use essential for everyday house shopping after development finished against NHDC sustainability policy
LDF/0336
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Thrussell
Comment
Least desirable site, increasing size of town unacceptable. Damage to hitchin as a historic town. Too close to oughton head common and AONB- both would be adversely
affected sensitive green belt, the urban edge of Hitchin is well defined, situated on a higher ground and any intervention beyond this would break the ridge line and affect the
topography and extensive views.
LDF/0337
Document Section:
Representation:
17
Bailey
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/0349
Document Section:
21
Borner
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Object
Agent
1. I strongly oppose the proposed development on the strategic site South West of Hitchin which would increase the size of the town in an unacceptable way ¿ increasing the
number of dwellings by up to 8,000
2. The Hitchin site would significantly undermine the rural nature of the town. The urban edge of Hitchin is currently well defined, situated on higher ground and generally
integrated with the landscape. Any intervention beyond this green boundary would damage the topography and the extensive views. The proposed development would
encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chiltern's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and both would be adversely affected
3. The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollyts and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin.
LDF/0359
Document Section:
Representation:
41
Bagenal
Object
This would increase the size of Hitchin by a third and potentially ruin its character. It would also spoil a lovely part of our countryside which we enjoy walking in .
LDF/0367
Document Section:
Representation:
14
O'Carroll
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/0402
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Deuchar
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0404
15
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Lowry
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/0407
Document Section:
Representation:
18
Collins
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/0426
Document Section:
Representation:
8
O'dell Bailey
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/0429
Document Section:
Representation:
25
Heymans
Object
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/0438
Document Section:
12
Bell
Comment
Representation:
to 8,000.
LDF/0445
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Rooney
Object
I strongly oppose the proposed developmenton the strategic site South West of Hitchin which would increase the size of the town in an unacceptable way ¿ increasing the
The Hitchinsite would change the historic and rural nature of the town. The urban edge of Hitchin is currently well defined, situated on higher ground and generally integrated
with the landscape. Any intervention beyond this green boundary would damage the topography and the extensive views. The proposed development would encroach on
Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chiltern's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and both would be adversely affected
The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollits and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin
LDF/0460
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Rooney
Object
I strongly oppose the proposed developmenton the strategic site South West of Hitchinwhich would increase the size of the town in an unacceptable way ¿ increasing the
The Hitchin site would change the historic and rural nature of the town. The urban edge of Hitchin is currently well defined, situated on higher ground and generally integrated
with the landscape. Any intervention beyond this green boundary would damage the topography and the extensive views. The proposed development would encroach on
Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chiltern's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and both would be adversely affected
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/0473
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
16
Stringer
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/0473
Document Section:
Representation:
20
Stringer
Comment
Hitchins roads cannot cope with the extra traffic!
LDF/0475
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Sanders
Comment
What an appalling prospect of up to 10,000 houses to be built on what is left of beautiful green belt land to the west of hitchin.
The town centre and surrounding roads are not big enough to absorb any more people with their cars, just come and witness this any day oh the week.
This strategy would eventually link Hitchin with Luton, Stevenage and Letchworth which nobody would want.
Ashwell and Royston has vast areas of land which could be developed with an existing railway to serve the population.
I can not really add to the valid points already made in this document,
The town can not support the increase in population with jobs, transport, shops and general infrastructure and at the same time have a pleasant environment to live in.
LDF/0475
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Sanders
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/0477
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
8
Pond
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/0489
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Turner
Object
It is with much regret that we have studied the proposals for building on Hitchin's Green Belt and are most unhappy for the developments of new housing.
In particular we object to the "strategic" site proposed for 7000 houses and the site on Lucas Lane between the top of West Hill and Pirton Road. Many of our objections are
similar for the two sites.
Surely one of the purposes of the Green Belt is to prevent such developments, which would ruin Hitchin as a rural, market town. The areas concerned, if built upon, would
destroy the superb views as well as removing an important habitat for wildlife and flora. It also serves a significant purpose as a recreational site for walkers, bird watchers,
horse riders, joggers and more. We ourselves have seen deer, hedgehogs, foxes, bramblings, red kite, and buzzards to name but a few.
It seems as though somebody has blindly stuck a pin on a map with complete disregard to our countryside.
Even the councils own landscape sensitivity study for this area recognised the beauty of this area with its amazing views, glorious sunsets and its unspoiled nature.
Only today, in the local press, does it state that according to "The Times Beds Places to Live" Hitchin is in the top 30 and indeed is listed ninth. We doubt that it would make the
top thirty if the Lucas Lane site or the strategic site were allowed to be developed.
The size of Hitchin would increase the population by around 50% and has any though been given to shops, schools, health facilities. access etc.? We would doubt that Hitchin
could support such a development without cutting off the centre of Hitchin from its rural nature. Isn't it time we left some of countryside unspoiled. Make the words "Green Belt"
meaningful. We have lived on the edge of the green belt having moved there because we wanted to get away from "estate" living and be right amongst and in the countryside.
So please leave us and many others like us in peace?
LDF/0490
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Turner
Object
It is with much regret that we have studied the proposals for building on Hitchin's Green Belt and are most unhappy for the developments of new housing.
In particular we object to the "strategic" site proposed for 7000 houses and the site on Lucas Lane between the top of West Hill and Pirton Road. Many of our objections are
similar for the two sites.
Surely one of the purposes of the Green Belt is to prevent such developments, which would ruin Hitchin as a rural, market town. The areas concerned, if built upon, would
destroy the superb views as well as removing an important habitat for wildlife and flora. It also serves a significant purpose as a recreational site for walkers, bird watchers,
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
horse riders, joggers and more. We ourselves have seen deer, hedgehogs, foxes, bramblings, red kite, and buzzards to name but a few.
It seems as though somebody has blindly stuck a pin on a map with complete disregard to our countryside.
Even the councils own landscape sensitivity study for this area recognised the beauty of this area with its amazing views, glorious sunsets and its unspoiled nature.
Only today, in the local press, does it state that according to "The Times Beds Places to Live" Hitchin is in the top 30 and indeed is listed ninth. We doubt that it would make the
top thirty if the Lucas Lane site or the strategic site were allowed to be developed.
The size of Hitchin would increase the population by around 50% and has any though been given to shops, schools, health facilities. access etc.? We would doubt that Hitchin
could support such a development without cutting off the centre of Hitchin from its rural nature. Isn't it time we left some of countryside unspoiled. Make the words "Green Belt"
meaningful. We have lived on the edge of the green belt having moved there because we wanted to get away from "estate" living and be right amongst and in the countryside.
So please leave us and many others like us in peace?
LDF/0499
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Baldwin
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0500
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Carrington
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0501
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Carrington
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/0510
Document Section:
Representation:
14
Mitchell
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0510
Document Section:
Representation:
18
Mitchell
Comment
The number of empty properties in Hitchin and the surrounding areas should be counted, and then maybe, the number of new houses proposed would be considerably
reduced.
The buffer zone of the greenfield belt round Hitchin is vital to its survival as a historical medieval town.
LDF/0511
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Pullen
Comment
I am writing to object most strongly to NHDCs proposals as shown in their Housing Options and Community Infrastructure Levy documents. No questions appear to have been
asked as to the best places for development and suggestions as to their nearness to existing facilities ie schools, shops etc and importantly to trains stations.
The loss of green belt land by the development of land S W Hitchin and W of Stevenage would be disastrous for both towns, with the merging of villages into a large single
urban area.
More consultation is essential and answers given to the many questions raised by myself and many other objections.
I look forward to an acknowledgement of this letter.
LDF/0512
Document Section:
Representation:
16
Langley
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
6. Traffic density in Hitchin and through the surrounding villages is already beyond sustainable capacity and the lack of infrastructure in Hitchin and the towns poor public
transport adds to an already overburdened population density for parking and shopping in the town.
LDF/0514
Document Section:
Representation:
14
Campbell
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0515
Document Section:
Representation:
11
Campbell
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0517
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Hobbs
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/0531
Document Section:
15
Dye
Representation:
Object
A casual glance at a map of North Herts shows that all the proposed sites are clustered around the already crowded communities of Stevenage, Hitchin and Letchworth and the
rest of the county is remarkably free of development proposals. As past debates over the stalled West of Stevenage development have shown the whole area already suffers
severe congestion of its road and rail transport links and there are insufficient water and sewerage facilities to support any further sizeable development in the area.
It is arguable that the total number of houses needed in North Herts should be based upon the needs of North Herts and not on some arbitrary number decided by central
government who may well have other considerations on their mind, such as relieving overcrowding in London.
Building houses in excess of those needed to accommodate the needs of North Herts existing communities will only encourage migration into the area and increase the
pressure on already inadequate infrastructure and transport links.
I am concerned that the sites chosen for consultation are ones proposed by developers who, lets face it, don't have the needs of the community uppermost on their minds.
Surely it should be up to the council to decide where new houses should be built based upon strategic considerations and the needs of the community, not where developers
have land and where they can make the best profit for themselves.
As I live in Hitchin I am most concerned about the proposals that affect my immediate area although taken as a whole the various sites proposed would encroach upon the
green spaces between Stevenage, Letchworth and Hitchin and the surrounding villages such as Gosmore, St. Ippolyts, Charlton and other smaller communities. The Green
Belt laws were designed to stop the erosion of open countryside between neighbouring towns and prevent them coalescing into one large urban sprawl. These proposals
seems designed to do just that and should be resisted.
Hitchin has taken more than its fair share of development over the last few years and as a consequence there are less available sites within Hitchin than other towns suitable
for development. It is already a 'dormitory' town with over half the working population commuting outside the town for work and any further large scale housing development
without plans to increase employment within the area will only add to the congestion on already overcrowded transport links. It can be argued that Hitchin has now reached its
economic limit for expansion and further increases will overwhelm the town and its infrastructure. I particular, the West of Hitchin site would significantly undermine the rural
nature of the town. The urban edge of Hitchin is currently well defined, situated on higher ground and generally integrated with the landscape. Any intervention beyond this
green boundary would damage the topography and the extensive views. The proposed development would encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chiltern's Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty and both would be adversely affected.
If the numbers of homes needing to be built in North Herts really are on the scale proposed then perhaps they could be best handled by building a properly planned new town in
the county. Such a site should be located near road and rail links and could be properly planned with all the facilities such as schools, shops, community centres, water
,sewerage, etc required by such a large number of people. Within North Herts suitable sites would appear to lie along the line of the A505 and the Kings Cross to Cambridge
rail link in the area of Ashwell or Royston where stations already exist.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
North Herts is already overcrowded, has congested transport links, inadequate infrastructure and any proposals to build more houses can only add to these problems. Any
sizeable development will necessarily encroach upon Green Belt and result in the loss of valuable recreational spaces as well as building over much needed farming land which
is already struggling to provide enough food for the existing population. I urge the council to scale back these proposals to ones more in keeping with the needs of the local
community.
LDF/0535
Document Section:
Representation:
18
Noyce
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0536
Document Section:
Representation:
47
Skeggs
Object
Continue to strongly oppose this proposed huge development for 6000 to 7400 homes as it does not comply with the purposes of the Green Belt as shown in the Government's
National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
Would increases coalescence of Gosmore and St Ippolyts villages with Hitchin.
Would engulf Charlton hamlet.
Would completely change the character and environment of Hitchin and its environs.
Would be more pressure on an already busy road and rail network within the towns and access routes to an extent that probably would not be solved by proposed bypass.
Would be pressure on services and facilities resulting in changes to the fabric of Hitchin.
Proximity to Chiltern's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Loss of attractive countryside referred to in LUC's 2012 Landscape Sensitivity Study.
LDF/0537
Document Section:
Representation:
47
St Ippolyts Parish Council
Object
i) Increases coalescence of Gosmore and St Ippolyts villages with Hitchin.
ii) Engulfs Charlton.
iii) Is disproportionate to the size of Hitchin and would completely change the character and environment of the town.
iv) Would completely over burden an already stretched road and rail transport system both within the town and on access routes to an extent that would not be solved by a
bypass. The additional traffic on these routes will be disastrous.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
v) In addition to pressure on the transport network there would be pressure on services and facilities as residents of new homes will also want to use the amenities within the
town centre resulting changes to the fabric of town.
vi) Is not sustainable.
vii) Adjoins the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
LDF/0540
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Rollason
Object
In my opinion, there is a fundamental problem with the proposals in that the sites are proposed by developers and, although accepting them would appear to be the easiest
option for the Council, it would definitely NOT be the best option for Hitchin.
Please ¿ start from a strategic planning stance on sound, considered principles and plan for what would be best ¿ not only for Hitchin ¿ but overall for all the towns in your care
Why is Hitchin allocated 60% of the total extra housing of the four main towns in NHDC's care ¿ we are already close to environmental capacity with all the developments particularly flats - which have taken place and threaten to overwhelm our historic Market town.
South West of Hitchin (Ref 37) ¿ . 6000-7,400 homes are proposed! This site is important in landscape terms, in preventing the merging of settlements, and in preserving the
setting and special character of Hitchin as an historic town ¿ the 50% increase in population would mean significant changes to the physical fabric and environment of the town
that would have much greater impact than any benefit that might be suggested from building a bypass.
Where are all these extra people going to work? In or towards London? The A1(M) is already choked at commuter times, the trains are jampacked. In Cambridge? Have you
looked at Walsworth crossroads at such times? The queue out of Hitchin sometimes stretches as far as Grove Road roundabout.
Also how will people get into Hitchin to shop. We already have a bypass which would need to be traversed in some way to avoid congestion at the library and Stevenage Road
roundabouts.
There doesn't appear to be any provision for employment in the plans ¿ merely, it seems to me ¿ profit for developers on their terms ¿ Simons scenario again.
Please ¿ pursue a pro-active approach to this problem ¿ can you perhaps co-operate with neighbouring authorities
(who are no doubt in the same dilemma) to consider a new Garden City with its own provision for services, schools AND employment.
You have an opportunity to act imaginatively and bravely to preserve ¿ enhance ¿ our lovely towns.
Please Take it!
LDF/0556
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Wotherspoon
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0564
Document Section:
8
Else
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Object
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/0569
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Simmonds
Object
This strategic option has a theoretical capacity of some 7000 housing units, which implies up to 20,000 people and 10,000 vehicles.
Ignoring the natural growth using nonstrategic sites, this represents a vast development of a market town swamping the population of some 30,000 souls presently. Hitchin has
already expanded from 20,000 over the last 60 years, which has already put strain on local infrastructure, the 19th century railway station and the medieval pattern town centre.
I suggest that this proposal is not do-able.
If it complements a town bypass, then a huge development will largely be a dormitory with limited association with its host town, residents largely looking to Stevenage or
London for shopping and work. Hitchin has developed a strong community over a thousand years and a huge expansion would destroy it - witness Stevenage, where I was
brought up, seeing my own countryside move further and further away until my Old Town home was stranded in an urban area, country or even significant green space a drive
away. And no residual sense of community!
Hitchin on the other hand recently, raised £300,000 from its residents to repair St Mary's Church and £220,000 for the Queen Mother Theatre about 18 months later.
Such of the 10,000 cars who use the town centre will have no place to park.
I am more generally concerned over the urbanisation of North Herts and the coalescence of its country towns, not to mention the propinquity of Luton.
I am further concerned over the pressure on water resources, despite presuming our aquifers have part replenished in the last year. Sewerage has already been highlighted.
The concept of building on flood plains seems ludicrous in light of recent events.
Many of the same concerns apply to West of Stevenage, but at least the Borough Council appears to believe growth will achieve critical mass to cure its failed town centre, so a
significant part of the suggested need can be accommodated there. Baldock and Letchworth have some of the same disabilities which proportionate growth will benefit.
Finally, the process horrifies me - a very short period to pick from a range of rag bag options assembled by developers, rather than any pretence of a coherent overview.
LDF/0572
Document Section:
18
Davies
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/0572
Document Section:
Representation:
23
Davies
Comment
Open spaces are so important to man, and animals. What an asset to Hitchin we have with our beautiful open spaces and proximity to beautiful, as yet unspoilt village. The
thrust today and to the future is to encourage people to get out into the countryside for pleasure and activity. This total sprawl suggested West of Hitchin will be seen as the
opposite to this thrust. Making Hitchin our unique Market Town almost double in size will totally destroy this unique perspective. I am aware that ? ? ? together and folk need
places to live, but this also should take into account what we have now and hope to have in the future ¿ please think carefully before making mistakes that cannot be rectified.
LDF/0573
Document Section:
Representation:
17
Davies
Comment
to 8,000.
6. This is an area which includes SSSIs, archaelogical sites, listed buildings and good agricultural land. The landscape is assessed a highly sensitive to development.
LDF/0573
Document Section:
Representation:
21
Davies
Comment
People need to be able to get out into green space area surrounding towns and also parks. We need to breath reasonably fresh air, take walks and enjoy the nature in the
countryside. I enjoy bird watching and walking by the river, school children should be encouraged to get out and about in open spaces. Too many kids and adults are
overweight! Hence the health walk which are a really good idea.
Hitchin has been rated one of the best towns to live in the country. We don't need to have it doubled in size. The area south west of hitchin is a long way from the station, where
will these new residents work! More travelling on the already overworked trains and roads, even with new roads being built they will soon become over crowded, too many cars
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
will be around then. Keep Hitchin about the size it is, otherwise it wont be one of the best towns to live in. Encourage building on brownfield sites and look into the numbers of
empty homes around. Encroachment from surrounding towns i.e Luton, Steve. etc. should not be allowed if a new residential area is to be built, the north of county should be a
better option it could be a new town (small)
LDF/0603
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Thomas
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0626
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Plum
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0640
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Richardson
Object
Hitchin is recognised by English Heritage's Urban Panel Review as an important historic town and must be kept as such.
It is essential to preserve the setting & special character of historic towns as well as preventing the merging of neighbouring towns by encroachment into surrounding
countryside.
The past decade has seen Hitchin take a disproportionate level of new housing; Hitchin only accounts for 27% of NHDCs total population but has taken over 60% of the
population increase, overtaking Letchworth in size!
The concentration in Hitchin of the recent growth must stop and Hitchin take a proportionate increase in housing of approximately 2,400 homes only, including those already
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
achieved.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Taking account of the above points and with reference to the purpose of Green Belt (National Planning Policy Framework 2012), development of the strategic site South West
of Hitchin is totally unacceptable.
LDF/0643
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Esuruoso
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0647
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Jones
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/0658
Document Section:
24
Else
Representation:
Object
All of the proposed sites are in the Green Belt which exists to help safeguard the countryside from encroachment and to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one
another. The housing options plan will destroy large swathes of our countryside as well as the beautiful and unique villages surrounding Hitchin. The green belt must be
protected ¿ once it has been built over, it is gone forever. Ditto our villages.
It will ruin the innate character of Hitchin. Hitchin is a unique and beautiful market town and a desirable place to live. This will be ruined by the propositions in the housing
options plan.
Hitchin is a non sustainable location. Currently, local services such as medical services and local schools are under immense strain, roads are congested and transport
services for example trains to London and Cambridge are overcrowded. The housing options plan, should it be permitted, will only add to these problems.
· The number of homes proposed is not proportionate. If the outstanding homes for the period up to 2031 were distributed according to the proportion of existing size of
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
settlements, then Hitchin would need to find 27 per cent of the total, i.e. 2,400 homes.
South West of Hitchin (Ref 37). This site is important in landscape terms, in preventing the merging of settlements, and in preserving the setting and special character of Hitchin
as a historic town ¿ the 50% increase in population would mean significant changes to the physical fabric and environment of the town that would have much greater impact
than any benefit that might be suggested from building a bypass.
The proposals do not meet Hitchin's Needs. Hitchin has taken a large proportion of the houses built over the past 10 years: between 2001 and 2011 over 60% of the population
increase in the four towns was within Hitchin. This has mostly been flats. There should now be a priority for family homes. The non-strategic sites proposed in the consultation
taken together would only contribute about 250 homes and it is clear that there are huge problems with the strategic sites proposed.
An Alternative is Needed
A case can be made that Hitchin is reaching its environmental capacity, with significant constraints in terms of its historic centre and setting. The entire
Letchworth/Hitchin/Stevenage area is becoming increasingly congested with significant difficulties in providing infrastructure and services, and very fragile gaps between
settlements. It may therefore be worth considering the development of a new settlement further north in a sustainable location with associated rail links. This is in line with the
government's support for building new settlements built on Garden City principles and with the duty placed on local authorities to co-operate with neighbouring authorities.
Planning history is littered with examples of beautiful and unique towns, buildings, countryside and villages being destroyed in the name of 'progress' leaving subsequent
generations astounded by such ill considered planning decisions. Do not let this happen to Hitchin and its surrounding villages and countryside.
LDF/0677
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Fowler
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0683
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Dowling
Object
Save the beautiful green belt to West of Hitchin. It will ruin Charlton village and other areas of historical and environmental importance such as Oughtonhead Common, also
infrastructure unsuitable for this size of development.
LDF/0685
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Underhill
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/0697
Document Section:
Representation:
16
Angus
Object
We would like to state our agreement with the objections to building on greenbelt raised by the West Hitchin Action Group. We would like to see the preservation of Hitchin's
green belt in order to retain the town's unique rural character for future generations. It has been a rural town for hundreds of years, why do we have to spoil the character with
hundreds of new houses?
We agree with the growth and realistic housing that meets Hitchin's needs, but not just to suit developers and landowners needs. We should be using brownfield sites for
housing development. There must still be plenty of spaces that can be used.
The new settlement that has been suggested is one answer, and quite a good one, but where would they put it? A new village between Baldock and Royston with easy access
to Ashwell station which has been mentioned sounds good. There must be another solution to this problem apart from using greenbelt land, the lungs for our town.
LDF/0700
Document Section:
Representation:
16
Scott
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0702
Document Section:
Representation:
11
Leech
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/0707
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
5
Richardson
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/0738
Document Section:
Representation:
14
Schopp
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/0753
Document Section:
Representation:
11
Scupham
Object
As a member of Hitchin Forum, Hitchin Historical Society, and the British Schools Trust, and indeed as a resident here for fifty years, I take a great interest in the possible
developments that have been suggested over the years.
I visited your display in Church House on March 2, and attended the 'Have Your Say' stall on March 9 (to be repeated on March 23). At both these events it was evident that
there is a great deal of concern among Hitchin's people, and even further afield, from those who value Hitchin as a place both to live in and to visit.
I would like to begin by quoting Pevsner's remarks, in his 'Hertfordshire', 1953 ¿ just 60 years ago.
'Hitchin is without doubt, next to St Albans, the most interesting and visually most satisfying town of Herts¿.The town has kept its medieval plan virtually without interference, a
real market square (rare in the county) with parallel streets running off at the angles to the N and S.'
This is still more or less true. But your plans would destroy Hitchin's character entirely. It is now a compact market town, with a real sense of the countryside all round, together
with a ring of villages each with its own personality. This is why we value it and love to live here.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Under the strange title of 'Planning Assessment Matrix' (p.18 of your Plan), you in fact very neatly list some of the chief objections, namely 1. 'The site is located within the
Green Belt¿'; 2. 'Parts of the site..fall within flood plains'; 3. 'There is one SSI..6 wildlife sites¿borders an AONB.. is crossed by a number of rights of way'; 4. 'There are 4 known
archaeological areas.. conservation areas..listed buildings'.
What more do we need to say?
Where are the 6/7,400 new families to come from? Would anyone want to live in a town whose character and present amenities are so despoiled?
The clue lies in the fact that the plans come from LANDOWNERS AND DEVELOPERS; someone clearly hopes to make a quick buck.
LDF/0753
Document Section:
Representation:
15
Scupham
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0763
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Saldanha
Object
5. The stategic site South West of Hitchin is used as a recreational space also, by huge numbers of people from Hitchin and surrounding areas- this is why alot of people love
to and stay living in Hitchin, and the ability to easily get to and enjoy the countryside is considered by many (including me) to be inetensely valuable to happiness and enjoyment
of life.
6. Many People who would move on to the site (South West of Hitchin) could safely be assumed to be commuters to London, and therefore need to use the train. They would
therefore need to get accross Hitchin to the train station- the proposed by-pass would not help this. The roads in Hitchin simply cannot take any more traffic, the station could
not cope with any more traffic- either pedestrian or vehicle.
It just isnt properly thought through from a town planning point of view.
LDF/0781
Document Section:
5
Jones
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/0789
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Kennedy
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/0790
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Kennedy
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0796
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Clark
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/0800
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Hook
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0800
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Hook
Comment
If this development does ahead as planned it can only have a negative impact on the recreational space available to Hitchin residents. This will have a huge social impact and
will certainly be to the detriment of existing Hitchin residents as well as those looking to relocate here in the future.
LDF/0801
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Wakefield
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0806
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Wakefield
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
How can the plans to fill our greenbelt with houses be viable. Hitchin is straining now with the amount of traffic and increase in school places needed. So I say NO - build in a
new settlement which can provide a new community and a heart rather than straining existing resources and choking a small market town. (already spoilt with too many flats).
LDF/0815
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Partridge
Comment
The area of over 1000 acres to be built on by over 700 houses is totally inconceivable! The unique character of hitchin would be ruined forever.
Green Belt
Outghtonhead nature reserve and surrounding fields are a necessary "living" for the town. Each day i see "Health" walkers and dog walkers, horse riders and joggers using the
many routes in this area to enjoy the fresh air, birds, flowers etc. If this area were to be built on where would the people go to enjoy the countryside? Fifty years ago i was one of
them and still cherish the memories.
Traffic
The town centre is already congested. A bypass could relieve traffic going to luton and stevenage but how would they get to the station? The station car park is already
overcrowded. How would the whole transport network cope? At present grays lane, west hill and other roads in this area are already used daily as carparks.
Town Facilities
How would you address the need for doctors/schools/literacy/childrens pay area etc. And keep the character of a small medieval market town which at present is Hitchin.
Other Comments
In the past few weeks a developer was unable to fulfil his work on a large development on the fringe of kettering due to lack of money.
How confident would you be in choosing a developer who could fund his projects satisfactorily We have already suffered at the hands of simons incompetence.
LDF/0832
Document Section:
Representation:
14
Parker
Comment
to 8,000.
6. There are brownfield sites in Hitchin area which are for redvelopment to meet housing needs but have been excluded because these have not been put forward by the
owner or by a developer (e.g. Old gasworks in wilbury way, rail signage etc.)
LDF/0840
5
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Woolley
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
I would like to draw attention specifically to the finger of land around the back of housing in Moss Way and Swinburne Avenue.
This is in part a site using farm fields but as it moves eastwards it covers the playing fields at the back of Swinburne Avenue, and the allotments further down the same road.
Both of these amenities have been used by local people for several years and are important for continued use - people deprived of these facilities would feel deprived of them
and aggrieved, particularly the sports fields which are important for using the energies of the young.
Both sites also form a bridge between current housing and Oughton Head Common, and so form a 'lung' for the people of Westmill who walk a lot on the common and
surrounding fields.
It would seem unnecessary petty to include this finger of land in these housing development plans. It is not within the larger area further south west, and if the larger area were
to be part of a separate area of housing with its own schools and shops and community areas then this finger of land is not going to benefit from those amenities; instead if
housing were to be built on this finger of land, there would be pressure on the shops and community facilities of Westmill and particularly the schools which are already
crowded. The current size of the Westmill estate is manageable. People can walk to the countryside easily and it is a good place to live. More housing and pressure on facilities
would affect several thousand people.
LDF/0850
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Rollason
Object
In my opinion, there is a fundamental problem with the proposals in that the sites are proposed by developers and, although accepting them would appear to be the easiest
option for the Council, it would definitely NOT be the best option for Hitchin.
Please ¿ start from a strategic planning stance on sound, considered principles and plan for what would be best ¿ not only for Hitchin ¿ but overall for all the towns in your care
Why is Hitchin allocated 60% of the total extra housing of the four main towns in NHDC's care ¿ we are already close to environmental capacity with all the developments particularly flats - which have taken place and threaten to overwhelm our historic Market town.
South West of Hitchin (Ref 37) ¿ . 6000-7,400 homes are proposed! This site is important in landscape terms, in preventing the merging of settlements, and in preserving the
setting and special character of Hitchin as an historic town ¿ the 50% increase in population would mean significant changes to the physical fabric and environment of the town
that would have much greater impact than any benefit that might be suggested from building a bypass.
Where are all these extra people going to work? In or towards London? The A1(M) is already choked at commuter times, the trains are jampacked. In Cambridge? Have you
looked at Walsworth crossroads at such times? The queue out of Hitchin sometimes stretches as far as Grove Road roundabout.
Also how will people get into Hitchin to shop. We already have a bypass which would need to be traversed in some way to avoid congestion at the library and Stevenage Road
roundabouts.
There doesn't appear to be any provision for employment in the plans ¿ merely, it seems to me ¿ profit for developers on their terms ¿ Simons scenario again.
Please ¿ pursue a pro-active approach to this problem ¿ can you perhaps co-operate with neighbouring authorities
(who are no doubt in the same dilemma) to consider a new Garden City with its own provision for services, schools AND employment.
You have an opportunity to act imaginatively and bravely to preserve ¿ enhance ¿ our lovely towns.
Please take it!
LDF/0860
Document Section:
Representation:
15
De Ste Croix
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/0861
Document Section:
Representation:
16
Langley
Object
LDF/0891
Document Section:
Representation:
22
Barley Parish Council
Comment
As this site has an area designated as of outstanding natural beauty it would also appear to be one of the most sensitive to development.
LDF/0899
Document Section:
Representation:
38
The Hoy 1997 Settlement
Comment
DH Barford & Co
This provides an opportunity for an urban extension of Hitchin, However, the suggested scale of development with the consequential up front infrastructure and 'lead in' times
calls into question the ability to deliver the suggested scale of development in the Local Plan timetable.
LDF/0906
Document Section:
17
Seebohm Executors and Dr Napier
Keymer Cavendish
Development Consultants
Representation:
Comment
We do not have professional knowledge of these sites and leave it to those better qualified to comment on the deliverability, viability and land ownership constraints relevant to
them. However, the mistake of West Stevenage where 'all the eggs were in one basket' shows the futility of relying on too few sites, to deliver large numbers of housing.
Another factor is that it is difficult to achieve an average delivery (build, market and sell) of much more than 300 houses per annum on any one strategic site over time.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Affordable housing can be added to this, so there might be maximum delivery - say 400-420 houses on a large site, where three national house builders are working
simultaneously in a strong housing market.
The long lead time also needs to be considered - 3-4 years - before the planning process is complete, strategic infrastructure installed an initial delivery under way.
With the conclusion of any Inquiry unlikely before 2015, there is only a twelve year delivery period (2019-2031) within the Plan period, allowing for these initial delays.
LDF/0908
Document Section:
18
Picture srl Limited
Keymer Cavendish
Development Consultants
Comment
Representation:
We do not have professional knowledge of these sites and leave it to those better qualified to comment on the deliverability, viability and land ownership constraints relevant to
the. However, the mistake of West Stevenage where 'all the eggs were in one basket' shows the futility of relying on too few sites, to deliver large numbers of housing.
Another factor is that it is difficult to achieve an average delivery over time (build, market and sell) of much more than 300 houses per annum on any one strategic site.
Affordable housing can be added to this, so there might be maximum delivery - say 400 to 420 on a large site, where three national house builders are working simultaneously
in a strong housing market.
The long lead time also needs to be considered - 3-4 years - before the planning process is complete, strategic infrastructure installed an initial delivery under way.
With the conclusion of any North Herts Inquiry unlikely before 2015, there is only a twelve year build period within the Plan period to 2031, allowing for these initial delays.
LDF/0922
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Walter
Comment
Number of dwellings proposed far too high damage to environment could be horrendous bearing in mind oughtonhead and spring cources to river Hiz through to Charlton.
LDF/0924
Document Section:
Representation:
11
Larsen
Comment
The huge area to the west and south of Hitchin (described as a "strategic site") is on green belt land/good agricultural land and quite unsuitable for large scale development. It
has been put forward by opportunistic developers who want to profit from having their land built on with no regard for what is best for North Herts. The area includes SSSIS
archaeological sites and listed buildings. The Landscape is assessed as highly sensitive development.
Suggested sites do not take into account the nearness of existing shops, schools, roads, railways etc. In many cases good access is very limited.
The total swallowing up of a huge area of green belt land around hitchin would result in the destruction of the important separation between htichin, stevenage and several of
the surrounding villages which would lose their identity completely.
However the figure of 10,700 new houses has been arrived at the put 70% of this number on the fringes of Hitchin would destroy the character of the town, increasing its
population by some 50%. It would put a completely unfair balance of development in one area of north herts. A large number of new homes (mostly flats) have already been
built in the town.
The promise of a bypass linking the A602 and the A505 is nothing more than an unnecessary developers bribe. If there is to be such a by pass, the need for which is
questionable anyway, its route should be considered as a separate issue and not linked to any residential development.
It is important to protect the countryside around Hitchin for recreational and environmental reasons as the town itself is already closely developed.
Perhaps the council should look at north herts as a whole and consider what is best for it without pressure from developers whose only interest is in making a profit.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Hertfordshire is one of the most densely populated counties in the country also any new development should be done with great sensitivity. Perhaps it would be worth
considering a whole new development further north.
The development of the rush green site opens the door to development of the whole site to the west of A1M, an area which NHDC has been opposed to in the past.
It is arguable whether 10700 new houses are really necessary. About half of this number would provide for the needs of people living in the area at the moment. The remainder
is apparently being provided for migration from london which may or may not happen and could be directed elsewhere.
The burden of new development should be shared throughout the area using a number of the smaller proposed sites such as those number 039, 40,
041,98,110,hr43,133,hr03,hr07,hr14,hr24,hr25,hr28,hr43,hr58,hr50 also site 122 at little wymondley and sites 099 and S!/r3 at st ippolyts.
LDF/0925
Document Section:
Representation:
14
Cannon
Object
LDF/0926
Document Section:
Representation:
14
Cannon
Object
I strongly oppose the proposed development on the strategic site South West of Hitchin which would increase the size of the town in an unacceptable way ¿ increasing the
The Hitchin site would significantly undermine the rural nature of the town. The urban edge of Hitchin is currently well defined, situated on higher ground and generally
LDF/0932
Document Section:
5
Day
Representation:
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/0935
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
19
Grennell
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0936
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Clark
Object
Have you ever walked up Grays Lane, Hitchin, across Lucas Lane and forward along an un made up, tree-lined track?
If you have not, then I suggest that you do. When you reach the end of the track, the land falls away to a superb panoramic view of rolling English countryside.
The quiet road that runs from Hitchin to Pirton can be seen in the middle distance.
Now imagine that the land between where you are standing and the road to Pirton, together with the land on your left and right, has been completely developed.
I do not think that you would even consider development on this site.
Apart from the outstanding beauty of this countryside, any development would encroach on the highly respected nature reserve of Oughtonhead Common (see Oughtonhead
Common Leaflet - North Hertfordshire District Council), an area used by local people for many varied recreational purposes. People also travel from outside of this area to visit
I urge you not to destroy this countryside for us and for future generations.
LDF/0936
Document Section:
Representation:
12
Clark
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/0945
Document Section:
6
Shelley
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Object
Agent
The proposal for South West of Hitchin is unacceptable because:
1) It does not constitute a development of the town. Rather, because of its scale relative to the current population and footprint of the town, it constitutes a destruction of the
community and an overwhelming of its facilities.
2) The rail and road infrastructure are entirely incapable of sustaining such a scale of growth.
3) The proposed relief road would not be adequate to relieve pressure from new traffic coming from all directions.
4) The proposed relief road would add to the environmental damage of the development.
5) While not directly encroaching on the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, the development would damage it and restrict access to it by its proximity.
6) The people of Hitchin would be deprived of a number of areas used widely for recreational walking and cycling, with consequent impact on public health.
7) Even with schools and local shopping facilities within the new development, the shopping, parking and other town centre facilities would be overwhelmed.
8) The development would be s step towards creating an agglomeration stretching from Luton to Stevenage, eradicating the character of the district.
9) The development - even with token barrier zones - would destroy the villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St Ippolyts.
10) The source and flood plain of the Hiz would be endangered - degraded by encroachment at best, built over at worst.
11) The development is unwanted by the people of Hitchin while Stevenage council has been requesting permission to expand.
LDF/0945
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Shelley
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0946
Document Section:
15
Gow
Comment
Representation:
to 8,000.
LDF/0955
13
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Dunham
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
S W of Hitchin would bring traffic to hitchin already congestged no jobs or parking in town centre to take up increased volumes.
LDF/0957
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Darnell
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0960
Document Section:
Representation:
12
Clark
Object
I wish to object to the above. But first some questions. Did you the planning dept go out and find these options or were you given them to put into the local plan. Why is hitchin
are taking the brunt of building new homes during the next 20 years, its disproportionate, the town has had quite a lot of flats built in and round the town since 2000. Why cant
these nos be taken from Hitchin build and put into letchworth or baldock areas. What about the green belt? This surely needs to be taken into account. I would like you to take
into consideration building new villages around ashwell railway station, baldock railway station, there plenty of open land there.
LDF/0977
Document Section:
Representation:
17
Goulding
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0984
Document Section:
5
Wright
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
The larger sites South West of Hitchin would increase the size of the town miss proportionally.
LDF/0986
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Stringer
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/0999
Document Section:
Representation:
26
Saldanha
Object
I strongly oppose the proposed development on the strategic site South West of Hitchin which would increase the size of the town in an unacceptable way increasing the
number of dwellings by up to 8,000. The inherent and unique character of the town would be ruined and the location and nature of the new development would not integrate well
with the existing urban infrastructure.
encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and both would be adversely affected.
This area also serves as vital green space amenity for the whole of Hitchin and surrounding areas with its network of rights of way and public open spaces. The area is used for
formal and informal recreation and pursuits and contributes to the general health and well-being of the local population at a time when there are national concerns over
standards of health.
The proposed site is not conveniently located with respect to public transport and in particular the existing railway station. If a key driver for the housing numbers is the demand
for London commuters then how would these people get to and from the station given the existing levels of peak period congestion.
The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollits and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin.
LDF/1012
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Greene King PLC
Support
David Russell Associates
The site at Hitchin would help to draw development away from the overcrowded A1(M) corridor. The danger in developing this area would be simply to complete the doughnut of
suburban estate development that surrounds the rest of this historic market town. However, an urban extension, more modest in size than the 6000 to 7000 suggested, and
along the lines of that illustrated in Figure 2.2, page 63 of the Taylor Review 'Living Working Countryside' 2008, could be a more than acceptable solution.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/1016
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
14
Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre
Comment
Agent
It is noted that this proposal site lies directly adjacent to Oughtonhead Common (2.8) and will abut the AONB (2.8). Consequently it will have potential ecological and landscape
implications, although this will be dealt with by others.
Oughtonhead Common is a Wildlife Site (WS), Local Nature Reserve and part HMWT reserve. It is important for wet marshy grassland and the river-head springs. This is a
very important sensitive habitat which must be protected from adverse impacts, both direct and indirect. As such I would not wish to see any development west of Westmill, in
the area that already forms an important buffer to the site. The existing development forms a good boundary to the settlement and further encroachment closer to the site will
further increase the disturbance (which will be affected anyway) and management operations. Such an undeveloped area would be good Green Infrastructure (GI). The existing
common is already present so cannot be 'provided' by any new development proposals, whilst the existing Oughtonhead Lane forms an acceptable boundary to the proposals,
as already presented.
If the area between Westmill and Oughtonhead must have some development it should NOT be for the whole width and should not be uniform but of a sinuous edge nature to
enable ecological and landscape GI benefits to be provided.
Part of Oughtonhead Lane south of Westmill is an SSSI for its geological interest and must be properly protected with sufficient buffer areas to protect the special interest.
The Willows WS adjacent to Willow Lane, Hitchin, is within the proposals area and should be protected with appropriate buffers.
A buffer could be proposed for Charlton. Parts of the site along the River Hiz and Ippolyts Brook fall within the flood plains (2.12) and this includes Charlton Mill WS. The whole
of the river valley and source of the Hiz is also important, and MUST be protected from development as part of any GI provision. This should also enhance the valley
floodplains. Locally good farmland bird communities are known (Temple End) and this should be another consideration within the approach to GI.
The area also includes part of the existing and former Priory Park. Any proposal should conserve what survives and consider re-establishing the historic parkland where
possible, given that some landscape features still survive.
Folly Alder Swamp WS is also within this area. Again, the importance of this, associated with the Ippolyts Brook, floodplain and river valley habitat cannot be overstressed and
should be protected and enhanced within any development.
There are also currently some adjacent species wildlife sites, and the area supports a range of other protected species such as water vole, badger and bats. These are largely
¿ but not exclusively - associated with the river valley complexes, and will also be supported by smaller scale features within the landscape. Priory Park icehouse is important
for bats although this is not within the proposals area.
The general area used to support quite a number of orchards and it would therefore be appropriate to consider community orchard creation as part of any future GI provision.
On balance, given the provisions outlined above which I would consider are necessary to secure existing ecological interest and GI, I have no reason to believe there would be
any fundamental ecological constraints associated with this proposal. There will be an impact on the existing farmland biodiversity although this is, of course, inevitable. Given
the arable areas are intensively managed, the likelihood of significant harm is relatively low. However given the relative impact on known natural environment resources, the
overall impact would be considered at moderate. If sufficient safeguarding provisions were not incorporated into any future development proposals, the potential could well be
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
considered unacceptable.
LDF/1020
Document Section:
Representation:
Applicant
Agent
33
Smith
Object
I object to the use of South West of Hitchin for any development at all. Lands to the South of Hitchin Priory and around Maydencroft Manor are of great historical significance.
The view towards Offlery from Gosmore Road is one of the best in Hertfordshire. The numerous footpaths in open countryside are used by hundreds daily from htichin,
Gosmore, Charlton and St Ippolyts. Any development would cause irremediable damage to the landscape, biodiversity and the historic environment. We need the food from the
fields the amenity and the health and wellbeing generated by open space. Any development would destroy these with noise, poor air quality, and overcrowding of roads. The
fact that a four-mile dual carriageway would have to be built, including two major new junctions and several bridges means that the whole scheme would be catastrophic in
every respect.
President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, Angela Brady; " In our cities and towns we have what are called brown field land, which has already been built on
previously. Let's not look at green field sites and says let's build on them, that not the answer." 04 January 2013
Capaign for the Protection of Rural England:
"There is currently enough brown field land to build more than 1.5 million homes. Housing developers are also sitting on huge land banks that have already been granted
planning permission and the capacity to produce 300,000 new homes."
LDF/1020
Document Section:
Representation:
41
Smith
Comment
Telephone conversation this morning with Mr Smith of 25 Priory Way Hitchin. He would like us to formally note that he has noticed a discrepancy between the outline shown in
the housing options consultation paper for south west Hitchin and that which is shown on the submitted masterplan for the area by Mr Daniels in December, particularly in the
area around Gosmore.
He has already submitted his written representations and will not have time to write again before the deadline today. I therefore agreed that this could be noted along with his
other representation.
LDF/1244
Document Section:
Representation:
15
Howard
Object
This site is far to big, I live in Little Wymondley and if this site and the west of Stevenage go ahead then wymondley will be in the centre of a giant city. No Thanks
LDF/1524
Document Section:
Representation:
2
James
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
In my view, by far and away the most potentially damaging proposal being put forward is the blanket development of the land south-west and west of Hitchin. From an
ecological perspective, despite the fact that much of the land is currently arable farmland, the proposals would be strongly detrimental for two key reasons. Firstly, the land
being proposed for development is mostly on chalk or Hitchin Gap gravels, and development on such a scale is bound to have a strongly negative impact on the water supply
and water quality of the catchment of the Rivers Hiz and Oughton, both of which are already under severe pressure from the existing demands on water, as well as on the
receipt of surface pollutants. As both rivers, but especially the Oughton, are highly important chalk streams (which are a habitat of international significance for their
biodiversity), any further degradation of these water sources is to be resisted. In addition, these rivers, particularly the Oughton, have associated with them sites of high
importance as Hertfordshire's principal genuine fen habitat communities at Oughton Head, and associated with the springs at Charlton, as well as linear alder fen at St Ippolyts.
All these are highly important sites in Hertfordshire for a wide range of important species communities. Even if development were not to directly destroy these sites, changes in
land use immediately in their areas would inevitably introduce the usual urban pressures that have seen so much damage already to sensitive environments across the County.
Secondly, the majority of the landscape being considered in this large area of proposed potential development is of the highest quality in terms of landscape, and is a
highly-valued and important amenity asset for the existing communities around the area, particularly HItchin. The current developed area of Hitchin is relatively self contained
and sustainable. It does not impinge adversely on the surrounding landscape. Part of this is because it does not surmount the west-facing slopes of the land at Gaping Hills,
west of the town. If these proposals went ahead, the entire high quality landscape west towards the Chilterns AONB would be strongly adversely affected by urban sprawl.
While some small parts of the proposed area around the south-east of Hitchin may not impinge on landscape of high quality, the majority of this development, from Priory Park
and Charlton to Oughton Head, would be severely damaging. On these two grounds, let alone any other effect on the community of Hitchin that such a massive enlargement
would entail, I would strongly oppose this proposal.
LDF/1562
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Eastwood
Object
These shocking, misguided proposals would practically double the size of Hitchin, pretty much destroying its rural character at a stroke. If I wanted to live in an anonymous,
suburban sprawl, I would move to somewhere like Swindon or Northampton. I had to check it wasnt April 1st when I first saw the proposals. Proposals such as these are totally
disproportionate to the existing size of the Town.
These developments would swallow up large areas of attractive farmland, would damage a cherished nature reserve at Oughtonhead and totally destroy the character of three
individual villages. Furthermore, there would be even more destruction if a bypass is included. I notice that NHDCs own document refers to the southern bypass, not any
southern bypass has a decision regarding a new road already been made? Everybody knows (apart from New Road Developments Ltd, it would seem) that building new roads
just generates new traffic journeys and solves nothing.
How does adding 6,000 homes and therefore, presumably, about 10,000 more cars in the area reflect the continuing concerns that exist about the traffic levels being reached
within Hitchin? No doubt, large numbers of new residents would be driving to the station, Girls School etc, adding hugely to the congestion in Hitchin. In addition, Hitchin doesnt
need any more shops; there are already plenty of vacant premises in the town centre that should be re-used.
I have chosen to live in Hitchin for the very qualities that plans like this will inevitably destroy. There is a responsibility on the Council to protect and enhance quality of life for its
residents, not destroy it. These absurd, nonsensical proposals should be immediately abandoned and consigned to the bin.
LDF/1666
Document Section:
Representation:
14
Trinder
Object
I strongly object to this site because:
A development of this size is too large for Hitchin and would become a large percentage of the town as a whole.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
A development of this size would adversely affect the vitality and character of Hitchin.
This development would concentrate a large number of houses, schools, community and health centres and other services into a very small area.
Part of the site is in a flood plain, which could lead to a serious risk of flooding to any properties built on it.
It is possible that the sewage treatment works will be unable to cope with the increased number of houses.
This is a green field site of grade 3 agricultural land.
The proposed southern by pass would not alleviate traffic problems if this new development went ahead as there would be a huge number of additional vehicles on the roads
each day.
The following would be affected if this development went ahead:
One site of Special Scientific Significance
Six wildlife sites
The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
A number of Rights of Way.
Four archaeological areas.
Conservation areas.
I believe that it is completely unacceptable to propose that 69% of the 10700 houses required should be concentrated in one small area when they would have less impact if
they were in smaller developments in more areas.
LDF/1675
Document Section:
Representation:
12
Anderson
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/1769
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Maguire
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
6. It is likely to cause significant increases to local traffic especially during development.
LDF/1867
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Parkin
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/1885
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Pirton Parish Council
Object
We believe a development on this scale would have a major impact on Pirton.
General - The proposal states that this site could accommodate between 6,000 and 7,400 dwellings. This would seem to suggest increasing the size of Hitchin by around one
third, which we believe would be totally unreasonable and destroy the ambiance of a desirable market town.
The proposal would destroy large areas of green belt land, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Conservation Areas and several historic
Rights of Way. It is a massive expansion, destroying a vast area of important countryside between Hitchin and the Hitchin Road out of Pirton.
We also note that parts of the site fall within flood plains, and previous experience throughout the country would indicate that it is not very sensible to build on historic flood
plains.
Roads - Without a major re-design and investment in road building, the impact of this increase in the population and therefore car usage, coupled with the proposed expansion
of Luton Airport would be absolutely catastrophic, especially with regards to the approach to Hitchin on the A505 and B655 which at peak times, is already dreadful.
Facilities ¿ The nearest Hospital is around 5½ miles away and would come under extreme pressure with this potential increase on its capacity. The accident and emergency
service at the hospital is already unsatisfactory from a waiting time aspect, not helped of course by the decision to close these facilities at Welwyn Garden City.
We believe that a major development of this nature will destroy important countryside, and would have an extremely negative impact on Hitchin's current character.
LDF/1914
Document Section:
12
Healey
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Object
Agent
Hitchin has already seen a huge scale of development in recent years that has flooded the town and impacted it badly. This further development is too large for Hitchin, a
massive overall percentage increase on the town as a whole. Such a massive development would adversely affect the resources of the town, its character and the quality of life,
and none of the development should be considered on green field Grade 3 agricultural land. The introductory comments above on infrastructure apply strongly to this proposed
part of the developments, and we emphasise the recent report on the noxious gases found on the Stevenage Road and the Gosmore Roundabout due to traffic volumes and
congestion. The proposed southern bypass or preferably other major road scheme should have been sorted out long ago but hasn't, illustrating the difficulties of improving the
existing infrastructure, and the huge additional amounts of daily traffic from such development would overwhelm the southern bypass scheme in any case.
LDF/1942
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Hackett
Object
With regards to the proposed areas in Hitchin - Hitchin already has a large number of commuters living in and around the town and by developing this area this will increase as
there is little room for a relative increase in employment locally. This will impact greatly on the traffic around the town and using the main links out which are already at capacity.
By developing and including a by-pass this is simply changing the shape of Hitchin in to a large town rather than the attractive and desirable town it currently is. The proposed
development site South West of Hitchin would increase the town in an unacceptable way with the increase in dwellings. This would greatly change the nature of the town. In
particular the development would encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chiltern's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and both would be adversely affected. I
would also be concerned to see the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollits and Charlton be engulfed by the developments and lose their own identities and charms. The development
would also bring Hitchin much closer to Pirton and change the landscape considerably.This is an area which includes SSSIs, archeological sites, listed buildings and good
agricultural land and would be unforgivable to develop to this extent and appears totally disproportionate to the existing town area. Hitchin and the surrounding area has
valuable recreational countryside and wildlife.
LDF/1973
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Spencer-Smith
Object
The South West of Hitchin site is monstrous in scale, doubling the size of Hitchin and increasing the size of the town by 50%. The transport simulations show a huge increase in
traffic and the environmental study shows development north of the B655 would have a high impact on the landscape quality. It is risible to read New Road Development's
hackneyed comments on how this will help Hitchin be a 'sustainable location'. I strongly object to the prospect of up to 8000 houses/dwellings being added to this old market
town.
LDF/1979
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Turner
Object
The overall plan is for far too many houses and based on other modern developments I am concerned that it will produce more high density, low quality housing estates where
now there is open land and an environment which is highly valued by those living in the area.
I am concerned that the development plans for Hitchin may be allowed as long as the numbers are reduced ¿ the tactic being that by proposing such a hugely unrealistic
development there will be the temptation to resignedly allow a smaller one. It seems cynical in this respect.
With regards to the proposed areas in Hitchin - including a by-pass will change the shape of Hitchin into a far larger town and it will lose its character and countryside setting.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
The proposed development site South West of Hitchin would increase the town in an unacceptable way with the increase in dwellings. This would greatly change the nature of
the town. In particular the development would encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chiltern's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and both would be adversely
affected. I walk in these areas regularly and so do thousands of people. Surely there is a strong environmental case against development?
The development would also bring Hitchin much closer to Pirton and change the landscape considerably. This is an area which includes SSSIs, archaeological sites, listed
buildings and good agricultural land and would be unforgivable to develop to this extent and appears totally disproportionate to the existing town area. Hitchin and the
surrounding area have valuable recreational countryside and wildlife.
LDF/2054
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Scourfield
Object
I object to the large development proposed to the south-west of Hitchin. This builds on green field land and is out of proportion to the town. It will present access issues and
spoil the character of Hitchin.
LDF/2165
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Railton
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/2166
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Hertfordshire County Council - Property & Services
Comment
SW Hitchin strategic site ¿ Up to 7400 dwellings
8.7FE to 14.8FE
Infrastructure Requirements:
Minimum 6 new primary schools;
2 new secondary schools (current limited capacity in Hitchin secondary schools required to meet existing forecast need);
Nursery provision for up to 395 to 672 children;
3 community centres;
Youth provision within new community centres;
Improvements to Hitchin library;
Hitchin fire station would need to become a wholetime 24 hour crewed fire station. This means it will be necessary to increase the number of firefighters from the existing 14 to
28 personnel.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/2198
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
7
Sadler
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/2550
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Sydenham
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/2569
Document Section:
7
Brett
Comment
Representation:
Development south west hitchin will subsume charlton and narrow the strategic green belt gap between hitchin, gosmore, and st ippolyts to an unacceptable level. It will harm
area of high landscape value.
LDF/2583
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Parker
Comment
Housing Options Growth Levels
I am a migrant to North Herts having moved here from North London in the 70's my there children have grown up in North Herts and all three were educated in the State
primary and secondary schools. All three have university degrees and are able to provide valuable contribution to society and the economy. This factor to me makes North
Herts a good place to live.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Society is changing from where it was just 30 years ago, we live longer and middle age may be deemed to now start at 60 rather than 40 and i do believe that society thinks this
to be a good thing. At my current age my father had passed away. I hope to continue to live for as long as possible. My children have aspirations to live in North Herts but are
hampered by the choice available and the cost due to lack of availability, despite being well educated and working within professional jobs.
Hitchin has had mostly internal development in recent years, typified by Town Centre apartments being built and recently signs for more retirement flats to be built. However
one would deduce that we need to develop houses together with apartments to meet the many varied housing needs. Houses are built at a lower density than apartments and
therefore the resultant land value is likely to be lower, resulting in housing schemes generally not being able to compete for town centre sites.
Whenever housing is discussed in the media, we are told that we are short of houses to meet the current population let alone the future requirements because of the expanding
population. I cam from London and London prices are always buoyant because London has no more land available. The existing infrastructure in to London whilst at peak times
are somewhat crowded does provide on most occasions a good service. North Herts is a goof place for migration from the South therefore due to these excellent connections
and the quality of life which the location affords. If i look at my friends in the village, many have decided to live here migrating from South Africa, Scotland and N East of
England.
It is therefore imperative that the most accurate no of housing units are planned to be built, if we are to provide the choice and the variety to fulfil the aspirations of future
generations who wish to live within the district. We have been and still are in the worse financial crisis in living memory with the banks and mortgage lenders being broken,
severely limiting the ability of aspiring homeowners to acquire the property of their needs and aspirations currently. When the banks get their affairs in order and start to function
properly we will see a return to a functioning housing market where the effects of limiting supply will be sorely felt. Indeed we are now seeking this far more "sold" signs going
up.
To me it is illogical to limit supply with a claim that the properties could not be built at the rate required. If a proper plan was in place without the ever changing political goal
posts then i am sure the nation has enough expertise to deliver what is required over a 20 year period. Certainty of future work would enable long term investment in companies
and other support operations.
I not that the 10,700 figure proposed is a midway guess and is put forward as the minimum the council thinks it might get away with, but is still short by 40% of the stated DCLG
forecast made in 2008 prior to the 2011 census which indicates and ever increasing population. We hear that the maternity units are full (birth rates are rising), and those being
born today will be looking to have a property in 20 years time.
Most of the comments the council will receive on the future plan will be from residents who already have a house and will probably see a planned shortage in deliverability as a
good thing to raise the value of their own property, however, a planned shortage will bring more speculators in to the land market and will in turn drive up housing costs which
could eventually lead to stagnation in the market and outward migration losing our home grown talent to other regions or countries where better opportunities exist and
affordability is not such an issue. High prices drive out families and young people, harming society and the local economy.
I firmly believe that the planned numbers should be based on quality assessments of future needs rather than the minimum we can get away with. It strikes me the target
should be 14,600 or more.
Where to build
The consultation process will automatically draw out land owners suggestions of locations for proposed development, this opportunity for brown field development within
existing boundaries must be becoming more restricted and unless we build tower blocks within towns we have to look at appropriate greenfields in the district. Contrary to
popular belief new development does bring prosperity to the existing communities and should help the promote flagging town centres and communities.
The consultation document states that to deliver the expected numbers that a strategic large site will be needed within the plan period, however, this size of development will
require careful planning and will require probable infrastructure improvements and resultant costs before any accommodation in the later years of the plan. In addition i believe
that the resultant impact of the proposed strategic site at South west Hitchin on Hitchin as a settlement should be considered as I believe that such a large strategic site would
have a serious detrimental impact on the town as a development of this scale will vastly change the settlements character and despite the new bypass, the additional traffic
would cause serious problems in the town centre.
The early part of the plan should therefore concentrate on the sites that do not need infrastructure improvements and are not so large as to impact on existing bottlenecks and
are spread around the existing settlements within the districts. The smaller non-strategic sites because of the large amounts of finance needed to deliver a planning consent
again invigorating the local community. Piecemeal development, will allow the settlement to expand and adapt more sustainably and in response to changing needs.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Infrastructure
Over the years in travelling through Hitchin in the morning and evening i have noticed differing traffic problems, it seems that Tuesday has become the new Monday with more
delays being experienced which i believe could be a result of more employees working from home for part of the week. This has evidenced helps the transport infrastructure on
certain days but shows that new accommodation needs to support homeworking.
I note under the infrastructure section and options that a new outer bypass for Hitchin. Whilst traffic alleviation is evidently required on occasions it would only function in part
due to other bottlenecks such as whenever the M1 has a problem. A large amount of traffic crosses this route to get between the A1 and M1 and maybe therefore a northern
route should be explored to relieve congestion in Hitchin in the am and pm periods. It also appears from the site identified in the consultation that a southern bypass couldn't be
delivered on this site; if this is the case, the document should either say this, or show the land actually required to deliver the bypass.
I have read the proposed improvements to the existing network which all seem to be sensible solutions to peak traffic delays however the future budget has built in massive
indirect costs for "preliminaries", "supervision" , "design" etc., which seems to multiply the direct cost by 10. It is hoped that these indirect costs will be better controlled than
anticipated.
LDF/2659
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Charlesworth
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/2661
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Charlesworth
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/2664
Document Section:
4
Buckland
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Object
Agent
1. It is far too big and would destroy Hitchin as a lovely and highly regarded market town. Hitchin was recently voted in 9th place in the 'Best Places to Live in Britain' in 'The
Times' survey. 2. To add another 6,000-7,400 dwellings would almost double the size of the place. The infrastructure would not cope. The road system in particular could not
stand it and the other services would be put under significant strain. Water in particular would be a problem.3. To place such a vast proportion (almost 70% if you use the
7,400 figure) of NHDCs proposed growth of 10,700 dwellings in just one place is clearly disproportionate and totally unbalanced.4. It is in Green Belt and should therefore be
opposed. It would effectively destroy the villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St. Ippolyts and the history there. The historic buildings in these villages would be at risk and no
longer in the village settings 5. There are numerous rights of way and footpaths which would be destroyed. These are very actively used by walkers, riders and joggers and their
eradication would be injurious to the long term health of many people. The ancient 'Hica Way', would be destroyed or so altered as to ruin it's charecter entirely. 6. This proposal
would fly in the face of the council's own Green Infrastructure Plan of August 2009. Many of the proposals contained within that Plan including Key Views to Conserve, Green
Gateways, and Level 2 Green and Blue Links are compromised by this proposal. 7. This proposal includes the flood plains of the River Hiz and Ippolyts Brook. 8. There is a site
of Special Scientific Intersest within Oughtonhead Lane. 9. There are 6 wildlife sites and the area borders the Chiltern Area of Outstandin Natural Beauty. 10. There are 4
known archaeological sites within the proposed area. 11. This is largely agricultural land and as such should not be developed. There is little enough farmland in this country
and if we are to focus more on local produce we should not allow farmland to disappear for deveopment. Overall these arguments clearly show that this development is in an
inappropriate location, and would destroy a wonderful town. It cannot be the desire of NHDC to do that I would hope. The other smaller developments proposed would be more
than enougnh to satisfy the new development targets of the council.
LDF/2819
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Pilkington
Support
Warmingtons
My observations relate to the strategic site to the south-west of Hitchin. I am supportive of a partial development of this strategic site covering the area between the A602 and
the A505. The development will give the ability for funds to be committed towards a south-western bypass of Hitchin which is badly needed, with substantial congestion
occurring at peak times. However, I have reservations regarding the westward expansion of Hitchin in the area of Foxholes and Oughton Head. Small areas outside the
strategic expansion have been identified - in particular H/r14 and Site 38, both of which could be brought forward by the owner and where I have an interest. However, there is a
prominent ridge line and development to the west of Hitchin should be constrained within the ridge line so as to prevent the loss of the visual amenity that this area of farmland
provides.
LDF/2848
Document Section:
Representation:
15
Trustees of Richard Pilkington
Support
Warmingtons
Our observations relate to the strategic site to the south-west of Hitchin. We are supportive of a partial development of this strategic site covering the area between the A602
and the A505. The development will give the ability for funds to be committed towards a south-western bypass of Hitchin which is badly needed, with substantial congestion
occurring at peak times. However,we have reservations regarding the westward expansion of Hitchin in the area of Foxholes and Oughton Head. Small areas outside the
strategic expansion have been identified - in particular H/r14 and Site 38, both of which could be brought forward by the owner and where we have an interest. However, there
is a prominent ridge line and development to the west of Hitchin should be constrained within the ridge line so as to prevent the loss of the visual amenity that this area of
farmland provides.
LDF/2959
Document Section:
89
English Heritage
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
ADOC
Additional document attached
We have considerable reservations with regards to this strategic site. The scale of the site is extensive (at least one-third of the existing town) and would have a significant and
potentially detrimental effect on the character, capacity and setting of the town and its surrounding villages and countryside. The site contains a conservation area and listed
buildings at Charlton; the rural character and setting of the village is likely to be altered by development and the significance of its heritage assets harmed.
Outside of the site, Hitchin Conservation Area and Gosmore Conservation Area abut the site boundary, with St Ippolyts Conservation Area situated a short distance to the
south-east on high ground. There are also a number of listed buildings within close proximity of the site, including the Grade I Hitchin Priory to the north of the A602 and the
Grade II* Maydencroft Manor and Barn to the south of the site. The significance and setting of these heritage assets could be harmed, including negative impact on views.
Although there are no designated heritage assets within the site to the north of the A505, the countryside here forms part of the setting of Hitchin as much as the countryside to
the south of the same road. Views from Windmill Hill across the town centre (which is largely covered by the conservation area designation) include views into open
countryside. This helps to reinforce the proximity of the countryside to the town centre, particularly to the south and west, and contributes to the significance of the conservation
area. Development of the strategic site is likely to affect this spatial relationship and harm the significance and setting of heritage assets.
There will be numerous undesignated heritage assets affected by this site, including archaeological deposits and other features. The County Historic Environment Record will
provide assistance in identifying some of these features. Should this site be taken forward for allocation, further archaeological evaluation will be needed before the site is
allocated.
We note that the site would deliver a bypass to connect the A505 to the A602, and the argument that this should relieve traffic congestion through Hitchin. Whilst congestion
may be a problem, it does not automatically justify the scale of the site allocations. It remains to be shown whether a bypass would relieve congestion. For example, intra-urban
congestion may remain a problem as additional residents and business users travel across town, while traffic flows from Letchworth and the A600 will not be affected by such a
bypass. The potential enhancement of the town centre as a result of a bypass may be offset by the rapid enlargement of the town and the pressure to provide additional
services and facilities in the town centre and elsewhere. It would also be offset by the harm caused to the villages and countryside surrounding the western and southern sides
of Hitchin. The bypass itself, depending on the route, could harm specific heritage assets. We note that it could go beyond the site boundary to the south of Gosmore and St
Ibbs, passing close to a number of heritage assets including highly graded listed buildings.
We strongly recommend that further work is undertaken to identify and where possible, overcome potential historic environment issues. The Landscape Sensitivity Study is
helpful, but it focuses on cultural heritage matters as they relate to landscape, rather than focus on heritage assets in their own right. The significance of heritage assets needs
to be understood, including their setting. On this matter, our guidance documents on Conservation Principles and the Setting of Heritage Assets may be of assistance. We
appreciate that this is a very large site area and it will depend to some extent on how it is masterplanned, but until the impact on affected heritage assets is better understood,
we remain to be convinced of the merits of allocating this site.
LDF/3034
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Joshi
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/3042
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Wray
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/3088
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Hughes
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/3089
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Hughes
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/3117
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
13
Natural England - East of England Region
Comment
Agent
Whilst we note that a Site of Special Scientific Interest lies within the site boundary, we advise that being a geological site, with suitable mitigation, this site is unlikely to be
adversely affected by the allocation.
LDF/3120
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Sherno
Comment
to 8,000.
1LTS/314
3
Document Section:
6
Hertfordshire Gardens Trust
Object
Representation:
The urban character of Hitchin is bounded by the A602 and development within the proposed site would lead to the loss of discrete historic settlements at Maydencroft, Charlton
and the loss of valuable countryside. The area also includes the locally important historic Hitchin Priory Park dating from the 18C, development of which we be contrary to NPPF
guidance on heritage assets and their setting
LDF/3214
Document Section:
Representation:
10
West Hitchin Action Group
Object
The proposed developmentin the strategic site South West of Hitchin would increase the size of the town in an unacceptable way - increasing the number of dwellings by up to
8,000.This would change the nature of the town. The urban edge of Hitchin is currently well defined, situated on higher ground and generally integrated with the landscape. Any
intervention beyond this green boundary would damage the topography and the extensive views. The proposed development would encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve
and the Chiltern's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and both would be adversely affected. The natural heritage value of the Oughton Valley is a special element in the
regional context and the surroundinglandscape provides an important buffer function. It is assessed as having a moderate to high landscape sensitivity, including green belt
land, SSSis, archaeological sites and listed buildings.
The majority of this site is currently given over to agricultural use. Loss of farm land on this scale would mean a significant drop in food production from cereal and other types
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
of crop essential for feeding our country's current population. Replacing food-bearing crops with housing will also increase the carbon footprint of imported food. Green belt like
this is the 'heart and lungs' of our country and should be protected not built on.
The proposed development would encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollits and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin.
Without provision for local employment the even more than the present 50% of the town's population would work away from the town causing greater pressure on the already
congested traffic system. This includes the train station and commuter trains to London.
Development on this scale to the south and west of Hitchin has in the past been associated with an option to build a bypass for the town to alleviate traffic flow at critical times.
However, this is flawed reasoning, as a bypass would only encourage more traffic to use this bypass as a link between the A1and M1. Additionally, the scale of housing required
to fund such a bypass would cause huge amounts of local traffic from residents commuting to workat exactly the same times the current problem exists . The net result would
be massive housing growth, loss of green belt, an unbearable strain on the town's infrastructure yet no reduction in traffic. A lose-lose situation for Hitchin.
WHAG believes Hitchin has taken more than its fair share of the region's housing growth in recent years, so using its green belt to meet regional targets makes for an
unbalanced growth that is not proportionate to local needs.
LDF/3249
Document Section:
Representation:
12
Finnissy
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/3330
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Swainston
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/3349
Document Section:
6
Urwin
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
I support the views expressed in the paper submitted by Hitchin Forum. The idea of a new town or settlement, provided it does not repeat the errors of Camborne may help to
avoid us being in the same position in 20 years, ie. scrabbling around to put development wherever possible. I understand that Herts CC own land within N Herts. Is this
available? Would Royston benefit from further expansion across the county border? What joint working are you doing with Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire? I strongly object
to the planning system being driven by developers and do not accept the argument that you have to go with their proposals on grounds of viability. How do you know that
landowners will not sell if their land is assigned? I strongly object to so much development being targeted around Hitchin. Compulsory Purchase of land for a new
town/settlement would give NHDC and hence the community more say over what is built. It should be possible to compensate the landowner so that they can buy even more
land elsewhere and generously cover their upheaval. I do not accept the view that NHDC cannot afford it. The developers will put up the money and it will be down to how the
deal is sealed. There are enough interested local people with business experience to help officials if required. Provided finance is available the cost of housing is governed by
the rate of supply. It is obvious from a graph of land bank growth against completions that the volume builders limit the rate of building to keep prices at a maximum ¿ well you
would, wouldn't you if you were in their business? If NHDC control the land to some extent then you can improve the rate of building. Hertfordshire will always be a successful
county. If we carry on as we have been then we might as well rename N Herts 'Greater Harrow and Wealdstone' in 100 years. While we do this, other parts of the region suffer.
So Hertfordshire's success disadvantages other areas in the Eastern Region. People generally live within reach of their jobs. Improving the road system just allows them to
travel farther to work. We need to spread the work across the region, something successive governments have failed to do. One way of doing this is to restrict employment land
in N Herts.
LDF/3365
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Catchpole
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/3365
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Catchpole
Comment
All sites are greenbelt and enjoyed by residents of Hitchin as such. Building should be on brownfield sites of which there are plenty. Less housing would be needed if only local
residents needs were considered. A national plan for housing and employment areas is needed. Stop putting all new development into East anglia and South East.
Reduce EEC immigration to quotus for each country and this reduces demand for housing, water, gas, food, electricity etc.
LDF/3401
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Jordan
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/3507
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Clabburn
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/3532
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Hutchison
Object
Just looking at the map shows the impact this would have on Hitchin! It would increase the area of the town by some 50%, completely changing the nature of the town and
have an enormous impact on the environment. The landowners in this area may have a vested interest in this scale of development here, but the townspeople most certainly do
not. For those who live on the west of the town, access to the countryside would be restricted, various nature reserves and historical and archaeological sites could/would be
affected. The present western boundary of the town is on or below the high point of the hills and thus does not encroach on the surrounding landscape. Views of the
countryside would be completely marred by such a development. Hitchin is an ancient market town, with a historic centre, originally sited in a gap in the Chilterns. As such it
contributes a lot to the local economy, bringing in people who want to visit and shop in somewhere that isn't a "clone". I do not see how it could survive a development on this
scale. In addition, if, as I suggest existing patterns of employment are maintained, some 50% of the new residents would be commuters to surrounding towns or London, the
existing traffic problems would be made so much worse. Ideally the use of public transport should be encouraged, but the proposed area for development is a long way from
the station, so people would have to travel right across the town to the station or use their own transport. I cannot see how the existing roads could cope, they don't cope now. A
Hitchin bypass would not solve the problem - the Wymondley by-pass is already very congested at busy times and Hitchin's town centre roads cannot be widened because of
their very nature.
LDF/3552
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Lawther
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/3552
Document Section:
Representation:
17
Lawther
Comment
Hitchin is a unique place to live. This has recently been recognised by the times which listed it 9th in the best places to live in in the UK. It cited that Hitchin "has plent of charms:
a pretty town centre packed with historic building, brilliant schools, swift commuter links to london and lots of open space." The last of these is as important, if not the most
important, aspect of the town, lose this and it will change the whole balance of the community.
Hitchin is just the right size, when will planners wake up to this fact? Make it larger and the whole essence of the town will be gone, once it is lost it will be gone forever and a
sad day for all the residents of hitchin that will be.
LDF/3554
Document Section:
Representation:
14
Barley
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/3554
Document Section:
Representation:
18
Barley
Comment
We need to preserve greenbelt land for future generations. Once lost this open space can never be recovered.
Please can you advise me why it always seems to be Hitchin that is under threat rather than other towns?
If the Hitchin expansion goes ahead then it certainly will not be amongst the top 30 small towns in the UK.
LDF/3562
Document Section:
9
Goulding
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Object
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/3563
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Maguire
Comment
to 8,000.
6. The housing targets make no sense for Hitchin and will ruin the character of the town and surrounding villages.
LDF/3566
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Morgan
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/3570
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Clark
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/3574
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Clark
Object
The proposal to build on over 1,000 acres of Greenbelt Land with the effect of merging Hitchin with surrounding villages would result in all of them losingtheir identity. Hitchin
has always been considered a Historic Market Town and the proposal would increase its population by over 50% completely overwhelming it and destroying its character. The
scale and location of this development is clearly unsustainable,the towns infrastructure simply cannot support such a huge increase and the proposal of a bypass linking Offley
Road and StevenageRoad will only move the volume of traffic to a different location and will not ease the congestion oftrying to cross Hitchin to access the station or the towns
of Bedford or Letchworth.
I also feel it is unacceptable that the proposals arefrom developers whose only interest is seeing their land developed and the NHDC should take a more strategic planning
approach to identify a more sustainable future for the district.
Hitchinis a lovely town, please do not destroy it.
LDF/3574
Document Section:
Representation:
14
Clark
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/3578
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Croysdill
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/3582
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Graham
Object
LDF/3587
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Dann
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/3617
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Barley
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/3617
Document Section:
Representation:
17
Barley
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
I think its appalling that they want to build so many new houses on land that is fine just the way it is. I don't think Hitchin would remain as the 9th best town in Britain if another
8000 houses were smacked haphazardly on the edges of it!
LDF/3647
Document Section:
9
Steel
Comment
Representation:
to 8,000.
LDF/3691
Document Section:
Representation:
181
NHDC Labour Group
Object
SW of Hitchin is too large in relation to the existing size of Hitchin (cf Wymondley argument, p92 and para 3.82), possibly half the size of the existing town. Residents will not
accept a site so close to Oughtonhead Common, a much loved wild area for walking, not to mention the closeness of the AONB, the inclusion of the SSSS and 6 wildlife sites
(para 2.13), the submersion of the Charlton conservation area and listed buildings (para 2.14), and the closeness of the Hitchin and St Ippolyts conservation areas. Parts of the
site north of the Offley road are highly sensitive to development (para 2.17). Green space provision would only be at the expense of green belt, and all strategic sites are big
enough for sustainable energy developments (para 2.15). The traffic problems are discussed in paras 2.22 and 2.23 and these would be exacerbated; there would also be
new problems with traffic from the areas adjacent to Lucas Lane in getting into the town, for example along Lavender Way or Victoria Rd to the traffic lights at Oughtonhead
Way/ Bedford Rd. Altogether it's a high price to pay for the 'bribe' of a new bypass, which in any case would be controversial.
Regarding the other strategic sites : a general point about several of them is the need for more police and health staff, ie revenue commitments.
LDF/3700
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Harrison
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/3700
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
13
Harrison
Comment
Agent
Hitchin is a unique market town people come to Hitchin because its different to bigger towns. We worry about the roads, which are so busy.
LDF/3710
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Armstrong
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/3718
Document Section:
19
Tait
Comment
Representation:
Green belt sites should be used only as a last resort.
The Planning Assessment Matrix 2.11 to 2.14 gives comprehensive reasons why this site should not be used.
The coalescence of Charlton, Gosmore and St. Ippolyts would be a drastic loss of their identity.
This proposed development could not be completed in 20 years because of the infrastructure, roads, sewage, water, schools, shops etc. necessary.
LDF/3749
Document Section:
Representation:
20
Barkway Parish Council
Comment
South West Hitchin - possibly reduce size to avoid AONB
LDF/3770
Document Section:
Representation:
1
AKS Ward Lister Beare
Object
You recently publisized your proposals for the construction of housing in the North Herts Area. The proposals were split into descrete areas but in practice the developments
need to be considered together. Once this is done it can be seen that the proposals nearly link together Stevenage, Hitchin and Luton. This is not acceptable and should be
avoided at all costs.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
The proposals are for housing numbers in excess of those suggested by Government and are then again unacceptable.
Part of the justification for the number of houses was that the 106 agreements would pay for a Hitchin by-pass. Ignoring the fact that the 106 agreements are in a fact a bribe by
developers encouraged by Local Authorityes to subsidise LA finances, they are not appropriate in this case.
Main roads are financed by central government and are therefore not a cost to NHDC. The Hitchin by-pass has been proposed on numerous occasions and indeed was the
reason that the A602 from Coreys Mill was made a dual carriageway and converted to a single carriageway by Ashbrook.
The proposed route of the by-pass (accepted as part of the Oxford-Cambridge road) was to the South of Hitchin from the end of the dual carriageway. The proposal was
rejected and the situation has not changed. Creating a by-pass by up-grading the town's roads and being funded by NHDC is both underhand and unnecessary. If it is
considered that the situation has changed then the government's proposals should be revisited and it would be funded by central agreement.
The Herts Police expressed concern about the traffic flow on the A1M as it passes Stevenage. The proposed developments would increase the problems and would require a
dramatic increase in width of the A1M. The cost of this would be greater than the 106 payments and there has been no suggestion that central government are going to pay for
this construction.
A suggestion has been made that Hitchin Football Ground should be moved to an area near Kingshott and than another supermarket placed on the old ground. This would tend
to draw shoppers further away from the town centre shops. The NHDC policy on car park payments has already put the existing town centre shops under a lot of pressure,
moving more people away from the town centre would be a further strain on the shops. Moving the football ground would also create a further parking problem around the
A602.
The proposal to put a roundabout at Ashbrook on the A602 was rejected on the basis that it would reduce the traffic flow on the road. The addition of more houses around
Kingshott would exacerbate the current problems with traffic joining the A602 from both Ashbrook and St Ippolyts.
The size of the proposed developments will change the whole nature of Hitchin and will require the development of the schools etc. Are these costs going to be funded by 106
agreements.
The recent housing developments have generally been for people working in central London. The provision of the proposed developments will not be for Hitchin business. It will
mainly be for people working in London. As such it is not appropriate for the development of Hitchin. Any housing development should be linked to the increase in business
based in North Herts.
For the above reasons I object to the proposed housing developments and particularly the loss of green land between Hitchin and Stevenage.
LDF/3802
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Ashwell Education Services
Comment
Probably to the west of Hitchin rather than south, i.e. not the whole site. The area to the south has great visual value and would be better not disturbed.
LDF/3915
Document Section:
Representation:
1
The Charlton Society
Object
We object and refute the development proposals to the SW of Hitchin based upon the following;
The proposed strategic sites developments are situated in the already heavily developed and congested southern part of the North Herts District. This has resulted from the fact
that the areas have been suggested by developers who, not surprisingly, would prefer to build in places which would command higher house prices and i do not think that this is
an appropriate way to decide where new housing should be built. It is the duty of the council to produce a plan which would allocate the areas on a strategic and more equitable
basis throughout the district, so as to obviate many of the problems of over-population such as traffic and water and sewerage problems, both for the existing and the
prospective residents of the area.
Putting 7400 houses, which is 83% of the 8,910 houses remaining to be built, in once location, namely south west of hitchin, is out of all proportion. Such a development,
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
adding about 50% to its current size, would chance completely the nature of Hitchin as a lovely market town.
As a resident of Charlton i am aware of (and affected by) the decreasing supply of water and increasing traffic problems which have come about over the years. I know that the
south west of hitchin proposal includes a huge bypass to the south, but that will not prevent traffic problems within hitchin being heavily exacerbated even if new smaller roads
are built. I believe that the sewage and water problems would become and environmental nightmare were this development to go ahead and one takes into account the huge
extra numbers of people living in Hitchin, not to mention the horrendous congestion on the roads that would most certainly follow.
I also understand that many of the new dwellings would be expected to accommodate people who are working elsewhere and it would be a disaster if this south west of hitchin
proposal were allowed to happen, thus making hitchin into a so called "dormitory town".
The details of some of the proposed sites, i see that 1000 dwellings are suggested for Rush Green on what is currently a scrapyard and there must be other sites around the
area which are brownfield so that there would be much less to go on the greenfield sites proposed. For developers it is obviously easier to start from scratch on a greenfield
site, but i believe it is the councils job to find as many brownfield sites as possible to promote and thus to try to preserve as much of the green belt as they can. Further to this, i
see that there are a number of non strategic sites in Hitchin which appear to be brownfield; namely ref nos 133,H/m02, H/m03, H/R28, H/r48 and H/r50 (and there may be
others that i do not recognise as such) and these alone make a total of 279 dwellings. Were you to count all the so called "town sites" that have not "failed" there would be land
available for 1,51 dwellings in Hitchin alone. That being the case, i should imagine, without going through all the plans in detail, that it should be possible to find the vast majority
of new dwellings by doing a similar exercise throughout the district, thus leaving very few houses needing to be built outside of brownfield sites.
The proposal to develop from north east of stevenage site seems best suited for the implied dwelling proposals because of the service base in stevenage to accommodate
such growth. Houses there would also be more affordable and therefore more likely to sell, given that the current economic climate is not likely to improve extensively in the
foreseeable future.
Within Charlton, there are on-going studies of national concern such as;
On-going study to monitor birds (and other wildlife) on a site via licensed bird ringing and garden bird watch, both of which are carried under the auspices of the british trust for
ornithology. As an example, the date from the ringing records, the following red list birds (showing their percentage decline nationally) are present and/or breeding regularly on
the fields immediately surround Charlton: Com Buting (87%) Grey Partridge (91%) Skylark (63%) Song Thrush (50%) Linnet (76%) Lesser Redpoll (89%) Yellowhammer (57%)
plus a further 14 species of birds on the Amber list, including nesting Barn Owl, Kestrel and Whitethroat. If building was allowed on the adjacent fields, birds would all but
disappear another nail in the coffin of declining farmland birds.
In this area is an observatory owned and operated by a resident who holds the world record, as an individual amateur astronomer, for discovering the greatest number of
variable stars. The proposed development would cause a source of light pollution and would make it much more difficult for him to continue in this work.
The Avanti Stud, at Temple End, has enabled a breed of horses to be taken off the 'Rare Breeds Survival Trust's Register' and is an important resource both at home and
overseas. Temple End was chosen for this operation manily for its peaceful environment and total freedom from traffic noise and distractions. Having the by-pass so close to
the Stud (200 meters approx) will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on this important enterprise and futrue of a rare breed.
The areas around Charlton and Temple End are used extensively by people from Hitchin town and others for recreational use as an amenity. There are numerous walkers,
joggers, dog walkers, bird watchers, horse riders etc. who enjoy using the area and who would be deprived of the beauty of the landscape and surrounding countryside and of
its special wildlife, were the south west of hitchin proposal adopted.
Finally, the imptemenration of this proposal, even with the suggested buffer of undevelopment land around the village of charlton itself, would be an encroachment on the
ancient and historic villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St Ippolyts. This would undoubtedly by the then end of the wedge and leave the door open to loss of identity and full
subsumption within hitchin itself at sometime in the future.
LDF/3988
Document Section:
12
Graveley Parish Council - Clerk
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Support
Agent
A very large site, in addition to offering flexibility as to where development takes place (in the process protecting areas of particular sensitivity or interest), it offers economies of
scale for infrastructure and should reduce the number of off site journeys to access schools and shops, reducing pressure on the heavily congested A1 corridor road network,
especially during peak times.
Development of this site would attract support from developers to help finance a bypass on the southern edge of Hitchin to connect the A505 Offley Road with the A602
Wymondly bypass. This would reduce congestion within Hitchin itself, facilitate the movement of traffic travelling east/west across the district from the A1 to M1, and improve
the attractiveness of the area for many of the existing residents (which some current planning proposals, most notably the NS3 Roundwood proposal, totally fails to achieve).
Hitchin has its own sewage treatment works and unlike Stevenage related sites would not require a major upgrade in sewage treatment capacity or gas pipeline supplies.
Hitchin is considered one of the most desirable places to live within the North Hertfordshire district, with associated higher land values generating higher S106 and Community
Infrastructure levies to fund the necessary infrastructure development. These higher land values would also permit higher prices to be obtained by developers on properties
sold, encouraging a better mix of housing and helping aid the depressed construction industry.
Finally, any agreed development on this site would increase shopping activity within the town centre, together with increasing the viability of any future redevelopment of the
town centre. This would be in contrast to any agreed development of any of the three sites just outside of Stevenage, which clearly would increase shopping activity within
Stevenage (and hence outside of the North Hertfordshire district), together with increasing the viability of any future redevelopment of Stevenage.
LDF/4001
Document Section:
Representation:
22
Preston Parish Council
Object
Preston Parish Council objects to this strategic site for the following reasons:
A development of this size is too large for Hitchin and would become a large percentage of the town as a whole.
A development of this size would adversely affect the vitality and character of Hitchin.
This development would concentrate a large number of houses, schools, community and health centres and other services into a very small area.
Part of the site is in a flood plain, which could lead to a serious risk of flooding to any properties built on it.
It is possible that the sewage treatment works will be unable to cope with the increased number of houses.
This is a green field site of grade 3 agricultural land.
The proposed southern by pass would not alleviate traffic problems if this new development went ahead as there would be a huge number of additional vehicles on the roads
each day.
Preston Parish Council believes that it is important that there are green spaces and public rights of way for people to enjoy the countryside and a healthy life style and that this
site is not viable because it would remove or affect:
One site of Special Scientific Significance
Six wildlife sites
The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
A number of Rights of Way.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Four archaeological areas.
Conservation areas.
This is not acceptable when the houses could be put in a location where they would not have a detrimental effect on the green spaces which are so vital to the well-being of
local residents.
For the reasons outlined above, Preston Parish Council objects to the South West of Hitchin strategic site and is also of the opinion that it is completely unacceptable to
propose that 69% of the 10700 houses required should be concentrated in one small area when they would have less impact if they were in smaller developments in more
areas.
LDF/4007
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Wymondley Parish Council
Object
This site increases unwelcome coalescence of Gosmore and St Ippolyts with Hitchin and engulfs Charlton.
It is disproportionate to the size of Hitchin and would completely change the character of the town.
It would completely over burden an already stretched road and rail transport system, both within the town and on access routes, to an extent that would not be solved by a
bypass. Traffic will attempt to avoid congestion by using surround villages as a rat run, particularly towards Stevenage.
Any bypass would add to the erosion of the Green Belt
LDF/4011
Document Section:
Representation:
14
Weston Parish Council
Object
Weston believes this to be largely both unnecessary and inappropriate. This site appeared attractive at first because of the 'carrot' of a new bypass but this creates its own
additional problems. In summary:
it is far too big and would completely overwhelm the market town feeling of Hitchin
it would be visually obtrusive approaching Hitchin from the west
it would destroy the village of Charlton and coalesce with Gosmore and St Ippolytes
the new road would not be built until the developers got money from the houses built
the planned siting of the road is well to the west and south of the proposed development and this would encourage infill to the boundary of the road
the new bypass is needed but this should be provided as an essential support for the total North Herts infrastructure and the expansion of Luton.
LDF/4343
Document Section:
Representation:
5
'North Hertfordshire Homes
Object
We would also give South West Hitchin a low ranking. Firstly, 7,400 new dwellings would increase the town's size to too great an extent while not contributing to ongoing
employment opportunities within the town itself. This would increase even further Hitchin's current status as a commuter town - more than 50% of the workforce already
commute out of the town. As commuters who move to a new town do not universally use existing shops and facilities, this is turn would threaten local businesses, particularly
those in the town centre, and the financial, social, and environmental sustainability of Hitchin.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
In addition the site is unacceptable because of the weaknesses highlighted in the consultation paper, viz: it's adverse impact on an ANOB, the existing SSSI, and local sites of
archaeological importance.While we would agree with the promoter that a bypass for Hitchin would be welcome to alleviate traffic congestion within the town, we are not
convinced that to do so at the expense of providing 7,400 new homes would achieve this aim. A bypass is a separate matter to housing growth, and should not be used as a
bargaining point to achieve otherwise unsustainable development. We cannot support the inclusion of this site in the local plan.
LDF/4392
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Thorning
Comment
South West of Hitchin is particularly well served with open country and rights of way - it is clearly used by walkers (many with dogs) and horse riders. It is a "green lung" for
Hitchin.
LDF/4398
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Newbury
Object
South West of Hitchin - would destroy Hitchin as it is known and loved. All greenfield site, would create significant internal traffic issues and bypass links (or not) to B656
London Road could create significant extra traffic perhaps a scaled down version would work better.
LDF/4430
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Destro
Object
I am opposed in principle to any development on greenfield sites around Hitchin for the following reasons: (i) there are more than enough brownfield sites to fulfil Hitchin's true
additional housing needs and (ii) unnecessary greenfield development goes against North Herts District Council's own Healthy Community Policy for preserving green spaces,
sports facilities, and reducing congestion and travel.
I am particularly opposed to this site (37) as it is so enormous, it would fundamentally change the nature of Hitchin. Smaller developments of brownfield sites would be more in
keeping with the market town feel, which gives Hitchin it's unique character.
Hitchin should not be allowed to be swallowed up in a sprawling conurbation, or to gradually become joined with surrounding towns. We need to preserve the integrity of our
classic English Market town.
Development on this scale would put a huge strain on the infrastructure and public transport facilities, which are already overcrowded.
Within this site (37) is some of the most beautiful English countryside, including archaeological and nature sites. These are currently enjoyed by many, and should be
preserved for future generations to enjoy as well. Once destroyed, we would never be able to regain them.
I feel that there have to be better ways in which we could address housing and development issues.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/4478
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
3
Lewis
Object
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/4524
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Johnson
Comment
The most favourable strategic sites are closest to established urban settlements and would have the minimum impact on the environment and rural characteristics of the region.
South west of hitchin- numbers would depend on minimum impact on AONB and ASSI
LDF/4554
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Read
Comment
It seems rather high given the huge amount of building that has been inflicted on Hitchin in recent years.
Getting out of North Herts between 8&9am is already very slow: the A1(M) and paparalle roads are jammed and roads into and out of Hitchin and Letchworth are gridlocked.
Trains are crowded and expensive. Without very major infrastructure improvment this numbe rof new houses cannot be supported.
LDF/4554
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Read
Comment
The development proposed S W of Hitchin would nearly double the size of the town, and would ruin both Hitchin and many of its outlying villages.
Provision of a southern bypass would not solve the problems of the A1(M) grid locks along the 2 lane stretch between Letchworth and Welwyn GS, the very crowded trains from
Hitchin and Stevenage to London, and would have an adverse effort on attractive countryside outside the town.
Smaller concentration of fewer houses would have a less serious effect on the existing towns and villages and infrastructure.
LDF/4588
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Windebank
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/4615
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Wilding
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/4616
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Windebank
Comment
to 8,000.
5. This is an area which includes SSSIs, archaeological sites, listed buildings and good agricultural land. The landscape is assessed as highly sensitive to development
LDF/4627
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Sheach
Object
Hitchin is a mdium sized market town, full of character which already has its primary and secondary schools full to capacity, its police and fire services stratched and its roads
clogged up at rush hours, with not enough car park spaces on market days and at weekends and with water and sewage facilities under pressure. We are proud to belong to a
town with a strong history and with characterful outlying villages.
To propose increasing the housing by around another 50% seems totally at odds with what our town is about and would destroy our rural market town's character, increasing
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
traffic in the town centre and straining local resources and facilities.
The area south west of Hitchin contains flood plains (many fields and walks are waterlogged and have been for months), sites of natural interest, listed buildings, rural pubs and
villages and a wonderful network of walks and a lovely common which is much used and enjoyed by all ages and by many families. It would be a tragedy to lose all of this.
I cannot understand why Hitchin has been singled out for such a huge expansion, when there are areas around Royston that could be developed as a new Garden City, with an
existing dual carriageway, Baldock bypass and motorway links already in place.
LDF/4638
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Linfield
Object
I am unable to use the online comments form, so hope I can submit my comments by email on the proposed housing developments around Hitchin, in particular the huge area
south and west of the town as marked out in your plans.I strongly feel that housebuilding on this scale is a terrible idea for Hitchin and will ruin the town and quality of life for
existing residents irrevocably. The amount of houses being considered would appear to increase the size and population of the town by about 50%. In purely logistical terms
this is untenable, there is not the infrastructure to support that kind of increase. Primary school places in Hitchin are already insufficient, as are secondary school places (partly
due to the baffling admission policies that give places to children from other towns over local children). I very much doubt that the house builders who are rubbing their hands in
glee at the prospect of all the money they could make from this, are giving much thought to building at least 3 primary schools and a new secondary school are
they?Likewise I expect the kind of housing planned is the kind of miserable high density, cramped little boxes with inadequate storage, and a pathetic scrap of garden on
estates of depressing overlooked identikit 'homes' that nobody really wants to live in. While I constantly hear that 'people need houses', I don't think anyone will want to move to
these kind of soulless places.My strongest objection however is what this would do to the countryside around Hitchin, and the quality of life that the existing residents
currently enjoy, and have a right to continue to enjoy. One of the things I love about Hitchin is its accessibility to proper countryside, farms, small villages and lovely sweeping
views, just minutes from the town centre. Crossing the footbridge over the ring road to be met with the glorious sweeping field of Hitchin Hill, with the footpaths threading
through the cornfield and the hills rising up beyond, with Charlton hidden in the valley beyond, is one of the loveliest and exhilarating views, and the area is constantly in use
from walkers, joggers, families, dog walkers and cyclists. The prospect of this being turned into a building site and then a mass of housing absolutely breaks my heart. It would
change what Hitchin is forever.The planners may have identified Hitchin as a place people want to live, but that is for what it is now, not for what they would turn it into if they
had their way. I want my children to grow up here with the sense of community that a small town gives, and the access to the countryside that it currently has. Fields and woods
and views have a value far beyond the mere value of the land.The idea of the villages of Gosmore and Charlton being engulfed by housing estates is depressing beyond
words, and I don't live there, I can only imagine what the residents of those villages must be feeling. They have chosen a semi-rural village life that is now being threatened to
be ruined for ever, not only by the housing estates but also by the planned bypass, which would cut through one of the loveliest part of the countryside in this area. It was
designated as greenbelt for a reason. As Stevenage and Luton encroach from two sides, there is a triangle of as yet unspoilt countryside, farms, villages, woodland south of
Hitchin, that is a refuge from urban life for the residents of all the towns of this area. Once built on, or a road put through it, it will be ruined for ever. Everyone will suffer.
LDF/4641
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Levesley
Object
number of dwellings by up to 8,000.
encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and both would be adversely affected
The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollits and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/4679
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
4
Pearce
Comment
Hitchin has been recognised by English Heritage as an important historic town (Urban Panel Review July 2012) and by the council for british archaeology as of national
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment land use consultants landscape sensitivity study (LSS 2012) makes clear the significance and sensitivity of this
attractive area of countryside as an open undulating valley with its small villages and isolated farms lying between the historic town and the chilterns AONB and Langley scarp.
The town has a very clear edge along the ridge line to west and south so that even partial development into the valley would have very significant impact (which by the nature of
the area could not be successfully mitigated by tree planting). The area also provides an extremely important setting for informal recreation for a town with limited open space
within its build up area. Part of the site area is also ccrucialin providing separation between Hitchin and Stevenage and much of it is also vital in retaining separation between
hitchin and the villages of charlton, gosmore, st ippolyts, titmore green and little wymondley.
I therefore conclude that the strategic sites to the south west of hitchin are wholly inappropriate areas to develop especially when one considers the environmental impact on
wildlife and the natural springs around the source of the river Hiz.
LDF/4679
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Pearce
Object
We object and refute the development proposals to the SW of Hitchin based upon the following:
that the area have been suggested by developers who, not surprisingly, would prefer to build in places which would command high house prices and i do not think that is an
appropriate way to decide where new housing should be built. It is the duty of the Council to produce a plan which would allocate the areas on a strategic and more equitable
basis throughout the District, so as to obviate many of the problems of over-population, such as traffic and water and sewerage problems, both for the existing and the
Putting 7,400 houses, which is 83% of the 8,910 houses remaining to b built in one location, namely South West of Hitchin, is out of all proportion. Such a development, adding
about 50% to its current size, would change completely the nature of Hitchin as a lovely Market Town.
As a resident of Charlton, i am aware of (and affected by) the decreasing supply of water and increasing traffic problems which have come about over the years. I know that the
South West of Hitchin proposal includes a huge bypass to the South, but that will not prevent traffic problems within Hitchin being heavily exacerbated even if new smaller roads
I also understand that many of the new dwellings would be expected to accommodate people who are working elsewhere and it would be a disaster if this South West of Hitchin
proposal were allowed to happen, thus making Hitchin into a so called "dormitory town".
This details of some of the proposed sites, i see that 1000 dwellings are suggested for Rush Green on what is currently a scrap yard and there must be other sites around the
area which are "brownfield" so that there would be much less to go on the greenfield sites proposed. For developers it is obviously easier to start from scratch on a greenfield
site, but i believe it is the Council's job to find as many brownfield sites as possible to promote and thus to try to preserve as much of the green belt as they can. Further to this, i
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
see that there are a number of non-strategic sites in Hitchin which appear to be brownfield; namely Ref nos. 133, H/m02, H/m03, H/r28. H/r48 and H/r50 ( and there may be
others that i do not recognise as such) and these alone make a total of 279 dwellings. Were you to count all the so-called "town sites" that have not "failed" there would be land
available for 1,531 dwellings in Hitchin alone. That being the case i should imagine, without going through all the plans in detail, that i should be possible to find the vast majority
of new dwellings by doing a similar exercise throughout the District, thus leaving very few houses needing to be built outside of brownfield sites.
on-going study to monitor birds (and other wildlife) on a site via licensed Bird Ringing and Garden Birdwatch, both of which are carried under the auspices of the British Trust for
Ornithology. As an example, the date from the Ringing records, the following Red List birds (showing their percentage decline nationally) are present and/or breeding regularly
on the fields immediately surround Charlton; Corn Bunting (87%) Grey Partridge (91%) Skylark (63%) Song Thrush (50%) Linnet (76%) Lesser Redpoll (89%) Yellowhammer
(57%) plus a further 14 species of birds on the Amber List, including nesting Barn Owl, Kestrel and Whitethroat. If building was allowed on the adjacent fields, birds would all but
disappear, another nail in the coffin of declining farmland birds.
In this area is an obervatory owned and operated by a resident who holds the world record, as an individual amateur astronomer, for discovering the greatest number of
variable stars. The proposed development would cause a source of light pollution and would make it much more difficult for him to continue with this work.
The areas around Charlton and Temple End are used extensively by people from Hitchin town and others for recreational use as an amenity. There are number walkers,
its special wildlife, were the South West of Hitchin proposal adopted.
Finally, the implementation of this proposal, even with the suggested "buffer of undeveloped land" around the village of Charlton itself, would be an encroachment on the
ancient and historic villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St Ippolyts. This would undoubtedly be the "thin end of the wedge" and leave he door open to loss of identity and full
subsumption within Hitchin itself at some time in the future.
Therefore, on all the above grounds, i wish to register my objection to the South West of Hitchin housing proposal.
LDF/4684
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Darley and Hutchins
Object
We would like to express our concern about problems with several of the proposed sites. We feel that the proposal to build to the south-west of Hitchin puts too much of the
weight of new development on the town, endangers the character of several areas that are important for landscape or wildlife and is wholly disproportionate. We are also not
convinced at all that the case for a southern bypass has been adequately made (as is recognised in the report) and do not feel that this should be the impetus for a housing
project of this size. We note the misuse of the word 'sustainable' in the developer's summary argument. We would like to draw the council's attention to the fact that the open countryside that adjoins the Lucas Lane and Oughtonhead areas of Hitchin are a major recreational facility
and amenity or people from the whole town and beyond and are consequently valued extremely highly by people in the town. They cater for runners, walkers, dog walkers,
cyclists, people using long-distance footpaths, conservation volunteers, families and people taking general outdoor recreation. To develop here would have potentially serious
implications for the mental and physical wellbeing of a large number of residents and contradict initiatives such as the sterling work being done by the county council's
Countryside Management Service (such as health walks and conservation volunteering opportunities).
LDF/4703
Document Section:
12
Agar
Representation:
Object
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/4707
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Thaw
Object
Please accept our strong disagreement with this suggestion. Green belt land should be kept as it is. The town down not have the infrastructure needed, and a bypass would
only open the way for more development. Please work on our behalf to stop Hitchin becoming just another amorphous town with no soul and long traffic queues, and please
accept our belief that the country side should not be built on.
LDF/4712
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Maile
Object
I object strongly to any form of housing development on greenbelt land around Hitchin.
As a keen local birdwatcher, I have spent many hours wandering the countryside south-west of Hitchin, specifically the area surrounding Charlton Village, and seen some
wonderful sights. In summary Ive seen 77 different bird species of which 47 have also visited (specifically landed in) our garden at 23 Cranborne Avenue.
I strongly believe my observations demonstrate that the area between the A505 and Gosmore provides an important haven for bird life. Highlights of my sightings from
footpaths in the area proposed for development include the following:
- A barn owl quartering a field at dusk
- 5 Skylarks singing simultaneously
- 60+ Golden Plover
- A flock of 70+ Yellowhammers
- 30+ Linnet
- 45+ Siskins lined along telegraph wires
- A lone Whinchat
- Regular twice-annual views of migrating Wheatears
- Red Kites scavenging
- 5 Buzzards soaring together
- 2 Corn Buntings singing simultaneously
- A Cuckoo perched and calling then in flight
- 10 Pied Wagtails feeding in a field
- A Hobby family feeding at sunset
- Meadow Pipits cavorting over a field
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
- The quirky rusty hinge calls of Grey Partridges
- 200+ Redwings feeding
- 200+ Fieldfares feeding
- A Cettis Warbler singing in the bushes
- Spotted Flycatchers chasing flies
- Lesser and Common Whitethroats along an overgrown hedgerow
- A Lapwing displaying
- A Kingfisher flitting along a stream
- A Grey Heron standing in the field, another perched in a tree.
Agent
The wooded area alongside Willow Lane provides excellent shelter for Woodcock and other birds during cold spells. From there they find vital food put out for them in the
gardens which border Willow Lane. By developing land south of Willow Lane, this natural refuge will be lost.
In addition, I would suggest that bringing buildings closer to Oughtonhead nature reserve will narrow the natural corridor for summer migrants, specifically warblers, the songs
of which make the Common so special.
Building huge numbers of dwellings to fund a bypass on an area half the existing size of Hitchin would (a) ruin the innate rural character of our town (b) be totally
disproportionate to Hitchins true housing and transportation needs (c) create unwarranted urban sprawl that would destroy Charlton as a village and key conservation area (d)
raise pollution levels (car noise and emissions from the additional residential and through traffic) and (e) forever lose swathes of Hitchin's surrounding green belt (including
beautiful sections of agricultural land, wildlife areas and woodland).
Moreover, building thousands of dwellings on this site goes far in excess of any housing growth target set for Hitchin and its environs and would be disproportionate housing
growth purely on the basis of raising funds for a bypass that has not been formally assessed as meeting Hitchins transportation needs.
Additionally, the area in question is used for local health walks as it is very accessible with onward access to numerous walker-friendly publc rights of way. Also the paths are
regularly used by dog-walkers, ramblers, runners, cyclists and horse-riders. Building on these fields will significantly reduce the number of easy access paths available for the
promotion of such countryside activities as a healthy life option.
With the additional threat from Lutons proposed housing expansion towards Hitchin, it is even more important to retain this area as greenbelt.
On this basis I object to any form of housing or bypass development on this proposed site.
LDF/4751
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Hitchin Forum - Chairman
Comment
The excess need related to Hitchin of about 2,150 homes is minor in the context of the scale of the strategic site shown south and west of Hitchin (for 6,000 to 7,400 homes)
that has been put forward as one alternative to address the needs of the District as a whole.
Hitchin Forum's view is that development of all or part of this area of Green Belt would be totally unacceptable in relation to three of the purposes of the Green Belt (National
Planning Policy Framework 2012 page 19):
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
A case can be made for Hitchin that it is reaching its environmental capacity, with significant constraints in terms of its historic centre and setting. The argument would be that
the excess needs have to be met beyond its Green Belt.
It is not yet clear how far Stevenage may be seeking housing sites outside its own built up area either adjacent to or within North Hertfordshire in the period up to 2031 (see 1.1
above). If it is, then there could be an argument that the additional housing need from Hitchin (and Letchworth) would contribute to a sustainable development adjacent to
Stevenage, depending on its location.
In fact the Letchworth/Hitchin/Stevenage area as a whole is becoming increasingly congested with significant difficulties in providing infrastructure and services, and with very
fragile gaps between settlements.
It may therefore be worth considering the development of a new settlement further north in a sustainable location with associated rail links. Such consideration would seem to
be appropriate in the context of the government's espousal of the building of new settlements built on Garden City principles (NPPF page 13), and its expectation that Local
Authorities will be co-operating:
The Stevenage and A1(M) housing sub market area includes much of Bedfordshire (SMHA page 7) and there could be an argument for needs to be met at a new settlement
Or NHDC could take account of the growing economic base of Cambridge and the related employment opportunities. It might then be appropriate to look for a new settlement
in the north east of the District to meet these opportunities.
Hitchin Forum therefore urges NHDC to take the significant opportunity provided by the government's support for new settlements and co-operation between authorities, in
order to break the cycle of continuous recourse to the most congested part of the District, and to undertake a more strategic planning approach to housing needs.
LDF/4752
Document Section:
Representation:
12
'Hertfordshire County Council - Spatial and Land Use
Planning
Comment
It is assumed that the development will deliver a new bypass which would have additional benefit for non development related traffic. Although the provision of a southern
bypass should have the effect of relieving through traffic at certain junctions within the town (such as the Three Moorhens roundabout and the Paynes Park one way system),
the internal traffic generated by the new development will impact the local highway network in the Hitchin area ¿ the modelling work identified problems at Junctions 7 and 8 of
the A1(M), the Cadwell Lane / Woolgrove Road area of Hitchin, and within Stevenage.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Given the scale of additional mitigation required in the Hitchin area, in addition to the provision of the bypass, the development scenario which includes the South west Hitchin
site would result in significant infrastructure costs (as set out in Table 6.3 of Technical Note) which could impact upon deliverability.
In terms of bus provision there will be a need for additional routes to/from the town centre/rail stations. Some diversion of existing services will also be likely with a need for bus
priorities to be incorporated within the site layout and on the adjacent highway network. High quality infrastructure meeting accessibility requirements incorporating 'real time'
bus information will also be necessary.
LDF/4760
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Atkins
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/4761
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Walton
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/4768
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Cowlishaw
Object
Having attended your exhibition of sites for development proposed by landowners and developers we understand the need for the council to provide further houses and that
decisions have to be taken as to where they are to be built.
My wife and I have one very strong objection to one aspect of the plans as drawn. The developers have asked for a narrow strip of land running at right angles across Mill
Road and the end of Millfield Lane and across the green belt field is of course vitally important to maintain the Gosmore separation but why do they want this narrow strip at the
top of the field?
The Council's representative at the exhibition said he did not know. It appears it is an attempt to connect a proposed large development which incorporates the village of
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Charlton into the Hitchin boundary, with the B656 Codicote Road and then the A602 Stevenage Road. Presumably a road is to be built to provide access to their huge
development so that heavy goods vehicles could transport all their building materials etc. on a hourly/daily basis for many months.
More importantly, such a road would be a rat run to and from the B656 for, amongst many others, the occupiers of the large proposed development and would form a bypass of
Hitchin towards Luton road. The volume of traffic would be immense and continuous with associated noise and would completely change and spoil the nature of that area of
Hitchin.
We believe the Council should totally reject this proposal which is merely a convenience for the developer by which has ominous consequences.
We also hope that is will be possible to protect the village of Charlton.
The new houses have to be built somewhere but surely not at the expense of the horror referred to above.
LDF/4781
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Hammacott
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/4786
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Georgiou
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/4786
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Georgiou
Comment
This is a rural area that many people enjoy including dog walker and cyclists. Being a member of both those groups this will cause an immediate impact on the quality of my life.
My family will be affected already we currently enjoy views over fields to the area indicated for development. I absolutely object to any of these expansion ideas which will
complete scupper the outlook of my retirement which was pleasant to be in my home.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/4793
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
7
Bradburn
Comment
Agent
I do not have a problem in principal with your development proposals, Provided That: 1) you complete the infrastructure early on, in terms of water supply, drainage, internet,
schools, shops and community facilities and do not allow them to be left until after the housing is built.2) you do actually construct the proposed Southern bypass linking the
A505 to the A602 and introduce appropriate signage and weight restrictions on non A roads within Hitchin.I am also concerned that Safe Routes To School will not be
considered since it comes under the responsibility of another Authority. The plan should incorporate proposals to ensure that children can walk or cycle to school without the
need for vehicle movements. In other words, schools need to be near children so that they are not shipped from one side of the town to another just to meet some social
engineering ideals. New developments like this should start off with 20mph speed limits and width restricting pinch points on entry. Road Safety measures may well come out of
someone else's budget, but they all come out of my pocket! My final "aspiration" is to see a northern bypass or link road. Hitchin already comes to a standstill at peak times
and if the through traffic were to be encouraged to miss out Hitchin, we would be better able to manage our own internal traffic, which of course, will grow considerably with the
proposed development.
LDF/4819
Document Section:
6
Burr
Comment
Representation:
S.W Hitchin is far too big. It would almost double the size of Hitchin. Part of the area could be developed.
LDF/4820
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Waters
Comment
LDF/4825
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Smithson
Object
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/4850
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Knight
Object
Development on this site would have too heavy an impact on the historic nature of the town and increase it by at least 50% - NOT A GOOD IDEA!
LDF/4868
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Matterson
Comment
I am writing with regards to the 2011-2031 local plan for St Ippolyts.
There is an error in this plan at the area around the the blue strategic site between Mill Lane and Hitchin Road/Gosmore Road.
The property boundary of Glyada,Gosmore Road is not shown correctly. This boundary extends into the blue strategic site along the Hitchin Road/Gosmore Road and
triangulates back to far corner of this property. This can be seen from google maps. This cuts off the blue strategic site area on the Hitchin Road.
Regarding the whole of the blue strategic site plan, this is much too large to be added to Hitchin. There would be a need for more infrastructure, schools, shops etc. The
character of Hitchin would be transformed and existing road network would be unable to cope (Hitchin is a bad bottleneck at present).
LDF/4886
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Matterson
Object
I would like to object to the plan which shows the land which lies between Gosmore and Millfield Lane and is bordered by Mill Lane and Hitchin Road being shown as an option
for housing.
1. There is no indication of where access roads to the houses would be.
All surrounding roads are currently very narrow and are unsuitable for extra traffic. (Until the access is shown people do not know to what extent they will be affected and
whether they should object.)
2. Extra housing in the St Ippolyts area will produce a need for extra school places. There are no plans which acknowledge this.
Extra children from this area attending St Ippolyts school are likely to be driven there which will increase cars around the school and danger to local children who walk to school.
3. The land has not been measured correctly and includes land privately owned so this gives concerns for the accuracy and integrity of any plan as a whole.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Please could you answer the following questions.
Agent
1. Where will access to this possible development be from?
2. What provision will be provided for the education of the extra children living in the St Ippolyts catchment area?
3. Will you review the size/measurements of the area described above, indicated as possible strategic site, and correct the error?
LDF/4889
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Kelsall
Object
The proposed development to the South West side of Hitchin is not appropriate for a town of Hitchin's size. Such a massive increase in the population of the town would
adversely affect life in Hitchin for current residents. It would no longer be a rural market town, and would become something of an urban sprawl. The villages of Charlton,
Gosmore and St Ippolytts would be swallowed up by such a development, and would lose their own identity. Similarly, residents of the South West side of Hitchin would lose the
use of the open green spaces that they value highly; and this would be tragic. I am aware of the fact that you have housing targets, but I do not agree they are reasonable. By
proposing Site Ref 37 (S.W. Hitchin) it seems as if you are trying to socially engineer large-scale migration to this area of North Herts. Why can't you just reduce your housing
targets to take account of internal population growth, which is obviously much lower than 10,700. In my view this would be a much better plan. Please email me back to confirm
my opposition to Site Ref 37 (S.W. Hitchin) has been recorded in your consultation figures.
LDF/4987
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Hamilton
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/4988
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Groom
Object
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/5000
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Machen
Comment
to 8,000.
6. Infrastructure of town roads etc could not cope with such a large increase in population in Hitchin.
7. Area SW of Hitchin is a much used and highly regarded recreation area for people of the town. Residents come from many parts of the town to walk,cycle,job and to enjoy
this area of countryside.
LDF/5010
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Thomas
Object
LDF/5032
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Grimes
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/5033
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Grimes
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5036
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Pickett
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5036
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Pickett
Comment
Large scale development to the West of Hitchin would ruin the character of the town. The existing infrastructure would be unable to cope- we frequently have to queue on roads
leading through the town and trains to London are often full with no room to sit down. We have already had large numbers of flats built in the town. If we lose the existing open
spaces it will no longer be the pleasant town we live in now.
LDF/5100
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Jones
Object
Re: SHMA
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
It appears that the driver for the outcomes of this assessment are based on rather prescriptive demands by the national Government rather than the ethos of the District
Council. My understanding from hearing NHDC's responses on previous similar consultations was that they preferred to plan and monitor the demands of North Hertfordshire's
housing needs in a more holistic manner. The aim being to develop sites across the area by adding small developments to lots of the non-strategic and some of the strategic
sites.
This approach seems more appropriate to the new Localism Act but ironically seems to be undermined by the Governments dictates regarding what they constitute an
acceptable proposal. My view would be that the housing levels for the area need to be monitored and adapted on a 3 yearly basis. And that the additional developments should
be in spread across the county in all relevant areas ¿ many smaller communities can be revitalised by small-medium sized developments. I feel strongly that huge whole-scale
developments would be detrimental to the character as well as the environment and resources and quality of life for residents currently living in North Hert. I notice that most of
the proposed strategic sites are considered because they have been put forward by developers. I would like to be clearer about the evidence given in their recommendations for
development. For example when referring to landowners being involved I think it important that we all know what that means exactly. I believe the council should be looking at
what is the best for the county in terms of quality of life best practice, cost efficiency etc. and not make these important decisions based on some the financial desires of large
developers to make as much money as quickly and easily as possible.
In particular I object and refute the development proposals to the SW of Hitchin based upon the following;
that the areas have been suggested by developers who, not surprisingly, would prefer to build in places which would command higher house prices and I do not think that this is
an appropriate way to decide where new housing should be built. It is the duty of the Council to produce a plan which would allocate the areas on a strategic and more equitable
Putting 7,400 houses, which is 83% of the 8,910 houses remaining to be built, in one location, namely South West of Hitchin, is out of all proportion. Such a development,
adding about 50% to its current size, would change completely the nature of Hitchin as a lovely Market Town.
As a resident of Charlton, I am aware of (and affected by) the decreasing supply of water and increasing traffic problems which have come about over the years. I know that the
are built. I believe that the sewage and water problems would become an environmental nightmare were this development to go ahead and one takes into account the huge
proposal were allowed to happen, thus making Hitchin into a so-called 'dormitory town'.
The details of some of the proposed sites, I see that 1000 dwellings are suggested for Rush Green on what is currently a scrapyard and there must be other sites around the
area which are 'brownfield' so that there would be much less to go on the greenfield sites proposed. For developers it is obviously easier to start from scratch on a greenfield
site, but I believe it is the Council's job to find as many brownfield sites as possible to promote and thus to try to preserve as much of the green belt as they can. Further to this,
I see that there are a number of non-strategic sites in Hitchin which appear to be brownfield; namely Ref nos. 133, H/m02, H/m03, H/r28, H/r48 and H/r50 (and there may be
others) and these alone make a total of 279 dwellings. Were you to count all the so-called 'town sites' that have not 'failed' there would be land available for 1,531 dwellings in
Hitchin alone. That being the case, I should imagine, without going through all the plans in detail, that it should be possible to find the vast majority of new dwellings by doing a
similar exercise throughout the District, thus leaving very few houses needing to be built outside of brownfield sites.
The proposal to develop from the North East of Stevenage strategic site seems best suited for the implied dwelling proposals because of the service base in Stevenage to
accommodate such growth. Houses there would also be more affordable and therefore more likely to sell, given that the current economic climate is not likely to improve
extensively in the foreseeable future.
on-going study to monitor birds (and other wildlife) on a site via licensed Bird Ringing and Garden BirdWatch, both of which are carried under the auspices of the British Trust
for Ornithology. As an example, the data from the Ringing records, the following Red List birds (showing their percentage decline nationally) are present and/or breeding
regularly on the fields immediately surrounding Charlton; Corn Bunting (87%); Grey Partridge (91%); Skylark (63%); SongThrush (50%); Linnet (76%); Lesser Redpoll (89%);
Yellowhammer (57%) plus a further 14 species of birds on the Amber List, including nesting Barn Owl, Kestrel and Whitethroat. If building was allowed on the adjacent fields,
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
birds would all but disappear, another nail in the coffin of declining farmland birds.
variable stars. The proposed development would cause a source of light pollution and would make it much more difficult for him to continue with his work.
joggers, cyclists, dog walkers, bird watchers, horse riders etc. who enjoy using the area and who would be deprived of the beauty of the landscape and surrounding countryside
and of its special wildlife, were the South West of Hitchin proposal adopted.
Finally, the implementation of this proposal, even with the suggested 'buffer of undeveloped land' around the village of Charlton itself, would be an encroachment on the ancient
and historic villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St. Ippolyts. This would undoubtedly be the 'thin end of the wedge' and leave the door open to loss of identity and full
LDF/5107
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Sheach
Comment
I am opposed to the idea of building a significant number of new homes in the South West of Hitchin. Up to 7,400 homes are proposed and my comments are as follows (many
of the same points apply to the proposed build to the west of Stevenage, to which I am also opposed):
1. The new by pass proposed will not be sufficient to alleviate the increased traffic congestion nor the levels of pollution that are currently high anyway- see the recent London
Road survey which revealed high levels. There will be an overall increase in traffic numbers which the infrastructure cannot cope with see eg the frequency with which major
road maintenance has been needed in the last few years eg on Walsworth Road.
2. The proposal involves building on floodplains- given recent flooding elsewhere in the UK the folly of this is obvious
3. Areas of natural beauty would be destroyed by the building eg Oughtenhead and Charlton
4. Hitchin station and the trains from it currently suffer overcrowding. A substantial number of the new residents will commute- adding to this.
5. There is already severe congestion at busy times between junctions 6 and 8 on the A1 - this development adds to that.
6. There is insufficient fire and police resource to cater for a population increase on this scale.
7. Insufficient work has been done on the effect on the areas' water and sewage supply.
LDF/5132
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Street
Object
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/5195
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Russell
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5196
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Russell
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5197
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Lacey
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/5231
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
2
Martin
Object
Agent
Re: SHMA
It appears that the drivers for the outcomes of this assessment are based on rather prescriptive demands by the national Government rather than the ethos of the District
Council. My understanding from hearing NHDC's responses on previous similar consultations was that they preferred to plan and monitor the demands of North Hertfordshire's
housing needs in a more holistic manner, the aim being to develop sites across the area by adding small developments to lots of the non-strategic and some of the strategic
sites.
This approach seems more appropriate to the new Localism Act but ironically seems to be undermined by the Governments dictates regarding what they constitute an
acceptable proposal. My view would be that the housing levels for the area need to be monitored and adapted on a 3 yearly basis. And that the additional developments should
be in spread across the county in all relevant areas ¿ many smaller communities can be revitalised by small-medium sized developments. I feel strongly that huge whole-scale
developments would be detrimental to the character as well as the environment and resources and quality of life for residents currently living in North Hert. I notice that most of
the proposed strategic sites are considered because they have been put forward by developers. I would like to be clearer about the evidence given in their recommendations
for development. For example when referring to landowners being involved I think it important that we all know what that means exactly. I believe the council should be looking
at what is the best for the county in terms of quality of life best practice, cost efficiency etc. and not make these important decisions based on some the financial desires of large
developers to make as much money as quickly and easily as possible.
In particular I object and refute the development proposals to the SW of Hitchin based upon the following;
others) and these alone make a total of 279 dwellings. Were you to count all the so-called 'town sites' that have not 'failed' there would be land available for 1,531 dwellings in
Hitchin alone. That being the case, I should imagine, without going through all the plans in detail, that it should be possible to find the vast majority of new dwellings by doing a
similar exercise throughout the District, thus leaving very few houses needing to be built outside of brownfield sites.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
joggers, cyclists, dog walkers, bird watchers, horse riders etc. who enjoy using the area and who would be deprived of the beauty of the landscape and surrounding countryside
and of its special wildlife, were the South West of Hitchin proposal adopted.
LDF/5231
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Martin
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
foreseeable future.
The area around Charlton and Temple End are used extensively by people from Hitchin town and others for recreational use as an amenity. There are numerous walkers,
Therefore on all the above grounds, i wish to register my objection to the South West of Hitchin housing proposal.
LDF/5234
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Hughes
Comment
to 8,000.
6. This is the core proposal that would wreck irresponsibly and irrevocably hitchins living quality. Rural vandalism, without guarantee of relevant public facilities to sustain life
values (see 1)
LDF/5249
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Robson
Object
The SHMA provides no adequate justification for building up to 8,000 homes to the south-west of Hitchin. If the need for 10,700 new homes in North Hertfordshire is accepted,
what would be the justification for building almost 75% of that total as an extension of Hitchin? It is obvious that the people of Hitchin do not need such a huge expansion of the
towns housing stock. Many new dwellings have been constructed in Hitchin in recent years and not all of them are yet occupied. If the aim is to meet the housing needs of
people from outside Hitchin, a clear justification for this must be given. If such an expansion is partly to meet the needs of Stevenage or other towns, it would be better to build
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
there rather than around Hitchin. If the aim is partly to meet the needs of people migrating to North Hertfordshire, why should Hitchin be selected to meet the bulk of the needs?
In any case, a fundamental objection to the south-west of Hitchin proposal is that it would completely change the nature of Hitchin and its environment. Currently one of the
most attractive towns in Hertfordshire, and rated in recent survey by The Times as one of the top 30 best places to live in the UK, it brings in many visitors because of its
charms as a historic market town surrounded by pleasant countryside. Building a huge development onto it would change it into yet another dormitory town for London
commuters and the beauty of the surrounding countryside would be destroyed forever. The proposed development would encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the
Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and both would be adversely affected. It would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollits and Charlton, which would
lose their identities and coalesce with Hitchin.
LDF/5367
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Luxton
Object
I am writing to give my views on the North Hertfordshire Local Plan Consultation.
I attended the meeting in St Ippolyts Village Hall on March 6th to view the various proposals and discuss the options with Council Members and employees I am now giving my
informed opinion about the affect of the proposals on Hitchin and its surrounds.
I appreciate the requirement for housing in North Herts and am in favour of some sustainable development utilising pockets of land within and on the edges of Hitchin but I am
totally opposed to large-scale incursion into the Green Belt which controlled urban grow maintained the quality of the rural environment for over 60 years.
My particular objection is to the massive south west of Hitchin development that will, in my view, destroy the heritage and ambience of Hitchin for ever. The sheer size of the
development, which will increase the size of the town up approximately 1 3rd is not sustainable and the infrastructure will not stand a development of this size.
An additional 7400 homes are likely to give at least another 10,000 adults, many of whom will need to commute for work. Hitchin station is already nearing capacity at peak
times; parking will not be adequate and the additional rush hour traffic will increase the already congested roads within the town.
A conservative estimate is that 7400 homes will mean a total population increase of 15000 that will in turn put pressure on medical and maternity services at the Lister Hospital.
The A1M at junction 8 is already at a standstill by 7.15 every morning and the additional traffic generated the SW Hitchin will only make matters worse.
The development is also likely to increase the traffic through Luton and create further pressure on junction 10 of the M1.
Any increase in the volume of traffic passing through the town will mean more traffic jams at peak times but the diversion of vehicles via the mooted bypass associated with the
SW Hitchin development will just increase the volumes trying to access the A1 and M1.
Parking within the town centre is already inadequate and the historic nature of the town precludes major redevelopment. This is likely to mean the necessity for a major
shopping area within the new development area which will suck investment and shoppers alike away from the town and lead to the death of an important market town centre;
for proof of this in action you have only to look at the original Stevenage Town Centre.
I do not believe that water resources in the area are adequate to sustain a new development of up to 7400 homes and positioning such a major development on the edge of the
Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will affect the biodiversity and natural environment significantly.
As I have already stated, the need for homes is not in dispute but spreading them throughout the North Herts area must surely be preferable to destroying the heart and
character of a unique and historical market town.
LDF/5370
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Lederman
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
6. There are other small sites nearby which wouldcontribute to the need for housing, eg just adjacent to Lucas Lane and Chalkhill Path, but which dont encorach on the nature
of the area and on the community. Development should be intelligent, with though to all aspects of community. The SW Hitchin proposal takes no account of the elements of
expansion.
LDF/5411
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Luxton
Comment
Having attended the meeting in St Ippolyts Village Hall, both to view the various proposals and moreover discuss the options with Council Members and employees, I am now
providing my informed opinion about the affect of the proposals on Hitchin and its surrounds.
Whilst I appreciate the requirement for additional housing in North Hertfordshire and whilst generally in favour of some sustainable development utilising pockets of land within
and on the edges of Hitchin, I am totally opposed to large-scale incursion into the Green Belt, especially where previously controlled urban grow has maintained the quality of a
rural environment for over 60 years.
My specific objections are to the massive proposed development to the South West of Hitchin, which would, in my view, destroy the heritage and ambience of Hitchin for ever.
The sheer magnitude of the proposed development would increase the size of the town by approximately 33% and as such, would simply not be sustainable given the existing
and future limitations to the infrastructure.
The proposal of an additional 7400 homes would be likely to provide at least another 10,000 adults, many of whom would obviously need to commute for work.
Hitchin station is already nearing capacity at peak times, parking is not currently adequate, with many local roads already used as "overflow" station car parks. Furthermore, the
additional peak period traffic produced would dramatically increase the already congested roads within the town.
A conservative estimate based on the proposed 7400 homes would probably result in a total population increase of approximately 15000. This level of increase would in turn put
severe pressure on emergency, medical and maternity services at the Lister Hospital.
Currently, the A1 M is virtually at a standstill between Junctions 8 & 7, by 7.15 a.m. every morning. The additional traffic which would be generated by the South West of Hitchin
development would only make this bad situation far worse. Furthermore, any development of this magnitude is also likely to increase the existing traffic through Luton and
create even further pressure on Junction 10 of the M1.
For whatever reason, any increase in the volume of traffic currently passing through the town would certainly result in more traffic jams at peak times, but a potential diversion
of vehicles via the mooted by-pass apparently associated with the South West of Hitchin development, would only serve to increase the already unacceptable volumes currently
trying to access both the A1 and M1 at the above mentioned Junctions.
Parking within the town centre is already inadequate and the historic nature of the town precludes any major re-development. This is most likely to mean the necessity for a new
major retail shopping area within the new development, which would then suck investment and shoppers alike away from the town itself, probably eventually leading to the
demise of an important market town centre, already suffering from too many recession related empty premises.
One does not have to look too far to gain a lesson from previous over developments and should possibly look to the original Stevenage Town Centre for example.
I am further given to understand that the water resources in this area are totally inadequate to sustain a possible new development of up to 7400 homes, not to mention that the
positioning of such a major development on the edge of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which would have a significant adverse affect on the biodiversity and
natural environment of this area.
As previously stated, the justifiable need for additional homes in North Hertfordshire is not in dispute, but surely spreading these additions throughout the North Hertfordshire
area, ( with the associated benefits bought to other NH areas in more obvious need ), must be preferable to destroying the heart and character of a unique and historical market
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
town.
LDF/5447
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
12
Worley
Object
to 8,000.
It is depressing that opportunities for housing development on brownfield sites in Hitchin are used for commercial developments when we already have shops standing empty.
A new set of priorities are required.
LDF/5456
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Dodds
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/5494
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Waterman
Object
My initial observation is that the developments should be, as far as possible, spread about the area. Given that there remain to be built some 8,910 houses and your A5 green
leaflet states that there are 137 sites on which we can give our views, then it might be possible to allocate, say, 65 houses to each site and start from there. Presumably some
sites would not accommodate as many as 65 houses and so adjustments could be made to that figure. These smallish numbers should mean that less infrastructure be
required to support the developments.
It does appear, however, that all the proposed strategic sites developments are situated in the already heavily developed and congested southern part of the North Herts
District. This has resulted from the fact that the areas have been suggested by developers who, not surprisingly, would prefer to build in places which would command higher
house prices and I do not think that this is an appropriate way to decide where new housing should be built. In my view it is the duty of the Council to produce a plan which
would allocate the areas on a strategic and more equitable basis throughout the District, so as to obviate many of the problems of over-population, such as traffic and water and
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
sewerage problems, both for the existing and the prospective residents of the area.
Certainly I feel that putting 7,400 houses, which is 83% of the 8,910 houses remaining to be built, in one location, namely South West of Hitchin, is out of all proportion. Such a
development, adding about 50% to its current size, would change completely the nature of Hitchin as a lovely Market Town. As a long-standing resident of Charlton, I am also
aware of (and affected by) the decreasing supply of water and increasing traffic problems which have come about over the years. I know that the South West of Hitchin
proposal includes a huge bypass to the South, but that will not prevent traffic problems within Hitchin being heavily exacerbated even if new smaller roads are built. I believe that
the sewage and water problems would become a nightmare were this development to go ahead and one takes into account the huge extra numbers of people living in Hitchin,
not to mention the horrendous congestion on the roads that would most certainly follow. I also understand that many of the new dwellings would be expected to accommodate
people who are working elsewhere and it would be a disaster if this South West of Hitchin proposal were allowed to happen, thus making Hitchin into a so-called 'dormitory
town'.
Having looked through the details of some of the proposed sites, I see, for example that 1,000 dwellings are suggested for Rush Green on what is currently a scrapyard and
there must be other sites around the area which are 'brownfield' so that there would be much less to go on the greenfield sites proposed. For developers it is obviously easier to
start from scratch on a greenfield site, but I believe it is the Council's job to find as many brownfield sites as possible to promote and thus to try to preserve as much of the
green belt as they can. Further to this, I see that there are a number of non-strategic sites in Hitchin which appear to be brownfield; namely Ref nos. 133, H/m02, H/m03, H/r28,
H/r48 and H/r50 (and there may be others that I do not recognise as such) and these alone make a total of 279 dwellings. Were you to count all the so-called 'town sites' that
have not 'failed' there would be land available for 1,531 dwellings in Hitchin alone. That being the case, I should imagine, without going through all the plans in detail, that it
should be possible to find the vast majority of new dwellings by doing a similar exercise throughout the District, thus leaving very few houses needing to be built outside of
brownfield sites.
Following on from that, the logical conclusion would seem to me, to develop as much as then would be required, from the North East of Stevenage strategic site, which I would
suggest as my no. 1 preference for development of any strategic site, in particular because of the service base in Stevenage to accommodate such growth. Houses there would
also be more affordable and therefore more likely to sell, given that the current economic climate is not likely to improve extensively in the foreseeable future.
Further to the above, I see that a site 'fails' and cannot therefore be available for development 'when the landowner is no longer pursuing the suggestion' and I should like to
point out that my wife and I own about three and a half acres of land where we live at Temple End, Charlton and that this acreage has been included on the plans, without our
consultation or consent, as part of the area scheduled for development.
Moreover, my wife, Jeanystal, is running an ongoing study, now in its 15th year, to monitor birds (and other wildlife) on our site via licensed Bird Ringing and Garden
BirdWatch, both of which are carried under the auspices of the British Trust for Ornithology. Our Ringing records cover some 70 species of bird, many of which are on the
national Red or Amber List of Birds of Conservation Concern. You may well know the criteria for being on these Lists: basically the Red List includes birds which have
undergone more than a 50% decline in breeding, range or population (or a combination of these) between 1967 and 2009; the Amber List relates, similarly, to declines of
between 25% and 50% during that period. Just to give you a flavour of what happens here, the following Red List birds (showing their percentage decline nationally) are present
and/or breeding regularly on our site or on the fields immediately adjacent to us on all sides:Corn Bunting (87%); Grey Partridge (91%); Skylark (63%); SongThrush (50%); Linnet (76%); Lesser Redpoll (89%); Yellowhammer (57%) plus a further 14 species of birds on
the Amber List, including nesting Barn Owl, Kestrel and Whitethroat. Another 16 species on the Red or Amber List have been seen/caught here, but not on a regular basis.
If building was allowed on the adjacent fields (and the landowner, who owns many acres in the vicinity, has told us that he, like us, has not been approached by the developer)
then the (mainly nationally-declining farmland) birds would all but disappear, even if our property itself were spared - another nail in the coffin of declining farmland birds.
We also have bats on the site which would most certainly disappear if development were allowed.
Aart from the destruction of wildlife, I'd like to object on the grounds of the increase in light pollution of our skys, already seriously affected by Luton airport. I own and run an
astronomical observatory and hold a world record, as an individual amateur astronomer, for discovering the greatest number of variable stars. Obviously and selfishly, I would
much prefer that there is no further building (houses, roads and so on) anywhere nearby, as this would be a source of light pollution and would make it much more difficult for
me to continue with the work.
In addition to this, the areas around Charlton and Temple End are used extensively by people from Hitchin town and others for recreational use as an amenity. There are
numerous walkers, joggers, dog walkers, bird watchers, horse riders etc. who enjoy using the area and who would be deprived of the beauty of the landscape and surrounding
countryside and of its special wildlife, were the South West of Hitchin proposal adopted. Finally, the implementation of this proposal, even with the suggested 'buffer of
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
undeveloped land' around the village of Charlton itself, would be an encroachment on the ancient and historic villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St. Ippolyts. This would
undoubtedly be the 'thin end of the wedge' and leave the door open to loss of identity and full subsumption within Hitchin itself at some time in the future.
LDF/5494
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Waterman
Object
foreseeable future.
On-going study to monitor birds (and other wildlife) on a site via licensed bird ringing and garden
bird watch, both of which are carried under the auspices of the british
trust for ornithology. As an
example, the date from the ringing records, the following red list birds (showing their percentage
decline nationally) are present and/or
breeding regularly on the fields immediately surround
Charlton: Com Buting (87%) Grey Partridge (91%) Skylark (63%) Song Thrush (50%) Linnet
(76%) Lesser
Redpoll (89%) Yellowhammer (57%) plus a further 14 species of birds on the
Amber list, including nesting Barn Owl, Kestrel and Whitethroat. If building was allowed on the
adjacent fields, birds would all but disappear another nail in the coffin of declining farmland
birds.
In this area is an observatory owned and operated by a resident who holds the world record, as
an individual amateur astronomer, for discovering the greatest
number of variable stars. The
proposed development would cause a source of light pollution and would make it much more
difficult for him to continue in this work.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/5495
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Crystal
Object
As I do not have the information to try to quantify the number of dwellings required, my comments are based on the stated future requirement of 10,700 less 1,790 already
achieved.
My initial observation is that the developments should be, as far as possible, spread about the area. Given that there remain to be built some 8,910 houses and your A5 green
leaflet states that there are 137 sites on which we can give our views, then it might be possible to allocate, say, 65 houses to each site and start from there. Presumably some
sites would not accommodate as many as 65 houses and so adjustments could be made to that figure. These smallish numbers should mean that less infrastructure be
required to support the developments.
It does appear, however, that all the proposed strategic sites developments are situated in the already heavily developed and congested southern part of the North Herts
District. This has resulted from the fact that the areas have been suggested by developers who, not surprisingly, would prefer to build in places which would command higher
house prices and I do not think that this is an appropriate way to decide where new housing should be built. In my view it is the duty of the Council to produce a plan which
would allocate the areas on a strategic and more equitable basis throughout the District, so as to obviate many of the problems of over-population, such as traffic and water and
sewerage problems, both for the existing and the prospective residents of the area.
Certainly I feel that putting 7,400 houses, which is 83% of the 8,910 houses remaining to be built, in one location, namely South West of Hitchin, is out of all proportion. Such a
development, adding about 50% to its current size, would change completely the nature of Hitchin as a lovely Market Town. As a long-standing resident of Charlton, I am also
aware of (and affected by) the decreasing supply of water and increasing traffic problems which have come about over the years. I know that the South West of Hitchin
proposal includes a huge bypass to the South, but that will not prevent traffic problems within Hitchin being heavily exacerbated even if new smaller roads are built. I believe that
the sewage and water problems would become a nightmare were this development to go ahead and one takes into account the huge extra numbers of people living in Hitchin,
not to mention the horrendous congestion on the roads that would most certainly follow. I also understand that many of the new dwellings would be expected to accommodate
people who are working elsewhere and it would be a disaster if this South West of Hitchin proposal were allowed to happen, thus making Hitchin into a so-called 'dormitory
town'.
Having looked through the details of some of the proposed sites, I see, for example that 1,000 dwellings are suggested for Rush Green on what is currently a scrapyard and
there must be other sites around the area which are 'brownfield' so that there would be much less to go on the greenfield sites proposed. For developers it is obviously easier to
start from scratch on a greenfield site, but I believe it is the Council's job to find as many brownfield sites as possible to promote and thus to try to preserve as much of the
green belt as they can. Further to this, I see that there are a number of non-strategic sites in Hitchin which appear to be brownfield; namely Ref nos. 133, H/m02, H/m03, H/r28,
H/r48 and H/r50 (and there may be others that I do not recognise as such) and these alone make a total of 279 dwellings. Were you to count all the so-called 'town sites' that
have not 'failed' there would be land available for 1,531 dwellings in Hitchin alone. That being the case, I should imagine, without going through all the plans in detail, that it
should be possible to find the vast majority of new dwellings by doing a similar exercise throughout the District, thus leaving very few houses needing to be built outside of
brownfield sites.
Following on from that, the logical conclusion would seem to me, to develop as much as then would be required, from the North East of Stevenage strategic site, which I would
suggest as my no. 1 preference for development of any strategic site, in particular because of the service base in Stevenage to accommodate such growth. Houses there would
also be more affordable and therefore more likely to sell, given that the current economic climate is not likely to improve extensively in the foreseeable future.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Further to the above, I see that a site 'fails' and cannot therefore be available for development 'when the landowner is no longer pursuing the suggestion' and I should like to
point out that we own about three and a half acres of land where we live at Temple End, Charlton and that this acreage has been included on the plans, without our consultation
or consent, as part of the area scheduled for development.
Moreover, there is an ongoing study, now in its 15th year, to monitor birds (and other wildlife) on our site via licensed Bird Ringing and Garden BirdWatch, both of which are
carried under the auspices of the British Trust for Ornithology. Our Ringing records cover some 70 species of bird, many of which are on the national Red or Amber List of Birds
of Conservation Concern. You may well know the criteria for being on these Lists: basically the Red List includes birds which have undergone more than a 50% decline in
breeding, range or population (or a combination of these) between 1967 and 2009; the Amber List relates, similarly, to declines of between 25% and 50% during that period.
Just to give you a flavour of what happens here, the following Red List birds (showing their percentage decline nationally) are present and/or breeding regularly on our site or on
the fields immediately adjacent to us on all sides:Corn Bunting (87%); Grey Partridge (91%); Skylark (63%); SongThrush (50%); Linnet (76%); Lesser Redpoll (89%); Yellowhammer (57%) plus a further 14 species of birds on
the Amber List, including nesting Barn Owl, Kestrel and Whitethroat. Another 16 species on the Red or Amber List have been seen/caught here, but not on a regular basis.
If building was allowed on the adjacent fields (and the landowner, who owns many acres in the vicinity, has told us that he, like us, has not been approached by the developer)
then the (mainly nationally-declining farmland) birds would all but disappear, even if our property itself were spared - another nail in the coffin of declining farmland birds.
We also have bats on the site which would most certainly disappear if development were allowed.
A further impediment to development in this area is an observatory owned and operated by my husband who holds the world record, as an individual amateur astronomer, for
discovering the greatest number of variable stars. Obviously, he would much prefer that there is no further building (houses, roads and so on) anywhere nearby, as this would
be a source of light pollution and would make it much more difficult for him to continue with his work.
In addition to this, the areas around Charlton and Temple End are used extensively by people from Hitchin town and others for recreational use as an amenity. There are
numerous walkers, joggers, dog walkers, bird watchers, horse riders etc. who enjoy using the area and who would be deprived of the beauty of the landscape and surrounding
countryside and of its special wildlife, were the South West of Hitchin proposal adopted. Finally, the implementation of this proposal, even with the suggested 'buffer of
undeveloped land' around the village of Charlton itself, would be an encroachment on the ancient and historic villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St. Ippolyts. This would
undoubtedly be the 'thin end of the wedge' and leave the door open to loss of identity and full subsumption within Hitchin itself at some time in the future.
Therefore, on all of the above grounds, I wish to register my objection to the South West of Hitchin Housing Proposal.
LDF/5495
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Crystal
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
foreseeable future.
On-going study to monitor birds (and other wildlife) on a site via licensed bird ringing and garden
bird watch, both of which are carried under the auspices of the british
trust for ornithology. As an
example, the date from the ringing records, the following red list birds (showing their percentage
decline nationally) are present and/or
breeding regularly on the fields immediately surround
Charlton: Com Buting (87%) Grey Partridge (91%) Skylark (63%) Song Thrush (50%) Linnet
(76%) Lesser
Redpoll (89%) Yellowhammer (57%) plus a further 14 species of birds on the
Amber list, including nesting Barn Owl, Kestrel and Whitethroat. If building was allowed on the
adjacent fields, birds would all but disappear another nail in the coffin of declining farmland
birds.
In this area is an observatory owned and operated by a resident who holds the world record, as
an individual amateur astronomer, for discovering the greatest
number of variable stars. The
proposed development would cause a source of light pollution and would make it much more
difficult for him to continue in this work.
LDF/5527
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Soresby
Object
LDF/5543
Document Section:
5
Stewart
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
6. The success of Hitchin is naturally attracting the attention of developers but its success will not be robust enough to sustain such massive development.
7. West Stevenage has the road links in place and infrastructure.
8. Cant we consider sites nearer royston. Hitchin/Letchworth/Baldock/Stevenage/Luton are nearly touching anyway and hence congested.
LDF/5544
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Carter
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5555
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Kennedy
Comment
South West of Hitchin is an AONB and it would be destroyed if this site was fully developed, therefore a limited developement should be allowed.
LDF/5573
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Calver
Object
I would strongly object to the strategic site of South West of Hitchin being considered as a viable proposal for a large-volume housing development.
The plan appears to almost double the size of Hitchin, and threatens one of the unique aspects of the town - the proximity of open countryside to the town centre, allowing its
residents to be able to enjoy rural views and walks without having to drive to a rural location. This includes the important site of Oughtonhead nature reserve.
My principle objection is the sheer scale of the proposed development which would change the character of this unique historical town forever, making it similar to the
surrounding new towns. I think it's important that the residents of North Herts have a choice in the sort of place they are able to live, and this development would reduce that
choice in my opinion.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
The other strategic sites also have as drawbacks the destruction of certain special areas that the sites encroach on - however the Hitchin site threatens the entire settlement of
Hitchin in its entirety. No other stragegic site will have such an existential effect on the settlement in question.
LDF/5574
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Dodds
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5590
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Pilkington
Support
Warmingtons Surveyors LLP
I am supportive of a southern extension of Hitchin as a means to help finance a south-western bypass which would have the benefit of relieving present congestion at peak
times. However, I am only supportive of a limited westward expansion of the town in the region of Foxholes and Oughton Head as the extent of expansion proposed would take
development beyond the sky line and down into the Oughton Head valley. Development should therefore be restricted to no further west than the ridge line to prevent a
depreciating effect upon the visual amenities. I control much of the land in the Oughton Head area and am therefore opposed to a major extension in that direction.
LDF/5603
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Wilding
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/5606
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Davies
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
This proposal is excessive (40% (?) increase in size for the town) and would incur extreme risk if it were to go forward. New road developments does not appear to have the
capability or financial resources to deliver a development on this scale, and recent news from Kettering shows that commitments for infrastructure support (such as the
suggested link road) can be withdrawn with impunity.
The indicated need for additional housing at the 10700 level demonstrates that a strategic site of this size is not required, and even a more modest level 'between the bypass
and A505/A602' would still exceed realistic needs.
LDF/5616
Document Section:
7
Hill
Object
Representation:
to 8,000.
LDF/5648
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Maylin
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5650
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Green
Comment
6000-7400 homes to the south and west of hitchin are far to many for this site. Far too many houses in the westmill area. I read in the paper the other week that the westmill
area was one of the most deprived area, now there is talk of major building in this area, surely that is likely to make things worse. There will be new schools needed, extra
shops, buses etc- what about medical care etc?
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Oughtonhead common would probably suffer too with thousands of extra people tramping around!
Agent
I spoke to a young lady at the exhibition to ask about the football pitches just off Swinburne Avenue and she said they could easily be re-sited!!!
LDF/5658
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Marlow
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/5679
Document Section:
5
Jeraj
Object
Representation:
I believe that it is important to conserve Hitchin's green belt, which is an asset to the town. Part of the charm of Hitchin is the fact that the countryside is so accessible on foot.
Hitchin has had numerous developments within the town boundary and further development would be disproportionate to the character of Hitchin and to its housing needs.
LDF/5683
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Davis
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5684
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Smith
Object
The size of the development is completety inappropriate for a town the size of Hitchin and would completely transform the town for the worse, destroying its character & sense
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
of community. Smaller developments or developments in larger towns would be much more appropriate.
Agent
Hitchin already suffers from awful traffic. A bypass would be welcome, but the additional development would bring an enormous amount of local traffic and overwhelm already
stretched local facilities such as town centre parking & the rail station.
LDF/5691
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Deuchar
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5703
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Todd
Object
The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St
Ippollits and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin
I strongly object, in particular, to development on the strategic sites that borders St Ippollitts Brook. This area is identified as a flood plain and noted as such in the plan. I
believe there would be an impact on the properties that border St Ippollitts Brook and beyond if the natural absorption of water in the surrounding land that currently takes place
is compromised. Any increase in the water volumes in St Ippollitts Brook as a result increased run off as a result of developments would put properties that border the Brook at
risk. Currently, there is often flooding at the junction of Stevenage Road and Whitehill Road following heavy rain. Development along St Ippollitts Brook would only exacerbate
this siutation.
LDF/5705
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Kirton
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/5708
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Marlow
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5724
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Budge
Object
to 8,000.
Why are people hell bent on ruining the wonderful market town?
LDF/5741
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Hamilton
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/5741
Document Section:
Representation:
12
Hamilton
Comment
Many people will work in London and need to commute daily. The trains from Hitchin and Stevenage are already very overcrowded and unable to support even more
passengers with no ability to increase.
LDF/5742
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Veith
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5743
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Veith
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5744
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Smith
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/5798
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Hughes
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5803
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Houston
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5803
Document Section:
Representation:
12
Houston
Comment
The development plan for Hitchin is badly considered and will overwhelm the entire town. The infrastructure- schools, roads, transport etc simpy isnt there to cope.
Hitchin was recently voted the 9th best place in the country to live- and theres a reason for that. This development would ruin that, making it another overbuilt satellite town.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/5804
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
6
Pennett
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/5815
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Perrin
Object
1. This is an area of significant beauty in the Green Belt including conservation areas, sites of archaeological interest and listed properties as well as commons near Westmill.
The rural areas and commons provide huge enjoyment to the village communities as well as residents of Hitchin and the surrounding areas.
2. Development on such a scale would destroy the character of Hitchin, Charlton, Gosmore, Preston and St Ippolyts effectively joining these villages to Hitchin under the
proposed coalescence and paving the way for further obliteration of this area of North Herts.
3. Hitchin does not have the road or community infrastructure in the historic centre of the town to cope with such a significant addition to the population - traffic would increase
dramatically and pressure on local services would be to the detriment of the existing population. In contrast, the area as preserved, helps maintain the historic nature of Hitchin.
4. The by-pass between the A505 and the A602 is not detailed in the papers explaining the proposed development and could lead to a much greater area of destruction of the
countryside than is shown on the map- this part of the application seems deliberately undetailed at this point.
5. The proposal contains no reference at all to the development of any new local jobs or training or employment possibilities for an additional 8,000 households, putting huge
pressure on existing employment markets.
6. Pressure on available employment would be to the detriment of many young people in North Herts and contribute to the further dissolution of family communities.
7. The proposed road would add to the current bottlenecks of traffic at the A1(M) junction 8 and at junction 6/7 and further into London as more cars are added, both from the
proposed new development of 8,000 houses and more traffic being directed that way as a result of building the road.
8. Rail services into London are inadequate to cope with such a dramatic increase in the local population.
9. The by-pass would cause existing pubs, shops and businesses to be "by-passed" with a significant impact on trade.
10. Part of the sites fall within flood plains within as yet, unknown impacts.
11. Sewage facilities are inadequate as are other services such as fire and police.
12. Electricity services in the villages are already inadequate.
13. Schooling in Hitchin is already stretched - and while I note that there is a proposal to build six new primary and two new secondary schools - these will be unproven
educational establishment which may lower the standard of education in the town.
14. The proposal has no identified environmental benefits, would add to local air pollution and destroy huge amounts of farmland and animal and bird communities.
Instead, I strongly support the development of a combination of brownfield sites and non-strategic sites in order to support the housing needs of North Hertfordshire.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/5828
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
8
Davies
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/5899
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Burstow
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5899
Document Section:
Representation:
12
Burstow
Comment
This proposal is insane- traffic is at breaking point. Historic countryside will be lost. Green belt should be sacrosanct.
LDF/5903
Document Section:
8
Wise
Representation:
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/5905
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Lesnick
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5906
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Turnham
Object
This is not a plan to satisfy building X number of homes in N Herts, this is a plan to change the whole of Hitchin eminating from a single geographic area (SW Hitchin), it's
population, infrastructure, service provision, council size and budget etc It will impact the whole of Hitchin's surrounding area for a radius of several miles and alter the town
'feel' beyond recognition.A development of this scale has the following damaging effects;
The nature of Hitchin as a market town will change/be destroyed forever, erasing hundreds of years of heritage
It would cause irreprable damage to the ecology of Hitchin, N Herts and the UK. Archaeological sites, AONB at Oughtenhead, wildlife habitat etc will be destroyed forever...this
development will turn Hitchin into tarmac and bricks. It can't be reversed once the damage is done.
The scale of this plan has come from a developer...hence it is about profit. I don't see an offer of a balanced mix of housing sites across the region to reach a number, the SW
Hitchin proposal for this number of dwellings is completly disproportionate to what is sensible of this area or Hitchin as a whole (as opposed to another town that has better
infrastructure, services, jobs etc)....it is just a proposal for developing a huge single area to achieve a housing quota number for N Herts, the minimum of thought has been
applied i.e. find a big enough space on the edge of Hitchin + build as many houses are we can = quota met and profit...
There is unsold property (Coopers Yard) and land (by Wratten Road West) that has remained unsold for a couple/few years...why build more unrequired housing (unrequired in
Hitchin specifically, not N Herts) and on green belt when houses/flats on brownfiled are not being bought, built upon or sold successfully?
It is my understanding that affordable homes are required in areas where lots of people need to work but can't afford to live. Hitchin hasn't got the jobs as it is small...hence it
doesn't need lots of affordable homes for a workforce that isn't required (and presumably why the affordable homes/flats that have been built don't sell very fast/at all).
Stevenage and Luton are bigger towns, have more local jobs and need more houses for people to live in. Both have a road network that can hold mroe capacity. Hitchin town
centre (and businesses) isn't going to expand (in terms of area), so there will be few more jobs, hence no need for affordable homes...The following considerations will need
to be ironed out before any housing development can take place
There is currently too much congestion on the A655 Pirton Road and A505 Offley Road, it can't take more traffic
There is no bypass between these roads and A602/A1. Until this is built around Charlton development should not be considered. SW Hitchin is clogged most mornings.
Local roads are inadequte; (West Hill, Grays Lane, Gaping Lance, Lucas Lane, Crow Furlong) to take any more traffic than they currently do accessing any new housing
development
Primary and Secondary schools are at capacity. Before any development can be made this needs to be addressed (and 1 extra class at Samuel Lucas..currently being
debated) is not enough. Children who live a few hundred meters away are not guaranteed to get into this school...more houses = more families and kids. The area cannot take
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
it.
Medical services in town (i.e. doctors and dentists) have long waiting lists...if the proposal is to increase the town by 50%. Hitchin will also need a hospital (which was/is being
cloased) plus 50% extra Police, Fire etc
Recreational space & Maintenance; potholes on every street (Grays Lane, High View etc) and graffiti by the children's playground at the bottom of Winston Close has not been
removed in months...has the council got the budget, manpower or appetitie to deal with further a massive population increase in the area when it is evident there is not the
capactiy to maintain the area currently?General
This is a plan for destruction not development in SW Hitchin
It is not a measured development proposal, it's creating a new town in a very confined local area which cannot handle it and bolting it onto Hitchin.
This plan wipes out 3 villages
There are no services or infrastructure (roads, schools, Police, fire, hospitals, recreation area etc etc) in place to accomodate this growth.
There isn't the infrastructure because the town is already the 'right size' and can't be stretched further. It has a natural boundary to the SW already. The scale of this proposal is
disporportionate and goes beyond a housing quota debate.
It's a crazy percentage increase on Hitchin, Stevenage or Luton would be better placed to accomodate this number of homes.
There is little acknowledgment or concern of the total and irreversible destruction of countryside by suggesting this plan.
LDF/5907
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Schuster
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5908
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Williams
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5921
Document Section:
8
Budge
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/5936
Document Section:
8
Furr
Comment
Representation:
to 8,000.
LDF/5937
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Brooker
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/5947
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Walker
Object
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
I do not believe the use of Green Belt land for housing expansion is all at strategic.
LDF/5955
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Burrows
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5957
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Underhill
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5964
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Russell
Object
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/5976
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Smithson
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/5983
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Norman
Object
This development would effectively double the size of Hitchin in the space of 20 years. The town does not have the infrastructure to cope, nor does the train and car
connections. I am biased, but this development would spoil the country town/market town atmosphere forever.
LDF/5985
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Birdsey
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/5990
Document Section:
8
John
Representation:
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/5990
Document Section:
12
John
Comment
Representation:
This proposal would totally destroy the historic market town of Hitchin, currently ranked one of the best in the country. The proposal is ludicrous. Think again!
LDF/5999
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Davies
Comment
to 8,000.
5.This is an area which includes SSSIs, archaeological sites, listed buildings and good agricultural land. The landscape is assessed as highly sensitive to development.
6. Such development would only be possible with major strategic road additions and improvements, none of which seem to get a mention. These would then impact on the
areas beyong the strategic sites. All this plays into the hands of speculators.
LDF/6009
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Cooper
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/6027
Document Section:
7
King
Representation:
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Object
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/6050
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Summerhayes
Object
I would preface my comments with an acknowledgement of the need for more affordable homes for local residents. Lack of these is matter of direct personal concern to me -I
am currently sharing my family home not only with my wife and three children but also my sister-in-law and her two young children following the breakdown of her marriage. She
is a midwife and, as such provides essential support to local residents, but will find it very difficult to find local accommodation that will allow her and her children to live as a
separate family unit. The comments that follow are not those of someone who lives in a nice house in a nice town blissfully unaware of the housing needs of others.
Overall impression of the options document
I appreciate that the document is only an attempt to present 'options' rather than a clear plan. However, the options seem to simply be those where developers have expressed
an interest in building houses with a critique of their suitability. This seems insane as it is clear that developers are driven solely by profit and will build houses almost anywhere
they are allowed to and where there is a market without any reference to their impact on the quality of life for the new or existing residents, sustainability or the long term
environmental impact. Surely, the council should be leading with a plan of where they think housing is needed and should best be built at least one would expect this to
informed by something other than a desire to make money?
I note that the driving force behind the most objectionable proposal (South West Hitchin) seems to be the same developer that wants to build a supermarket on Top Field in
Hitchin against the wishes of a large proportion of Hitchin residents ¿ clearly they have no interest in the sustainability of Hitchin as town.
Comments on specific sites
There can be little complaint about most of the non-strategic sites from the information provided ¿ they are small in size and distributed. Although neighbours to some of the
sites are bound to object it seems unlikely that any of these will fundamentally alter the character of the town or village to which they are attached, or will so overburden the local
infrastructure as to significantly impair quality of life, nor do they destroy significant amounts of green-belt land.
The strategic sites vary in their impact but individually, or collectively, they all seem to share a common problem ¿ a large proportion of the urban residents of North Herts are
commuters into London. Provision of large blocks of housing without local employment growth will simply stretch road and rail services into London to unsustainable levels ¿
peak hour rail services are already 'standing room only' .
However one of the suggested sites stands out for its appalling unsuitability on all levels ¿the crescent of development around the south and west of Hitchin. There is no logic in
this development whatsoever. There is no evidence of anything approaching this level of development being needed for organic growth to meet the needs of Hitchin residents
or of any planned expansion of employment that would necessitate this level of expansion. Consequently, if built, the proposed development would most likely be a sterile area
of dormitory housing leading to horrible overcrowding of transport in and out of the town to areas of employment. It would result in the destruction of what is, by anyone's
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
standard some particularly beautiful countryside and deprive existing residents of ready access to open space. Increasing the size of Hitchin by around 40% in one stroke
would fundamentally alter the character of the town, which is currently a very fine place to live ¿ it is a peaceful but vibrant mixed community with a diversity of social classes,
ethnicity, religion and employment. This could be preserved with modest expansion in small sites but not with the proposed slab development.
Furthermore, expansion on this scale would completely overload the constrained central facilities of this small market town. If this development were to go ahead it would, in all
probability, completely destroy Hitchin.
What of the other sites? Firstly I would question the need for housing developmentof the suggested by the options document in Hertfordshire which is already one of the most
densely populated shire counties ¿ why should its residents suffer the burden of far more houses than organic growth of their own communities demands? Provision of good
quality housing is the hallmark of a civilised society (as is access to unspoiled countryside), but it doesn't all need to be in Hertfordshire!
However, given that some housing is needed, the least damaging approach would seem to involve spreading the provision over several smaller sites (whilst keeping account of
their combined impact on infrastructure ¿ it doesn't matter which junction of the A1M you get on at, you still end up in the same traffic jam). It also makes sense that more
houses should be added in those areas where new development will not fundamentally alter the character of the existing environment. By this criterion it makes sense to attach
a bigger share of the development to Stevenage ¿ a town already characterised by large areas of uniform modern housing. Personally, the West of Stevenage site looks like a
one of the least damaging, most logical large sites, provided infrastructure considerations are dealt with (which applies to any site)
I look forward to hearing more about NHDC's thoughts on this matter including, hopefully, that they have rejected anything but modest development to the South and west of
Hitchin
LDF/6055
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Ransome
Object
The proposed large development to the South West of Hitchin would increase the town by almost 50%. This would be unacceptable. It would ruin the character and nature of
the town and spoil its rural setting - destroying what makes Hitchin so special.
It would also swallow up the neighbouring villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St Ippollits. They would effectively loose their separate identity and become merged into Hitchin.
The proposed development would also damage the important areas of Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chiltern's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
LDF/6058
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Coyne
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
others that I do not recognise as such) and these alone make a total of 279 dwellings. Were you to count all the so-called 'town sites' that have not 'failed' there would be land
available for 1,531 dwellings in Hitchin alone. That being the case, I should imagine, without going through all the plans in detail, that it should be possible to find the vast
majority of new dwellings by doing a similar exercise throughout the District, thus leaving very few houses needing to be built outside of brownfield sites.
LDF/6077
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Aldous
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/6102
Document Section:
Representation:
11
Anderson
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6111
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Clark
Comment
Should this proposal be allowed it would destroy the character of Hitchin as a market town, which still has countryside close to the centre of the town.
The proposal is for far in excess of local needs and would take many acres of good agricultural land and encroach on an area of outstanding natural beauty.
LDF/6114
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Hughes
Comment
to 8,000.
6. It would remove a large amount of land that local people enjoy for healthy recreation.
7.With the incresed desire about the provenance of food. It would be unwise to take away farmland.
LDF/6116
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Manning
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/6131
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Briercliffe
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6134
Document Section:
Representation:
6
O'Reilly
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/6136
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Briercliffe
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6190
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Walker
Object
to 8,000.
I disagree with building on any greenbelt land. We bought our home because of the beautiful land. Please don't ruin our countryside.
LDF/6191
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Wright
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/6192
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Tomlinson
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/6198
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Kostrzewska
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6220
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Morgan
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/6234
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
5
Foreman
Comment
Agent
It seems to me that this site alone is far too large, it will swamp the market town of Hitchin its prized atmosphere and character. It will destroy Charlton and damage St ippolyts
and Gosmore and is far too close to the nature reserve of Oughton Head. If it is accepted that we need this much building in North Herts, then far better to look for large
separate area and build 10,000 houses and with their facilities as stated in "south west hitchin" summary of findings 2.11-2.14 and 2.18-2.21 noting that 2.28 may cause
increase in traffic at the Three Moorhens and Paynes Park its not may but will. As for building the new bypass out of the dual carriage way Wymondley bypass that is idiotic. We
had to use it at 9:10am last Monday and it took us 20 minutes to get from the Hitchin end to A1m junction roundabout, just volume of traffic and lights what will happen with all
new traffic? This amount of housing needs its own new site to grow and expand- as it will inevitably it will already have town facilities envisaged- it is already a town size and can
be a freestanding entity as stevenage or Milton Keynes with freedom to grow and not making a sprawling blight of building ad hoc across north herts and s policy areas at
random. Far too large it must be 50%of Hitchin area.
LDF/6240
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Haynes
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6244
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Moss
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6251
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Emanuel
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/6257
Document Section:
Representation:
30
Taylor
Object
Hitchin is reaching its environmental capacity, with significant constraints in terms of its historic centre and setting. The argument would be that the excess needs to have to be
met beyond its Green Belt. It is not clear how far Stevenage may be seeking housing sites outside its own built up area either adjacent to or within North Hertfordshire in the
period up to 2031. However this is strongly contested in the two of the sites shown close to Stevenage:
West of Stevenage (Ref WS: 3,100 homes) is vitally important for its rural character, sense of remoteness and for preserving open landscapes and a clear separation between
Stevenage and Hitchin and the nearby villages/hamlets. There are four wildlife sites and a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Rush Green (Ref: RG: 1,000 homes) is proposed as a new village despite the limited size of the site as shown. If extended northwards, this site could link to the West of
Stevenage site, raising traffic implications for the B656 which is a minor country road.
The Letchworth/Hitchin/Stevenage area as a whole is becoming increasingly congested with significant difficulties in providing infrastructure and services, and with very fragile
gaps between settlements.
Taking a longer term and more sustainable view it may therefore be worth considering the development of a new settlement further north in a location with associated rail links.
Such consideration would seem to be appropriate in the context of the government's view of the building of new settlements built on Garden City principles (NPPF page 13),
and its expectation that local Authorities will be co-operating:
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
the Stevenage and A1(M) housing sub market area includes much of Bedfordshire(SMHA page 7) and there could be an argument for needs to be met at a new settlement
NHDC could take account of the growing economic base of Cambridge and the related employment opportunities. It might then be appropriate to look for a new settlement in
the north east of the District to meet these opportunities.
FINALLY ¿ 'ONCE THE GREEN BELT IS GONE IT IS GONE FOR GOOD'
LDF/6265
Document Section:
Representation:
6
De Boise
Object
Any developments of multiple houses should take place in brownfield sites in the town, eg: redundant units in Bury Mead and Cadwell Lane Industrial Estates, and former post
office site in Portmill Lane.
LDF/6302
Document Section:
Representation:
30
Taylor
Object
The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollyts and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin with an
inevitable infilling of all available plots of land currently retained as green rural areas.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/6306
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Davis
Object
I strongly object to the proposed South West of Hitchin plans, on the following grounds:- The proposed development would destroy green belt land which ought to be
retained around Hitchin, ensuring separation between the town of Hitchin and its surrounding villages such as Charlton, Gosmore, and St Ippolyts - The proposed
development would ruin the rural character of the villages of Charlton, Gosmore, St Ippolyts and the surrounding areas- This proposed development would destroy significant
areas of natural wildlife and beauty- The Southern bypass road proposed by the developers would also destroy the natural beauty of the area, and given the number of new
dwellings proposed would likely lead to an overall increase in traffic congestion rather than a reduction. - The proposed addition of up to 7,400 new houses is wholly
disproportionate compared with the existing number of houses in Hitchin today- In short, the proposed South West of Hitchin housing development and southern bypass
would completely wreck the vital green belt around Hitchin, destroy the villages of Charlton, Gosmore, and St Ippolyts, and create significantly more problems that it is
attempting to solve.I would urge the council to decline this proposal given the disproportionate and devastating impact it would have on the area to the south west of Hitchin.
LDF/6327
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Morton
Object
I strongly object to the proposed South West of Hitchin plans, on the following grounds:
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
- The proposed development would destroy green belt land which ought to be retained around Hitchin, ensuring separation between the town of Hitchin and its surrounding
villages such as Charlton, Gosmore, and St Ippolyts
- The proposed development would ruin the rural character of the villages of Charlton, Gosmore, St Ippolyts and the surrounding areas
- This proposed development would destroy significant areas of natural wildlife and beauty
- The Southern bypass road proposed by the developers would also destroy the natural beauty of the area, and given the number of new dwellings proposed would likely lead to
an overall increase in traffic congestion rather than a reduction.
- The proposed addition of up to 7,400 new houses is wholly disproportionate compared with the existing number of houses in Hitchin today
- In short, the proposed South West of Hitchin housing development and southern bypass would completely wreck the vital green belt around Hitchin, destroy the villages of
Charlton, Gosmore, and St Ippolyts, and create significantly more problems that it is attempting to solve.
I would urge the council to decline this proposal given the disproportionate and devastating impact it would have on the area to the south west of Hitchin.
LDF/6405
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Bloor Homes
Object
White Peak Planning
Suitability
A development at the scale proposed in this location is not considered to be remotely suitable given that it would increase the built area of Hitchin by roughly a third and impact
directly and irrevocably on nationally designated areas of landscape, wildlife and heritage importance. It would entirely subsume the village of Charlton and its Conservation
Area and bring development close to St Ippolyts.
It is unclear as to why the land north of the A505 is included as this would seem to create a large cul-de-sac of housing with no connection to the A600 north of the site and
hence all traffic from this half of the site would be funnelled into Hitchin town centre on the B655/A505 or be directed through Westmill. If this area is included to simply increase
the numbers of houses to fund the bypass this does not therefore make this area suitable, especially given the adjacent Chilterns AONB and Oughtonhead Common Local
Nature Reserve, both of which would be directly affected by the proposed development.
The by-pass route to the south is not defined which makes commenting on this difficult and consideration of the site inherently flawed as its overall effects cannot be judged.
Hence if the site were taken forward the decision to do so could be challenged on the basis of a fundamental lack of information on which to make an informed decision.
Deliverability
It is not clear as to whether all the land required to deliver the bypass is in the control of the promoter of the site. If all the land is not under control then this raises significant
concerns over the deliverability of the scheme as it would require additional compulsory purchase proceedings in order to secure the land for the road.
It is also questionable as to whether the stated number of homes could be delivered on the site given the significant on and near site constraints due to the various designated
areas, together with the physical nature and steep topography of the site which would restrict the areas where new houses could be built and the density of development in
others.
Viability
Even at the scale proposed at this site the viability of the scheme must be questionable. The requirement to provide two secondary schools and six primary schools alone will
cost around £75m, along with the other required community infrastructure and the funding of the bypass.
Based on experience at other strategic sites it is considered highly unlikely that this could all be funded and the required level of affordable housing provided on site and hence
either the provision of affordable housing would have to be dramatically reduced or the infrastructure provision would suffer. Either way the development would not constitute a
sustainable development as a result.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Another point to bear in mind is that by concentrating a large amount of housing around the relatively small town of Hitchin will risk 'flooding the market' whereby house builders
will want to restrict the number of units completed and number of competing developers in order to protect their sales price ¿ which if they did not would mean that funding for
infrastructure would again be under threat.
This would also mean that in cash-flow terms the development is unlikely to break even until a long way into the build out (easily 10-15 years into the development) meaning
that there will be significant financing costs (if finance is available) which would reduce the ability to contribute to infrastructure during the early phases of the scheme.
A final point is that by taking this site forward then there is a concern of placing 'all the eggs in one basket' and relying on an unproven scheme in an unsuitable location to
deliver the required infrastructure in a viable way and hence a significant danger that a large proportion of the housing need would remain undeveloped during the plan period.
The lack of flexibility in this approach would make delivery of the Local Plan Housing Objectives extremely vulnerable or high risk as the local authority would be beholden to
one main development and hence less able to negotiate a Sustainable form of development.
LDF/6406
Document Section:
Representation:
30
Taylor
Comment
The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollyts and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin with an
inevitable infilling of all available plots of land currently retained as green rural areas.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
LDF/6408
Document Section:
Representation:
Agent
31
Chismon
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6408
Document Section:
Representation:
35
Chismon
Comment
Need to keep Hitchin special. No jobs to support the house building need to keep greenfield sites around Hitchin and keep villages separate from each other and from Hitchin.
LDF/6473
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Sanchez
Object
I am against changing the nature of Hitchin, the blocking of views and the swallowing up of villages such as Gosmore, St Ippollits and Charlton in masses of houses which will
merge with South West Hitchin. In my view, building only on Brownfield sites are acceptable. Green belts must be protected.
LDF/6531
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Shirley
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6532
8
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Shirley
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/6539
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Taylor
Object
I cannot express how strongly I object to the idea of building 6,000 ¿ 8,000 homes to the west/south of Hitchin. I am astonished that you could even consider this. I have similar
concerns in relation to the land west of Lucas Lane. My primary objections are:
1. Most of the proposed area is green belt, incorporating a number of small villages. Green belt land is essential for the purposes of wildlife habitat, agriculture, air quality,
leisure and its mitigating effects in regard to greenhouse gases and climate change. I do not support the building of housing on green belt land particularly in the light of my
comments in para. 5 below.
People live in small villages because they want to live in small villages, not in the middle of a vast development.
2. It would mean an increase in the number of households and of Hitchin's population of at least 50%. Hitchin is a small market town, this is just insane. People live here
because they like the small town feel, the rural setting and quality of life and because they enjoy having easy access to countryside where they can get fresh air, pleasant views
and 'escape'. Oughtonhead common, for example, would be completely spoilt by the proposed development; although you would not be building on the common itself the effect
of building so close to the common land would be highly undesirable, it would be like walking around in somebody's back garden. Views over the Chilterns AONB would also be
adversely affected.
3. I would have grave concerns about the effect on wildlife on the common, not to mention the effect on the wildlife that exists on the land that you would be developing. Much of
our wildlife is struggling already due to habitat loss. I find it laughable, though not in a good way, that you consider that one of the so-called strengths of this development would
be 'opportunity for provision of green space' given the amount of it that would be lost or adversely affected.
4. Where are all these people going to work? Either they will not work, in which case you will just be adding more problems similar to those you have already created on
Westmill, where people have been ghettoised and socially excluded due to the absence of adequate local facilities, investment and an adequate level of public transport. Or
they will work but not in Hitchin as there are very few local jobs. They will be commuting elsewhere, putting additional strain on the already congested roads and overcrowded
trains. Neither the roads nor the trains have any additional capacity let alone the capacity for several thousand more people using them. I do not think that the bypass would be
a solution besides which you should be investing in public transport, not more roads, and in making the roads safe for cyclists, so that people have a genuine alternative to the
car. It is typical of NHDC that you should be thinking about creating ways of accommodating more cars rather than encouraging and supporting more sustainable forms of
transport. Piling thousands more people and their cars into the area would be an environmental disaster.
5. If you build such a large number of houses in Hitchin I expect that you will find yourselves with a lot of empty housing as many of the people who already live here will be
moving out.
I am not able to comment fully on your predictions for the number of new homes that will be needed as I have not conducted my own detailed research although those sources I
have consulted, such as ONS migration data, indicate to me that your figure is an overestimate and I suspect that it includes much more than the provision of housing for local
people; as I have observed elsewhere there is no point in building houses for people who work in e.g. London as the transport infrastructure could not cope. Furthermore it
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
would detract from the sense of community that currently prevails. Also, re. my comment 5 above, have you taken into account the number of people who will leave the area if
you ruin it? BUT even assuming that your estimates are correct the idea that you can just append the bulk of it to a small town such as Hitchin is absurd. If it is genuinely the
case that this amount of new housing will be essential ONCE YOU HAVE UTILISED ALL THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK AND BROWNFIELD LAND, and that some
development on green belt land is essential (which I would dispute) then I would suggest that it is time to start thinking about a new town, not radically and irrevocably altering
the nature and character of an existing one, and a number of its villages, and damaging the quality of life of the 33,000 or so people who already live here.
LDF/6555
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Davies
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6555
Document Section:
Representation:
12
Davies
Comment
Not sufficient schooling already.
Will spoil the countryside and wildlife
Already insufficient road structure
Enough empty properties in other areas- why not spend money to make them habitable.
LDF/6569
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Whates
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6596
8
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Harris
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Object
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/6607
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Norris
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/6610
Document Section:
8
Lea
Comment
Representation:
to 8,000.
LDF/6610
Document Section:
12
Lea
Representation:
Comment
The infrastructure surrounding Hitchin cannot support any more developments. Roads/rail are already overloaded.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/6645
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
9
Hook
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/6657
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Windsor
Object
LDF/6662
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Pastor
Object
This is a huge housing proposal that would decimate a beautiful landscape and engulf the village of Charlton.
The area is fed by a network of tiny country roads and does not have the capacity to cope with such a development and the traffic and footfall this would produce.
It says the site straddles Hitchin and the parishes of St Ippolyts and Preston - it would not straddle but intrude and turn what are peaceful villages into part of Hitchin.
As for the suggested southern bypass - that again would threat its way across tranquil green countryside - like an oil slick. I again object strongly to this suggestion.
LDF/6664
Document Section:
Representation:
1.
8
Barley
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/6664
Document Section:
Representation:
12
Barley
Comment
I do not believe accommodation should be built on greenbelt around Hitchin.
LDF/6731
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Simpson
Object
If the proposed plan for 7,000 plus dwellings is adopted for Hitchin it will destroy the town forever. There will be no recreational space left for future generations and it will
destroy the villages and the lovely countryside around here. Whatever happened to the promise of keeping the greenbelt? On the continent they build blocks of flats to cope
with the growing population, why can't that be done here. Why do all the single parents have to have a house. Most of them don't use their garden anyway, and flats with parks
and playing fields would be so much nicer places for single mothers and children to meet.
LDF/6737
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Webb
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6747
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Foreman
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/6749
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Finnissy
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6750
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Walter
Comment
The possible strategic site south and west of hitchin is far too big and the amenities needed for them would destroy this historic town and encroach upon the greenbelt,
devastating archaeological and wildlife sites to the detriment of local people. The flood plain issue is another bar to wholesale development, particularly in the south side and a
large volume of building in the western edge would not only concrete over our lovely countryside but push us ever close to luton which i suggest no one who lives here wants or
needs.
LDF/6759
Document Section:
Representation:
8
MacDonald
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/6760
5
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Creasey
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Object
Agent
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/6791
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
8
Card
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/6791
Document Section:
12
Card
Comment
Representation:
I am totally and utterfly against this development.
LDF/6808
Document Section:
5
Lord
Object
Representation:
I do not think the questionnaire is particularly easy for lay people to complete but wish to comment on the proposals.
I appreciate that the Council has to comply with government requirements to produce a local plan for housing but it seems that far too much of what is proposed is concentrated
in Hitchin. Your strategy would completely swamp the town with new development and result in hideous urban sprawl over what is at present beautiful countryside that residents
currently enjoy. It would turn Hitchin from a lovely market town to a large urban area leaving no excuse for it not to be joined up with stevenage and ultimately Luton.
I feel very strongly about this, it seems that Hitchin is always under threat and development on this scale would lead to even more congestion on the surrounding roads and rail
services than we already experience.
LDF/6837
Document Section:
Representation:
5
McCutcheon
Comment
Concerning the suggested local housing plans for north herts. Hitchin is a very special town having a great deal of character, retaining a medieval street plan. As such it should
be concerned for future generations. The suggested building of such a huge number of houses making hitchin half as large again would surely swamp its fragile nature and
surely affect its infrastructure.
One appreciates that more homes need to be built, but such large numbers built on mass is hardly satisfactory. Some of these sites seem to be those proposed by landowners
and builders with a vested interest rather than where it might be best to place homes.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
There seems to be no consideration of any form of infrastructure. One can hardly drop homes from heaven without some consideration.
Surely smaller developments would be more satisfactory. These could be spread around the whole of North Herts? Such large scale planning should not be limited to certain
areas- this would be more satisfactory for all concerned.
Building should surely take place on any remaining bronwfield sites where possible. There are some left. One should not immediately turn to green field sites. The present
suggestions rather make a mockery of the green belt policy which is meant to safeguard the countryside from the towns and villages. In some cases there are special sites of
scientific interest which would be destroyed by such plans. Also we already have drainage problems which are not going to go away.
Building on mass behind oakfield, between the stevenage road and wymondley road and up around kingshott school is hardly satisfactory. Where is the access to be? Also this
area has drainage problems due to the water courses and there are sites of scientific interest.
The Stevenage road at present without any additional building is highly dangerous. There is a very nasty junction at the bottom of whitehill coupled with vehicles travelling far
too dast into town down a hill into hitchin. No-ones seems to do anything about controlling this. We should surely have cameras along there?
You may promise a bypass but i dont see it being built before homes appear. It is easy to make promises. A different matter to keep these.
Meanwhile i hope more careful consideration will be given to the plans of houses to be built in this area which will not drastically affect the way of life.
LDF/7043
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Cussens
Object
The area around Charlton is a popular walking area for the people of Hitchin. Hitchin Hill is locally known as Cowslip Hill and is one of the few areas where they grow in
perfusion. To surround Charlton with houses is tragic. People enjoy taking a quiet country walk to Charlton away from traffic and the trapping of everyday living. There are
many footpaths in this area which are well used and are popular with local walking clubs. Walkers enjoy the beauty of the flora and the peacefulness of these walks. It is of no
use to tell people to get more exercise when you develop the areas in which they can get away from the traffic and enjoy the natural beauty of which in this county we are so
proud.
Most of the sites that are proposed development sites around Hitchin, Charlton, Tea Green, Cockernhoe, Offley and East of Luton are a haven for wild animals, flowers and
insects. These sites should remain as green belt areas and as such should remain free from development.
Future generation will not forgive us for losing that which we treasure as areas that give us joy to see and to walk in, as well as losing very many species of trees and wildlife.
The whole plan needs rethinking.
LDF/7045
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Davey
Object
The South West of Hitchin Scheme encroaches on farmland and areas where there is extensive recreational use.
South West of Hitchin encroaches into farmland as well and an area which also has extensive recreational use as well. The same could be said of areas around St Ippolyts. It is
unclear what employment prospects Hitchin could offer and with the cost of commuting increasing exponentially it would suggest that the additional housing stock might be
difficult to fill.
LDF/7060
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Mann
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/7062
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Mamier
Comment
The proposal for a major urban extension to Hitchin of between 6000 & 7400 dwellings and associated infrastructure is both unsustainable and unviable as a serious option to
meet NHDC housing numbers. The information set out in the options paper under sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental assessment, clearly shows that the site
has far more weakness than strengths in terms of credentials for a viable site, but i would like to reinforce the following points;
The site is situated within a major green landscape buffer between the south west approach to hitchin and adjacent villages. This buffer has safeguarded the surrounding
countryside from encroachment and has served to preserve the historic setting of Hitchin town.
The site is a designated greenfield site, of grade 3 agricultural merit which is currently farmed.
The combination of SSSIs, 6 wildlife sites and the site bordering the chilterns AONB should be enough to reinforce the importance of this area to remain as a greenbelt bugger
to the south west of hitchin.
The proposal for a new bypass to Hitchin Town, would result in a currently thriving town centre being effectively bypassed by traffic would have a detrimental impact on its
vitality and commercial viability. It is worth noting that despite its proximity to both luton and stevenage and the many out of town shopping locations/superstores. Hitchin
remains a successful and thriving shopping destination, and this is mainly due to the level of vehicular traffic able to access the town centre. To proposed a bypass and
consider commercial development on the edge of this town goes against both government guidance and common sense.
A development of this size would also impact on junction 7 & 8 of A1 north, which is already at maximum capacity at peak flows.
Based on the above i would request that NHDC reconsiders these sites and removes them from the strategic/non-strategic sites options.
LDF/7076
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Chadbourne
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/7076
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
11
Chadbourne
Comment
Agent
The road to Offley is already congested daily. The hospitals have long waiting lists. Doctors are hard to access- so no more building in the South!
LDF/7127
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Millbank
Comment
to 8,000.
I have major concerns about the following:
Building on greenbelt land, threat to wildlife, villages being morphed into the town. Lack of greenspace for the local population.
The increase in traffic, stevenage road where i live is already congested and undergoing a pollution survey and investigation
Lack of infrastructure
Where are all the potential new residents going to work?
We need to maintain the lovely character of Hitchin, thats why people who live here like living here with access to the very nearby countryside!
LDF/7131
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Kelsall
Object
Please consider this email as a formal objection to the proposal to develop the site to the South West of Hitchin (Ref 37). I object to this idea because of the fact it would have a
huge impact on the character and feel of Hitchin, traditionally a historic market town. The population of Hitchin would increase significantly, and this would undermine the rural
nature of the town. There are also environmental factors, concerning the destruction of part of the Oughtonhead Nature Reserve.
I am also concerned that the proposed development would swallow up Gosmore, St Ippolyts and Charlton ¿ all villages with their own character and identity.
In general I feel that the growth target for housing is way in excess of what is necessary; and huge growth, as is being proposed, woud adversely affect the surroundings of
those who already live in the area.
LDF/7133
Document Section:
Representation:
4
EHW Architects
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Hitchin has grown organically over many years into the much cherished market town it is today.
To suddenly slap 7000 houses south west of the town with all its associated infrastructure would effectively double the towns population over night.
I believe the south west proposal to be hugely inappropriate. The proposal seeks to solve some 70% of the total districts needs in one location, which i suggest to be a poor
solution rather than a more pepper pot approach.
This proposal sticks two fingers up at green belt/open countryside policy in a major way and would decimate some of our most picturesque villages and countryside.
The crime is further compounded in justifying the development since it would allow the bypass from the A602 to A505 to be constructed cost neutral. The proposed link road will
go through glorious undulating typical English countryside, creating a black tarmac scar, disturbing wildlife habitats and providing residents for miles around with 24 hours of
noise and at night light pollution.
Extraordinary to think that a handful of houses in Gosmore are turned down because they will be harmful to the open character of the green belt, when in fact they sit
comfortably within the , be it undefined, clear village envelope. Even more extraordinary is carving a ghastly swathe through open countryside/ green belt with a major road and
destroying similar countryside with 7000 houses and infrastructure is deems, ipso facto, not to be harmful. Sorry but i just cannot square the circle on this one.
Although it is acknowledged that at peak times Hitchin does suffer a surfeit of traffic, this is however almost exclusively on the periphery, having little effect on the town itself
and for very short periods. Noting the drive to reduce reliance on the motor vehicle, hugely costly proposals like this are doomed to becoming a white elephant.
There are however other sites identified that would lend themselves to larger scale development and the one that stand out is North of Stevenage/ Graveley, which would
almost certainly allow Stevenage to join in south of the district/borough boundary line.
However, irrespective of which options emerge for further detailed consideration it is hugely unlikely that many, if any, houses will be built. The punitive community infrastructure
levy will see to that and combined with the retention of S106, S278s etc, CIL will definitely kill any meaningful development, whether ill conceived or not.
LDF/7133
Document Section:
Representation:
5
EHW Architects
Comment
Following my earlier submission of comments dated 19th March 2013, i have reviewed statements from other parties and had my own further thoughts, which i schedule below
related to some of the larger sites proposed.
Hitchin enjoys a significant reputation, both locally and nationally, as a traditional medium-sized market town, with good north-south rail and road links together with easy access
to Luton Airport.
It is acknowledged that the east-west links are not as direct, with Hitchin forming a punctuation to that directional flow of traffic. However, as already observed in my earlier
submission, this only becomes a minor inconvenience at peak commuter times.
It is clear that the overly declared motivation for considering the wholesale destruction of Hitchin, since the whole town would suffer and not just this very desirable southwest
corner, is the funding of the A602/A505 link bypass.
I consider that any such highway proposal should be a matter for national funding rather than locally borne.
Irrespective of funding, it is patently clear that the south-west development would create "double trouble" (i) a town that would lose its character and charm and just be another
urban sprawl and (ii) a massive environmental disaster of visual and aural scare across some of the most beautiful and treasured English countryside in the district.
The addition of nearly 7,500 new homes located in one enclave would swamp Hitchin and all its current services and infrastructure, having a knock-on effect in terms of
pressure to create shopping centres, car parks (multi storey!), more schools, better transport facilities generally etc. Any bypass would not help reduce the pursuant congestion
within the town.
The scale of this proposal is simply not compatible with the town and if selected would very soon be shown to be a catastrophic irreversible decision which future generations
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
would be forced to suffer on a daily basis.
In summary, the addition of some 20,000 extra people to one corner of the district alone, together with a brutal roadway funded by the ill conceived development, could be a
price too high to pay.
I do not support this proposal and OBJECT.
LDF/7134
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Clarke and Moody
Object
We both agree that there is a need for a road to connect the A505 with the A602 but we do not agree that this 'bribe' from the developers is the way to fund it. This road would
be beneficial to the whole of North Herts and should be funded by the Highways agency. If this is not possible the development levy from all the development in this area should
support the cost. Without the SW Hitchin housing it should be possible to build a much shorter road closer to the boundary of Hitchin. Additional housing using the small part of
the site adjoining H/r30, H/r14, H/r25 could be considered.
LDF/7138
Document Section:
Representation:
2
The Hitchin Society
Object
The Hitchin Society does not propose to join in the game of comparing the merits or otherwise of all the 'strategic' and non-strategic sites proposed by NHDC on behalf of
landowners and developers, because we do not feel that this is the right way to proceed (see Section 1). We intend to confine our comments to the huge site located to the
South West of Hitchin.
This site comprises approximately 50% of the area which Hitchin occupies today and would therefore drastically change the town of Hitchin and its hinterland. The Hitchin
Society is totally opposed to such a proposal, for the following reasons:
3.1 Infrastructure ¿ The section of the NHDC documentation dealing with this site refers to an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2.18 ¿ 2.21). This plan acknowledges the need for
new schools, neighbourhood centres, etc. and admits that the capacity of the fire station and the Hitchin Sewage Treatment Works 'require further investigation'. It is our
understanding that Anglian Water said some years ago of the sewage works that enlargement was not possible on the present site and that a new site would be needed ¿
where would this be?
The result of the Transport Modelling (2.22 ¿ 2.23) illustrates another difficulty with this proposal. A by-pass might, but would not necessarily, ease congestion in the town
centre ¿ NHDC admits that there would still be pinch points in the town and at junctions 7 and 8 of the A1(M). Access to the town centre would not be straightforward for the
residents of such a new development - the amount of extra traffic generated by a development of 6,000 ¿ 7,400 homes would be huge, because no part of this proposed
development is within easy walking distance of the station, particularly if many were trying, as would almost certainly be the case, to get to and from the station during morning
and evening rush hours. More parking capacity would also be needed at the station, especially if other railway land were to be used for housing. Clearly new roads would be
built through any development, but when traffic moving to the town centre met the original streets of Hitchin, there would be horrendous congestion, probably frequent gridlock.
This would add unacceptably to existing noise and air pollution levels within the town. More car parks would be needed in the town centre ¿ where would they go? The town is
already choked with traffic at busy times; this proposal would only make it worse.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
We assume that the statement (2.8) about the path of a possible southern by-pass was provided by the developer, as any competent highway engineer would instantly see that
such a route is a nonsense, economically and environmentally, and presumably made to justify the extent of the land proposed for housing. We are disappointed that NHDC
appears to have reproduced such statements without even a cursory examination.
3.2 ¿ Green Belt, Landscape, Amenity and Biodiversity
The land to the south and west of Hitchin is not only in the Green Belt, but is intimately connected with and vitally necessary to the life and character of the town. It is all but
unbelievable that anyone could even contemplate the wholesale violation of this area of countryside. The NPPF insists that the Green Belt should not be built over for
insufficient reason ¿ the Green Belt exists for five purposes, three of which are applicable to Hitchin. These are: to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns,
to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and to prevent neighbouring towns (and presumably villages too) merging into one another. These principles
would all be utterly denied by a development in this location.
Section 9.79 of the NPPF sets out the policy on protection for the Green Belt:
'The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the
essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.' These characteristics are stated twice in the same sentence, which clearly emphasises their
importance.
The NPPF speaks of previously developed land in many Green Belt areas, which could be put to more productive use, and the legislation encourages councils to make best
use of this land, whilst protecting the openness of the Green Belt. This does not, however, apply to the area south and west of Hitchin, the land here being Grade 3 farmland,
needed, as the Food 2030 report said, for food production. The NPPF contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which it defines as having three
dimensions: economic, social and environmental. The proposal to develop a huge swathe of Green Belt land around Hitchin makes no sense in any of those three dimensions,
and especially not environmentally.
As the NHDC document admits, a development here would have impacts (we would say, 'huge impacts') on the landscape, potentially (we would say, 'inevitably') on the
adjacent AONB, on the designated Archaeological Area and on neighbouring Conservation Areas. The Landscape Assessment acknowledges the high or moderate sensitivity
of this whole area to development. This is without doubt the wrong scheme in absolutely the wrong place.
This land is not just beautiful for people to gaze at from their passing cars ¿ it is actually very much used for recreation, and access is facilitated by the myriads of paths and
tracks which criss-cross it. Hitchin has a relatively small amount of space within its built-up area, so the adjacent countryside is essential for recreational activity, serving much
the same purpose as, say, Norton Common in Letchworth or the Heath for Royston. The land to the south and west of Hitchin is a well-used green lung for the residents of the
town, and this space would no longer be accessible on foot, as it is now, if a huge development lay between the town and the suddenly distant countryside.
Biodiversity would also be lost if this scheme were to come to pass. As the document admits, the area contains a number of wildlife sites and an SSSI. Development here would
destroy the local distinctiveness and special character of this land, and the Oughtonhead Common Nature Reserve and other wildlife sites would be ravaged.
3.3 ¿ Sustainability ¿ The site completely overlays two of Hitchin's principal sources of drinking water (Wellhead and Temple End Pumping Stations) and borders the third
(Oughtonhead PS). It must therefore cover the Inner and much, if not all, of the Outer Protection Zones for the former, and again cover part of the Inner Zone for Oughtonhead.
Our understanding is that the Environment Agency will not countenance development within an Inner SPZ and will demand extraordinary safeguards within the Outer SPZ.
The site also incorporates the whole of the upper reaches of the River Hiz and borders the River Oughton. The Hiz was rescued from its position as one of the most at-risk
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
rivers in the Anglian Region in the 1990s by an augmentation scheme and we understand that further improvements are planned by the Environment Agency in the interests of
the natural environment and biodiversity.
To propose building over such water-sensitive areas makes a nonsense of sustainability viewed from any standpoint.
NHDC also claims in the section on South West of Hitchin (2.15) that there would be 'significant opportunities for sustainable energy, given the size of the development'. We
believe that the use of 'significant' is a considerable overstatement as low density housing seriously limits the opportunity for sustainable energy solutions.
Given the water-sensitive nature of the site, the limited opportunity for sustainable energy and the inevitability that car use will be the preferred method of transport, including to
the town centre and to the station, the idea that this site is in any way sustainable begins to look somewhat far-fetched.
3.4 ¿ Proportionality ¿ Officers at the exhibitions have suggested that this argument would carry little weight. We, however, think that it should carry significant weight ¿
brownfield sites and infrastructure surpluses within Hitchin have already been used up. There is now much less capacity for any further increases, and this needs to be reflected
in strategic planning.
The total actual and estimated dwelling completions in the district between 2001 and 2021, as a percentage, show that Baldock has contributed 5.1%, the villages 12.7%,
Letchworth 15.2%, Royston 22.9% and Hitchin 44.1%. In other words, Hitchin has, or will have, contributed to dwellings in the district almost half as much again as Royston and
over eight times as much as Baldock. In which case, Hitchin should not, as a matter of equity, have to contribute such a huge amount as these latest proposals might expect.
The NHDC Core Strategy (Preferred Options Paper 2007), whose policy wording, according to the NHDC website, still represents the council's latest published thinking for new
policies to be incorporated into the new Local Plan, refers to the public consultation at the time and states at 2.22 that: 'The most popular of these alternatives was the
proportionate growth of the towns and villages. Our preferred option is based on this principle, although strict proportionality is unlikely to be achieved given the differing types
and availability of sites around the towns. However, the preferred distribution does try to give appropriate levels of growth to all the towns and villages.' As this policy has not
been superseded, we would expect it to be adhered to, if not in the letter of the law, then at least in the spirit.
4. Conclusion
Referring again to the Preferred Options paper of 2007, the first section of the 'Hitchin Discounted Options' states: 'The main discounted option at Hitchin is the major
expansion of the town to the south-west. This has been suggested as a way of funding a southern bypass to the town, linking the A505 Offley Road with the A602 Stevenage
Road. Whilst it is acknowledged that such a road could reduce traffic on Offley Road and Stevenage Road, the quantity of housing required to fund it is considered too high a
price.' We hope that NHDC will stick to its principles on this.
However, the new houses have to be built somewhere, and wherever that may be, people will object, not least because the council's present choice of so-called 'strategic' sites
will be recognised as purely arbitrary, with no foundation in logic or equity, and will therefore encourage respondents towards a reaction verging on nimbyism.
The Hitchin Society therefore suggests that it would be more appropriate for NHDC to take the courageous but sensible step of naming and investigating some sites that really
are strategic, on one of which a totally new settlement could be built. These sites must, of course, be genuinely sustainable, so obvious possibilities are areas close to and
easily accessible from existing stations. Such areas, which should at least be considered on their merits, include land to the north of Baldock and its station, land to the south of
Royston and its station and, perhaps most obviously, land around Ashwell station, where the existing rail network could carry new residents eastwards to Cambridge with its
university and Science Park, or southwards towards Stevenage and London. This last suggestion might well mean joint working with South Cambridgeshire, which NHDC could
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
find challenging, but this option should not be dismissed out of hand.
Agent
We reiterate that we would like to see the council addressing the housing needs of its area in a much more proactive and genuinely strategic way.
LDF/7161
Document Section:
19
Croudace Strategic Limited
Portchester Planning
Consultancy
Object
Representation:
An urban extension of between 6,000 and 7,400 homes located to the south and west of Hitchin would be likely to overwhelm the host settlement in terms of shopping, local
services, schools, recreational facilities and cause major congestion on the roads in the town centre.
Hitchin is a medium sized market town and is unable to accommodate the scale of growth being proposed without major detrimental impacts. A significant driver of the
proposal is the objective to secure the funding of a new southern bypass. The impact of the development would mean that the bypass would be delivered at too high a cost to
the local community.
It is therefore argued that the scale of development being consulted upon at Hitchin should be abandoned as an option. Any future development at Hitchin should be
proportionate to the size and role of the town.
LDF/7163
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Bracey
Support
The immediate benefits of this development are obvious with the proposed bypass that would enable easy passage to Luton Airport for most of the district and the additional
residents would help re invigorate the town centre. Sewerage it appears would not be such a problem as with other sites.
However the price in the terms of coalescence and destruction of surrounding villages would be a very high price to pay. It is my opinion that there should be no further
coalescence within the district as part of this process.
LDF/7172
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Bellcross Company LTD
Object
Rapleys LLP
The strategic site named as 'South West of Hitchin' exhibits a number of constraints which affect the appropriateness of an allocation. These include the site being located in
the Green Belt, the site being Grade 3 agricultural land, and there being a number of environmental constraints such
as flooding and impacts on a SSSI, heritage assets, AONB, and the likely need to provide town centre uses in an out-of-centre location which would compete with the town
centre. The site relies upon significant infrastructure contributions and improvements to accompany the development.
The extent of the site appears to be contrived with small link at the southern boundary. The site also represents a significant area of housing growth which would fundamentally
change the nature and character of the settlement of Hitchin. This strategic site is therefore wholly
inappropriate for residential development and a more suitable and proportionate addition to the town should be sought such as site no.39.
In summary, the strategic site, as proposed, fails on all of the assessment criteria applied to my client's site to classify it as a 'Priority 3 Site' (including the specific comment
relating to the erosion of gaps between settlements). This level of 'priority' should similarly be applied to this
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
strategic site. Site no. 39 has less constraints and is more appropriate for housing development in terms of the assessment criteria applied by the Council, and for the reasons
set out below, should be included as an allocation for residential in future Development Plan Documents. We
reserve the right to comment further on the Council's allocation of all the strategic sites at a later date.
LDF/7173
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Sheail
Object
The sites therefore do not offer a sustainable solution to either Stevenage's housing need or that of North Herts. Both sites perform all 5 functions of the purposes of Green
Belt. Development of either site would not be consistent with these purposes and would undermine the Green Belt in this area. Neither site offers good accessibility with
roads and junctions already severely congested at peak times and transport modelling demonstrates that congestion is likely to increase. Access to the North-East Stevenage
site is particularly bad. Considering the current dire infrastructure in these areas (Great Ashby in particular), significant infrastructure investment would be required for
development of this scale, in particular in roads, schools and provision of utilities. The landowner of a significant proportion of the North-East Stevenage site is unwilling to
make his land available for development, which arguably means that the site is not deliverable. With regards to the current NS3 Roundwood proposal, any consideration of
this site mus acknowledge that it requires its own service road rather than using the already stretched road infrastructure through Haybluff Drive and Mendip Way. All access
roads under the current proposal (Calder Way, Haybluff Drive and Mendip Way, Church Lane and Weston Road) are either single traffic lance (Calder Way and Church Lane)
or roads which are not equipped for traffic travelling in opposite directions, causing one or both vehicles to slow down in order to pass (Haybluff Drive and Mendip Way and
Weston Road). In addition, both Great Ashby Way and St Martins Way struggle to cope with existing traffic demands, often resulting in long queues at peak times which would
only increase if a propoer service road to this site was not built. Looking at the current proposals, their solution is to expand the width of both Haybluff Drive and Mendip Way
by cutting back the verges. Putting aside the closeness of the road to houses (far closer than is the case on Great Ashby Way), clearly their thinking has not been joined upas
why was the road network not developed like this in the first place? Otherwise residents purchasing houses along these roads have been badly mislead by the developers, with
them aiming to change the status of the road once all houses were sold, benefitting from higher house prices than would have been the case if they had been honest and
upfront about their plans. Therefore, the NS3 proposal has to be considered in light of the overall North East of Stevenage site.
LDF/7202
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Dawson
Object
Will create new town. Totally developer led.
LDF/7213
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Smith
Comment
- The proposed development in the strategic site "South West of Hitchin" would increase the size of the town in an unacceptable way, increasing the number of dwellings by up
to 8,000
- This would change the nature of the town. The urban edge of Hitchin is currently well defined, situated on higher ground and generally integrated with the landscape. Any
intervention beyond this green boundary would damage the topography and the extensive views
- The proposed development would encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chiltern's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and both would be adversely affected
- The proposed development would encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollits and Charlton, which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin
- This is an area which includes SSSIs, archaeological sites, listed buildings and good agricultural land. The landscape is assessed as highly sensitive to development. The
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
area also provides recreational opportunities for walkers, cyclists, horse riders, wildlife watchers etc.
LDF/7215
Document Section:
Representation:
Agent
4
Branston
Object
I am aware that within Hitchin there has been a significant in building over the past number of years. To propose to build the highest projected number of houses to the South
West of Hitchin seems significantly unbalanced and unfair and appears to based on the need of New Roads Developments. It would affect the character of the town adversely.
A character which only recently resulted in Hitchin begin described as one of Englands top 100 towns to live according to The Times Newspaper. We should be proud of this
and try not to destroy the distinct diverse community character that is reflective of Hitchin as a market town.
To increase the urbanisation of Hitchin by 50% will have a significant negative impact on the character of the town and will destroy much of the surrounding countryside which is
a reason that many people enjoy living in Hitchin.
Building such a development would increase the need for infrastructure which would also have further negative consequences for the countryside. We are all aware that simply
building roads does not solve the traffic problem but merely moves it on. We are all aware that there is a sweetener to build a bypass from the A505 to the A602, but this again
will cut across beautiful countryside and will merely move the traffic problems to the A602 Stevenage Road and the end of the dual carriageway from Luton. Not only this but a
new road would not answer the issue that such an increase in development will have an impact on the towns internal traffic.
Whilst we live overlooking these amazing views, and feel immensely privileged to do so, we are able to observe a significant number of people, at all times of day and in all
weathers, using the local paths and enjoying the countryside which is accessible through the close network of paths that is indicative of an old market town. This includes
walkers, cyclists runners and horseriders. These paths are also form part of the Hitchin Hoop path and the Inca Way and are clearly advertised on North Herts website as a way
to explore the beautiful countryside. The area also covers a marked cycle route designed to allow cyclists to explore Hitchin and the surrounding villages.
The tarmac of Brick Kiln Lane and means this path is particularly popular with families and people with pushchairs. It is even wheelchair friendly; which means a wide group of
people can access the countryside at all times of the year.
The area South West of Hitchin has a significant level of nature which needs to preserved for the enjoyment of just not the local residents but all those that enjoy the
surrounding countryside. I regularly see redkite, kestrel, green woodpeckers, lesser spotted woodpeckers, blue and long tailed tits, herons and on rare occasions owls.
LDF/7219
Document Section:
Representation:
14
Phillips
Object
I would strongly oppose such a large development SW of Hitchin. This would spoil the rural nature of the town and encroach on valuable countryside between Hitchin and
Luton.
I would support some development North of Letchworth as this has been proposed by Letchworth Heritage Foundation and they own the land. It would not encroach on land
between towns.
I would object to any development that would begin to encroach on land between Luton and Hitchin.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Rush Green is Brownfield land, I therefore have no objection to this.
I most strongly oppose further development to all the proposed Stevenage sites.
LDF/7242
Document Section:
Representation:
2
North
Comment
The proposed development in the strategic site South West of Hitchin would increase the size of the town by over a third. 8,000 new dwellings would put an unmanageable
strain on the infra structure and facilities. Building on this area would destroy the landscape and green boundary. Recreational facilities would be lost forever. Pollution would
increase and the roads (including the proposed new bypass) would prove insufficient leading to grid lock. The surrounding villages would be engulfed in the developments.
LDF/7245
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Rayment
Comment
Generally i support the case for preserving green belt land in this part of hertfordshire. The Hitchin, Stevenage, Letchworth, Baldock area is already highly congested. This is a
prime example of a location for which the green belt was conceived for the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and preventing the merger of
neighbouring towns and villages.
Hitchin is a small town with distinctive and attractive character. The development of the west of hitchin strategic site would alter this entirely. The size of the development would
require substantial shopping, schooling and other local infrastructure to be provided. This would lead to the growth of an urban belt, with local centres separating the historic
centre from the countryside it once served as a market town. Like so many other towns in England we would end up as a heritage site engulfed by an urban sprawl.
Apart from the argument that a development of this size would destroy the very character that make Hitchin a town worthy of protection, it would not be sustainable. The railway
station is the other side of the town. How would commuters get there?- local roads are already congested during the rush hour. Where would they park?- the station car park is
already full during the working week. A bypass would feed new volumes of traffic into the stevenage road leading to congestion and bottlenecks approaching the A1. How would
the town centre support the considerable extra population seeing entertainment, shopping and services without radically changing?
I have read criticisms of the housing options process that argue that it is developer led and lacks a strategic plan. I agree as a layman i am not able to digest the enormous
amount of consultation material that is available and come up with alternative options though i am aware that organisations such as the Hitchin Forum have done so. What i can
say is that, for reasons outlined above and elsewhere. Hitchin is not a town suitable for expansion to the extent that the housing options would allow.
LDF/7246
Document Section:
4
Little
Representation:
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
6. As mentioned above nearly all of these sites are deemed to be highly sensitive to any development.
LDF/7246
Document Section:
8
Little
Comment
Representation:
Any further encroachment of the urban setting around hitchin towards and into the surrounding greenbelt land, is entirely detrimental. Species decline and the weakening of
biodiversity throughout all habitats around Hitchin is as a direct result of ever increasing expansion. To put it simply. If we ever want to pass onto our children, the beauty which
is naturally all around us, we must take responsibility and act now. Arrogance and the desire for wealth and expansion will not be allowed to prevail.
LDF/7248
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Sisson
Comment
The total number of dwellings proposed in the plan for Hitchin is far to large for the town and will completely change its character.
The increase in road traggic and congestion in the town even with the southern bypass will be significant.
LDF/7248
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Sisson
Comment
Developing this whole area is bound to interfere with wildlife habitat. This is so close to the Oughton Common and the river. By building in the area so close to the Oughton
Common and the river these may be some risk of run off water flooding the common and the river as these are west areas in winter.
The increase n road traffic through the Westmill areas would be of great concern.
Last of all the authority who gives permission to build all over this picturesque part of north hertfordshire will be forever remembered.
LDF/7263
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Huckstep
Comment
3. The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippolyts and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin.
LDF/7264
Document Section:
1
Stephenson
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Object
Agent
Hitchin Town Centre could not cope with an expansion of this magnitude.The sensible solution for this scale of growth would be a new town.
Why is Hitchin taking a disproportionate part of NH expansion?
I am opposed to these plans which are obviously developer led. Why do the Planners not lead as opposed to react. Show some initiative!
LDF/7268
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Living
Object
I write in connection with the above planning applications. I have examined the plans and I know the sites well. I wish to object strongly to the development of houses in all of
these locations.
Infilling could ruin the character of the town while estate development would overwhelm it. The protection of Hitchin's visual, historic and archaeological qualities should be
supported.
The proposed siting of the Possible Strategic Site, Proposed New Settlement Boundary and Settlement Boundary developments are particularly ill-considered: they are on
greenfield sites used by many town dwellers, villagers and tourists for recreation and walking dogs (the development sites proposed are on several public footpaths), and
building here would diminish the striking views and beautiful countryside as well as many other issues that would arise including congestion.
Of particular importance are the grounds and surrounding countryside of Hitchin Priory with historical origins dating back as far as 1317. This area incorporating the grounds of
Hitchin Priory and Bridge Street area (Planning Ref: H/r07) of Hitchin are steeped in history and a valuable part of our heritage. Bridge Street still retains 15th and 18th century
houses. It is preposterous to develop around this area of the town.
Hitchin radiates from the Market Place (Planning Ref: H/m02. H/m03) with buildings dating back to the 15th century. The area around St. Mary's and the Churchgate is a
unique, historical and attractive area and the already bustling town square cannot accommodate more residents and traffic. Hitchin market dates back as far 1268 and is
popular and well renowned. Your current plans would demolish the current site in the centre of town where it should rightfully be.
We cannot build any more housing developments in the charming historical town of Hitchin and must protect the surrounding villages and greenbelt areas.
LDF/7272
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Borner
Object
LDF/7275
Document Section:
4
Ewin
Representation:
1.
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
3. The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollyts and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin
4. The development would place excessive strain on what is a residential and minor roads. The traffic is already heavy with associated risks to residents.
5. The road network required to service any such development would disproportionately and irrevocably damage the amenity of the surviving greenbelt and existing urban
areas.
6. The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of gosmore, st ippolyts and charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin.
7. I object strongly to any form of housing development on greenbelt land around Hitchin.
8. Building huge numbers of dwellings to fund a bypass on an area half the existing size of hitchin would (A) ruin the innate rural character of our town (b) be totally
disproportionate to hitchins true housing and transportation needs (c) create unwarranted urban sprawl that would destroy Charlton as a village and key conservation area (d)
raise pollution levels (car noise and emissions from the additional residential and through traffic) and (e) forever lose swatches of hitchins surround green belt ( including
beautiful sections of agricultural land, wildlife areas and woodland.)
9. Moreover, building thousands of dwellings on this site goes far in excess of any housing growth target set for hitchin and its environs and would be disproportionate housing
growth purely on the basis of raising funds for a bypass that has not been formally assess as meeting hitchins transportation needs.
10. Additionally, the area in question is recommended as a leisure cycling route by herts count council and classified as a tranquil area on the campaign to protect rural england
(CPRE) tranquility maps. It also has numerous rights of way and footpaths regularly used by dog walkers and ramblers. Therefore developing this area would devastate the
extensive use currently made by walkers, runners, cyclist and horse-riders.
11. With the additional threat from lutons proposed housing expansion towards hitchin, it is even more important to retain this are as greenbelt.
12. On this basis i strongly object to any form of housing or bypass development on this proposed site.
LDF/7276
Document Section:
4
Ewin
Representation:
Object
3. The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollyts and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin
4. The development would place excessive strain on what is a residential and minor roads. The traffic is already heavy with associated risks to residents.
5. The road network required to service any such development would disproportionately and irrevocably damage the amenity of the surviving greenbelt and existing urban
areas.
6. The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of gosmore, st ippolyts and charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin.
7. I object strongly to any form of housing development on greenbelt land around Hitchin.
8. Building huge numbers of dwellings to fund a bypass on an area half the existing size of hitchin would (A) ruin the innate rural character of our town (b) be totally
disproportionate to hitchins true housing and transportation needs (c) create unwarranted urban sprawl that would destroy Charlton as a village and key conservation area (d)
raise pollution levels (car noise and emissions from the additional residential and through traffic) and (e) forever lose swatches of hitchins surround green belt ( including
beautiful sections of agricultural land, wildlife areas and woodland.)
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
9. Moreover, building thousands of dwellings on this site goes far in excess of any housing growth target set for hitchin and its environs and would be disproportionate housing
growth purely on the basis of raising funds for a bypass that has not been formally assess as meeting hitchins transportation needs.
10. Additionally, the area in question is recommended as a leisure cycling route by herts count council and classified as a tranquil area on the campaign to protect rural england
(CPRE) tranquility maps. It also has numerous rights of way and footpaths regularly used by dog walkers and ramblers. Therefore developing this area would devastate the
extensive use currently made by walkers, runners, cyclist and horse-riders.
11. With the additional threat from lutons proposed housing expansion towards hitchin, it is even more important to retain this are as greenbelt.
12. On this basis i strongly object to any form of housing or bypass development on this proposed site.
LDF/7277
Document Section:
Representation:
4
McCann
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7278
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Kelsall
Object
I take my two young sons for walks in the area to the Souuth-West side of Hitchin on a regular basis. They enjoy the fresh air and lovely countryside, as well as the exercise.
With this in mind, I would like to state my dismay at the proposal to build houses over the fields in this area (SITE REF 37). Please consider this as a formal objection to the
proposal.
Alas, I oppose the outlandish growth targets for north herts. They should be reduced to a more sensible level.
LDF/7294
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Banham
Object
I strongly oppose the proposed developmenton the strategic site South West of Hitchin which would increase the size of the town in an unacceptable way increasing the
The Hitchin site would significantly undermine the rural nature of the town and the character of the town which is the attraction for many visiting people. The urban edge of
Hitchin is currently well defined, situated on higher ground and generally integrated with the landscape. Any intervention beyond this green boundary would damage the
topography and the extensive views. The proposed development would encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and
both would be adversely affected
The potential use of farm land for development. Loss of farm land makes the country ever more reliant on, I guess, crop and cereal imports.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
The potential use of existing sports facilities - is this in accordance with the Olympic legacy?
Looking at the plans in full, the road infrastructure on the South West of Hitchin is not capable of a mass increase in traffic there is already significant pressure on capacity for
some roads in this area such as Redhill Road.
LDF/7297
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Shaw
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7300
Document Section:
Representation:
8
GASP (Graveley Against Stevenage Expansion)
Support
Our joint second most favoured strategic site is South West of Hitchin.
One of the main reasons behind this is the offer from developers to help finance the bypass on the southern edge of Hitchin to connect the A505 Offley Road with the A602
Wymondly bypass. This would reduce congestion within Hitchin itself, facilitate the movement of traffic travelling east/west across the district from the A1 to M1, and improve
the attractiveness of the area for many of the existing residents (which some current planning proposals, most notably the NES3 Roundwood proposal, totally fails to achieve).
This is a very large site, and in addition to offering flexibility as to where development takes place (in the process protecting areas of particular sensitivity or interest), it offers
economies of scale for infrastructure and should reduce the number of off site journeys to access schools and shops, in the process reducing pressure on the heavily
congested A1 corridor road network, especially during peak times.
Unlike the three sites just outside of Stevenage, Hitchin already has its own sewerage treatment works, with no further upgrade is required. In addition, and again unlike the
three sites just outside of Stevenage, no major upgrades to gas pipeline supplies would be required.
Hitchin is considered one of the most desirable places to live within the North Hertfordshire district, with associated higher land values generating higher S106 and Community
Infrastructure levies to fund the necessary infrastructure development. These higher land values would also permit higher prices to be obtained by developers on properties
sold, encouraging a better mix of housing and helping aid the depressed construction industry.
Finally, any agreed development on this site would increase shopping activity within the town centre, together with increasing the viability of any future redevelopment of the
town centre. This would be in contrast to any agreed development of any of the three sites just outside of Stevenage, which clearly would increase shopping activity within
Stevenage (and hence outside of the North Hertfordshire district), together with increasing the viability of any future redevelopment of Stevenage.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/7301
Document Section:
Rep No.
5
Applicant
Warden Developments Ltd
Agent
Phillips Planning Services
Ltd
Comment
Representation:
This site could in theory deliver between 6,000 and 7,400 new homes. However, it is noted that the site promoter does not own all of the land and has options with only some of
the landowners. If this site were to be seriously considered the deliverability of it would need to be investigated fully and assurances in the form of signed agreements provided
to demonstrate that all landowners are on board.
It seems likely that a development of this scale would take at least 3 ¿ 5 years from adoption of the plan to actually start delivering completions. Therefore if a first build year of
approximately 2018 / 2019 were assumed with say 100 in the first year then 200 building up to an average (Buchanan Study) of 330 thereafter the most that could be assumed
off this site would be approximately 3,500 by 2031.
This assumes that average build rates of 330 could be achieved for a significant period. We submit that given the relatively small scale of Hitchin and its housing market that
the market itself is unlikely to absorb this many completions on a strategic site west of the town?
LDF/7311
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Walsby
Object
The proposed site here is far too large and quite inappropriate. I do not find that the notion of a new bypass makes it any more attractive, as this would even further spoil the
countryside and villages in the locality. The planned siting of the road is well to the west and south of the proposed development and this would encourage infill to the boundary
of the road, which is highly undesirable. The proposed development would:
be far too big, completely overwhelming the market town feeling of Hitchin
be visually obtrusive approaching Hitchin from the west
destroy the village of Charlton and coalesce with Gosmore and St Ippolyts
If it is decided that a level of development in and around Hitchin in proportion to its current size is necessary, I would prefer to see a small and sensitively designed development
north of the A505 in place of that planned east of Luton.
LDF/7312
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Mason
Comment
The proposed new bypass is needed but I understand this would not be built until money was available from the sale of the proposed houses. This would not be acceptable.
Routes around Hitchin are already heavily congested with long delays at peak times, so the additional traffic associated with this large development could potentially result in
grid lock. The bypass would need to be built before the new houses.
The bypass takes a route well to the west and south of the proposed new housing which would encourage infilling and make further development difficult to reject.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/7314
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
1
Sellicks
Object
Agent
I have concerns over this consultation, the processes leading to the identification of the proposed sites and their evaluation. I can express an opinion only on the sites which I
know best.
The consultation
Whilst I support the principle that decisions should be informed by consultation of those who will be affected, I am deeply concerned about the nature of this consultation. It is
unclear, and therefore particularly worrying, how the results of questions 3 and 5 of the Consultation Questionnaire might be used in coming to any decision. Respondents are
faced with many pages of 'evidence' including 9 landscape sensitivity studies ranging in date from 2007 to 2012. These are prepared to different formats, rendering like-for-like
comparison extremely difficult, even if it were accepted that no material changes had taken place over the 5 year period. These documents are only part of the material on
which judgements should be based.
Rational Planning
I would expect that rational planning would involve stating a series of criteria for the desirability of any new development site. Locations which would meet these criteria would
be identified. By contrast, the proposed sites are identified only because they are 'available'. There are other sites in the area which would be far more suitable. No attempt to
identify and evaluate these has been made, and no steps taken to facilitate their availability. Whilst appreciating that compulsory purchase is an option the council wishes to
avoid due to expense, the post-delivery costs of an unsuitable development are born by council tax payers throughout its lifetime. Had the educational, social and health costs
of inner city housing schemes been considered during the 1960s, perhaps we would not still be agonizing about some areas of our inner cities today. Such costs are impossible
to evaluate, and are therefore never considered. They are outside the scope of the current consultation since they are often dependent on design. Failure to choose the right
sites will mean that good design will be constrained with inevitable consequences.
Sites around Hitchin
I am only able to comment on sites of which I have some knowledge ¿ my comments relate mainly to the strategic sites on the green belt to the south and west of Hitchin, but
also to the priority 2 and 3 sites on its western fringes.
Proportionate contribution
The percentage population increase of Hitchin over the past 10 years has been greater than that for any other of the major towns in North Hertfordshire. Any further increase in
dwellings should take account of the contribution the town has already made to the increase in North Hertfordshire's housing stock, and should therefore be considerably less
than the 6000 lower limit identified for the strategic area.
Infrastructure
Hitchin's current infrastructure is incapable of absorbing new development. Its roads, major junctions and station car park operate at full capacity. Hardly any progress has been
made in implementing the proposals of the 1999 cycle routes study to attempt any mitigation. The non-strategic priority 2 and 3 sites on the western fringes of Hitchin would
make an already difficult traffic situation worse due to access problems, even without any contribution from the considerably larger strategic site beyond. The proposed bypass
will do nothing to address congestion due to traffic entering Hitchin from either the A600 from the north or the A505 Cambridge Road, and could arguably increase it. It will not
help to address the problems with HGVs accessing the Hitchin industrial area. The people living in any new development would be likely to commute, but the town's existing
infrastructure would be unable to cope.
Heritage and recreation
As a Hitchin resident for 29 years, a walker and cyclist, its attractiveness for me is often to do with the ease of access to the surrounding countryside and its rich history which is
cherished and nurtured by many enthusiasts, who also recognize the need for development, but not at any price. Hitchin is an important example of a medieval market town
with many nationally recognized, historically significant features. Charlton, Gosmore and St Ippolytts are attractive villages with interesting and important buildings. Significant
developments will threaten the quiet character of this area in a number of ways. The topographically varied, visually and environmentally sensitive countryside to the south and
west of Hitchin, in which these villages are set, is relatively easily accessed on foot or cycle from the town and would be destroyed by development of the strategic site. Views of
Hitchin, particularly from the high ground to the south west, some within the Chilterns AONB, would be degraded by development. The noise from the proposed new bypass
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
would also compromise the recreational amenity of the area, to say nothing of the desirability of living in the proposed development. The land-take for this proposal is
misrepresented by the area shown on the map. The development is only viable if a bypass is constructed outside the boundary of the proposed development area, thus further
reducing the aesthetic and recreational value of the area and severing wildlife habitats.
Summary
In principle I am opposed to development on greenbelt land, but accept that some development may be necessary if we are to provide housing for a growing population. The
proposals for Hitchin suggest a disproportionate expansion which the town cannot absorb without loss of its unique character. I do not accept that the current proposals are the
way to achieve housing growth. I consider both the identification of sites and consultation to be flawed, leading to unsatisfactory solutions that will cause more problems in the
medium and long term.
LDF/7333
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Fossey
Object
I object to the proposed plan for 781 new homes on Site 122 at Little Wymondley. A site this large would destroy current village life.
The infrastructure for such a large site is non-existant. These new homes could increase the population of the village by upwards of 3,500 people. The roads would not cope
with the influx of additional cars and noise pollution would increase. With this scale of increase in traffic, Little Wymondley would be gridlocked.
At present Stevenage Road is prone to flooding and this build would increase the risk of flooding dramatically. Existing utilities and sewerage would not cope if the build goes
ahead.
Public transport in the village is limited and would therefore not cope with this additional influx.
Wymondley is far too small in size to cope with a build of this size and I feel it would destroy the character and community feel of the village. It would no longer be the quiet, safe
and peaceful village it has always been. We cannot continue to destroy village life and for this reason I strongly oppose this proposal.
LDF/7333
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Fossey
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7334
Document Section:
4
Fossey
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Object
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/7335
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Jones
Object
to 8,000.
4. The proposed development would encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippolyts and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin.
5. This is an area which includes SSSIs, archeological sites, listed and good agricultural land. The landscape is assessed as highly sensitive to development.
LDF/7336
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Jones
Object
to 8,000.
4. The proposed development would encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippolyts and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin.
5. This is an area which includes SSSIs, archeological sites, listed and good agricultural land. The landscape is assessed as highly sensitive to development.
LDF/7342
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Berry
Object
The proposals for Hitchin are out of all proportion to the size of the existing town. I do not believe an extension of this size is necessary, especially when so many premises are
empty.
A worrying aspect is the lack of control Councils exerts on density of building, as can be seen in new developments in outskirts of Arlesey , Letchworth etc which are over
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
built.,and deliberately done so for profit of the Developer.
NHDC has the responsibility to ensure Hitchin character is retained not bow to the wishes of Developers
Finally the fields in red adjacent to Oakfield Avenue are on a flood plane and any building would cause damage to residents in said area.
I object to the massive loss of green belt land round Hitchin, which will destroy the town if allowed.
LDF/7345
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Bedfordshire & River Ivel IDB
Comment
The site South West of Hitchin discharges into the river Oughton, which in the main is neither Main River (EA) nor and IDB maintained watercourse. Therefore the ability to
outfall into an unmaintained watercourse needs investigating and assessing.
LDF/7346
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Williams
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/7354
Document Section:
Representation:
8
AT4 Architects
Object
The south west of Hitchin is too large and precludes the A505/A602 bypass. It needs to be better throughout.
LDF/7370
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Waller
Comment
The strategic site to the south west of Hitchin will result in three villages being joined to Hitchin to develop an even larger town. Not only would this have a negative affect on the
villages but also on Hitchin itself. I can not comment on the other sites as I do not know them so well but they are all very large and will have a negative effect on the
surrounding areas. It would seem better to develop more smaller sites rather than one huge area which will have a detrimental impact.
LDF/7379
Document Section:
1
Willis
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Object
Agent
Regarding: Proposal to build on the South-West of Hitchin
I have a number of strong objections to this proposal:
1: As a Hitchin resident I am convinced that the proposal would ruin the character of the town. At present Hitchin has sprawling housing on the North and East sides of the town.
The lack of sprawl on the South-West side at present makes the town a highly attractive place for prospective home buyers as it means the town has close links to the
country-side. Whenever friends visit they comment on how nice the entrance to Hitchin is when driving in from the A1. My wife and I regularly walk our dog near Charlton and
Oughtonhead and the fact that these areas are so close to the town centre gives the Hitchin a nice feel. If these plans went ahead I would not hesitate to look at moving away
from Hitchin and I am sure there are others who feel the same.
2. This proposal would involve adding around an extra 50% to the size of Hitchin as someone who has relatives from Aylsebury, where similar growth took place, I know the
devastating impact that this kind of growth can have on a town.
3. The areas of greenbelt which directly border the Southwest of Hitchin (the fields off the Gosmore roundabout and those just past Gaping Lane) may not be the most
appealing areas of greenspace. However, the main reason for this is that they border directly onto either main roads or housing estates and are, therefore, subject to significant
litter and noise. Therefore, were these areas to be built on, then the areas beyond would become similarly spoiled. Development not only spoils the land being built upon but
also that beyond. Anyone who has driven from Charlton to Preston will know how stunning the landscape is in the hills beyond Charlton an area that would be swallowed up by
the development.
4. Given the projected food shortages which the UK is likely to be faced with it would be criminal to build on the rich agricultural land that Hertfordshire has to offer.
5. Stevenage is a town that lacks the character and links to the countryside that Hitchin has. Any growth there would, therefore, have far less impact on the town itself.
LDF/7381
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Hogg and Hickton
Object
We object to the development of housing on the greenbelt land (highlighted in blue on the map in the "Housing Options Part 2: Strategic Sites" PDF) as this will have a
significant impact on the wildlife, aesthetics and overall attractiveness of the area.
LDF/7388
Document Section:
3
Watt
Representation:
Comment
The site south-west of Hitchin is far too large. I understand that North Herts needs more housing and Hitchin could take some of that housing but the numbers and size of the
area proposed is too much for the towns infrastructure to take, that is roads, schools, healthcare, car parks in particular. Even the swim pool car park is often full!
Hitchin has managed to retain its charm and personality and it would be a shame if any excessive development put an end to that forever. If it is decided that Hitchin does need
to take more housing than numbers a third of what is proposed would be more realistic, and that is only if the traffic and school implications (primary and secondary) are taken
into account. Any development would need to be very sympathetic to its surroundings.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
I only ranked it as fifth priority based on housing numbers not being as large as proposed in the consultation.
Access to the train station for these extra numbers is important to consider, and as people should be encouraged to use the train if they need to commute, then more trains,
more parking at the station and quick and often buses to the station in peak times must be considered.
For this area, and all the other sites in the consultation, implications for the roads, especially the A505, A602 and the junctions of the A1 need to be carefully looked at.
LDF/7390
Document Section:
Representation:
1
O'Dell
Object
I am writing to express my concerns and oppose the loss of greenbelt land to the West of Hitchin. We would like some green space left for our grand children and others to
come and Hitchin has had more than it's fair share of development in the last few years. I strongly oppose the building and possible opening up of Westbury Close cul de sac
which will mean we live in the middle of a housing estate when we bought our house where it is because it was near open fields.
LDF/7391
Document Section:
Representation:
1
O'Dell
Object
I am writing to express my concerns and oppose the loss of greenbelt land to the West of Hitchin. We would like some green space left for our Grand children and others to
come and Hitchin has had more than it's fair share of development in the last few years. I strongly oppose the building and possible opening up of Westbury Close cul de sac
which will mean we live in the middle of a housing estate when we bought our house where it is because it was near open fields.
LDF/7393
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Manning
Object
I am writing to voice my concerns over the proposed expansion of Hitchin/Stevenage area with some 10,000 homes.
I have lived on the Oughtonhead side of Hitchin almost all of my life. The area has an abundance of wildlife (now a nature reserve), where will they go? This was green belt land
that they are proposing to build on, surely this is criminal to build on such land?
The infrastructure of Hitchin and surrounding villages will not be able to cope, it cannot cope now. The queues to get through Hitchin from Henlow build up quickly and the trains
are rammed at 7am when I commute to London. The schools are over crowded and getting a doctors appointment is a joke, how will they all cope with an additional 10,000
homes? Lister Hospital has expanded to take on the QE II patients, how will they cope with the expanding population?
I understand the need to build additional homes, but in all honesty what is needed is more affordable housing (when I look through the local papers there is an abudence of
homes for sale so not a short fall of 'normal' housing). We have so many shop units and industrial units standing empty and neglected, surely the best use would to build
housing on these sites? In Stevenage and Hitchin alone there are many office blocks standing empty (great for flats??) and building on industrial units will make the blot on the
landscape more attractive to look at!
If there is a genuine need to build on green land, the area between Baldock and Royston has far more room and still close to train lines (although this line cannot cope with
more commuters).
I really do feel strongly that these plans must be abandoned and other solutions found (such as I have suggested above).
LDF/7395
4
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Barker
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Object
Agent
I am totally against the development to the South West of Hitchin - increasing the number of dwellings up to 8000 because:1. It would 'swallow-up' Gosmore, Charlton and St Ippolyts and they would lose their rural appeal and become part of the town.
2. It would use up green belt land and adversely affect the Oughtonhead nature reserve.
3. It would undermine the "feel" of Hitchin which at the moment retains a feeling of being a semi-rural market town.
LDF/7395
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Barker
Comment
The edge of Hitchin is clearly defined so any development on the edge would encroach on "Green belt" and ruin many very pleasant rural views that can be had @ the edge of
town.
LDF/7402
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Walters
Object
I wish to object to points 2.7 and 2.8 of the document for the following reasons;
Landscape impacts and potential impact on an area of outstanding natural beauty. We have enjoyed for many years walking regularly around the proposed development site,
as do many other people. Such a large development would cause Hitchin to lose its appeal as being an historic town, where local people and visitors have easy access to an
outstanding area of natural beauty on their doorstep
It would become like Stevenage and Luton and lose its market town appeal which attracts many people.
Site contains a number of wildlife sites which development would destroy. These should be protected for future generations to enjoy.
LDF/7407
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Chapman
Object
We wish to raise our strong objection to the South West of Hitchin Housing development. We believe this will provide no benefits to Hitchin of such a large development without
any mention of supporting public services such as health care (GP and secondary care services, dentists, pharmacies etc) and public amenities. Hitchin is already overloaded
with traffic and such an expansion will only increase town centre traffic dramatically, making such a town into continuous gridlock in the rush hour periods. The train services are
already heavily crowded into and out of London, something which would only get much worse without serious investment into the current infrastructures.
We love Hitchin for the market town environment it provides and I fear this will be lost with such a large development of modern housing. Surely a more subtle and balanced
approach is smaller increases in housing throughout the region?
LDF/7409
7
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Lawrence
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Object
Agent
The SW Hitchin should not also go ahead, as it creates a Hitchin - Stevenage conurbation.
LDF/7483
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Hanson
Object
I believe that it is wrong to consider building the number of proposed dwellings (6400-7000) in the area for the following reasons:
1. Road Transport Infrastructure
a. In order to build this development a by-pass would be required to link the A505 to the A602 which in itself would offer many benefits to the town relieving traffic from the Town
Centre but this would in turn create more pressure on the A1(M) Junction 8 in particular and more pressure on the two lane section of the A1(M) to Junction 6 which is already
at a standstill in peak traffic periods.
b. In turn this then increases pressure to widen the A1(M) from J8 to 6 .
c. The traffic links from the new development particularly from the north of the A505 into the Town Centre are not viable:
i. Access from A505 is down to a single carriageway on Upper Tilehouse Street with no capacity to widen this to a dual carriageway;
ii. West Hill, Gaping Lane and Oughton Head Way are all not viable options for access points as the housing offers little or no opportunity for off-road parking which would make
traffic congestion ridiculous;
iii. There is the possibility of some access down Redhill Road but this would not serve much traffic. This leave the option of bringing traffic out further on to the Bedford Road
but this would interfere with Oughten Head land, which is not acceptable is the next access point and this is not an option with Victorian housing and no opportunities for
off-road parking for residents;
2. Rail Transport
Hitchin is not going to offer employment for this number of dwellings so inevitably this means many will seek employment in London and commute via train.
a. Does the station have the capacity for more people travelling into London? I'd suggest not for the numbers who would wish to travel
b. A large investment in public transport would be needed as Hitchin Station does not have the parking capacity to cope with more people wishing to travel by train ¿ many
commuters rely on friends/family to drop off/pick up and peak times are a joke at the re-designed station short term parking; town centre car parks include commuter cars ¿
more pressure on parking in the Town
3. Countryside
a. Not only does Hitchin mark the edge of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which must be recognised and protected, but Oughtenhead Common a protected
nature reserve, area of Special Scientific Interest and everything should be done to protect this and not interfere or impact on the site's inhabitants.
4. Floodplains
a. The river Hiz rises in Charlton
b. The St Ippolyts Brook also impacts on this development
Both will create challenges and risk flooding if the flood plains are not managed properly, which will either increase the cost of development and /or risk flooding
I would also question the sense in building one massive development and not spreading the development over several smaller sites having a lower impact on landscape and
incumbent residents. More should be done to create infill housing, look at sites in/around outlying villages ¿ Preston for example ¿ three sites turned down and NHDC's own
land between Chequers Lane and Back Lane not even offered for development!
LDF/7485
Document Section:
4
Patten
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Object
Agent
LDF/7486
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Stears
Object
Hitchin is obviously a very old town with many roads ill-equipped to deal with today's traffic levels. The scale of the plans suggests that the town will more than double in size,
creating massive pressure on the existing roads - especially across town, as people try to get across to the train station (the town is already heavily loaded to the west of the
line).
The character of the town will also inevitably change, with such an extreme increase in population numbers - what will this do to the character of the town?
Surrounding towns and villages
It is difficult to think of three such major urban centres in the county which are as close together as Hitchin, Stevenage and Letchworth (and also Baldock). Also, the plans as
presented would involve the cannibalisation of charming villages such as Gosmore and Charlton.
It cannot be sensible then to build over the area separating these different places, when elsewhere in Hertfordshire, and in North Herts, has much more space to play with. I can
think of other places on main lines which have much less urban concentration, and so the need for new housing can, I believe, be much more satisfactorily achieved by looking
elsewhere.
I am conscious that this may sound like nimbyism, but I genuinely believe that, because of the natural environment around Oughtonhead Common, Hitchin's character and
infrastructure, the existing proximity of the town to its neighbours, and the existence of other sites which must be more suitable for development, that these plans should be
rejected.
LDF/7487
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Hanson
Object
This is simply a joke. The promoter is a small Shefford based developer without the financial clout to deliver the by-pass. Much of the land is much too sensitive in landscape
terms To develop sitting as it does on the edge of the Chilterns AONB. The sheer numbers proposed are way beyond what the existing road network in Hitchin could support.
We all know most of the people who will live in the homes ¿ whichever site is chosen, will work in London. Getting to the railway station from this site, given the proposed
numbers will be impossible. The southern by pass won't solve the problem that large numbers of cars come into Hitchin to then go north towards Bedford. Even if the residents
could get to the station there would be nowhere for them to park. Add to this the Charlton Conservation area, and the Aquifer protection zone which Veolia have around
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Charlton and the scheme becomes obviously non-deliverable as well as highly undesirable. One is driven to the conclusion that the promoter has in reality another purpose in
making this proposal, possibly some part of the site that might be do-able is his real intent- and he hopes the Council will point that up to him.
LDF/7488
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Stears
Object
This site includes a nature reserve and beautiful countryside and is visited by numbers of people throughout the year who want to enjoy the countryside and its wildlife. There is
a multitude of wildlife there - where are they supposed to go? To build on this would be criminal and can never be recovered. Access would also be a serious problem and I do
not believe we have the infrastructure to support it. Last year we had a hose pipe ban as the reservoirs were low. How would they cope with even extra homes? Trying to drive
through and around Hitchin in the rush hour can be a nightmare. These roads cannot cope with any more traffic. It is now reported that extra classes are going to have to be
added to primary schools as there will not be enough places for local children next year. How will they cope with an even greater influx of children? And a few years down the
line the senior schools will be in the same position. How are the already crowded trains going to cope with even more passengers. It's usually standing room only by the times
the trains get to Hitchin. And the buses - try getting to Stevenage from Hitchin in the rush hour. Buses are full with local children going to John Henry Newman who virtually take
over the buses and there is no room for other passengers who either have to stand or wait for another bus.
To summarise, Hitchin would not be able to cope with a development of this size which would be at the detriment of those who already live and work here and we would also
lose some lovely countryside which could never be replaced., I also question whether the building of so many houses is justified or is it to put money into the pockets of the
developers. I most strongly object to this plan.
LDF/7498
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Skyers
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/7501
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Ingleby
Comment
Development of areas to south west hitchin are not appropriate . They will create something far beyond the pleasant and ideal town we have chosen to live in. The proposed
developments will destroy beautiful countryside, create very significant travel disruption in a town that already easily becomes congested in rush hour and weekends.
I am also concerned on the demand for water from 10700 dwellings. Already some area struggle in summer. Development must not be at the expense of green belt land.
LDF/7509
1
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Kindley
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
The site extends all around the west and south sides of Hitchin, from Oughtonhead Common to the Stevenage Road. 6000-7400 homes are proposed, partly to fund a
proposed bypass linking the A505 Offley Road with the A602 Stevenage Road.
My concern is not just the destruction of this area, but in particular the inclusion of land so close to Oughtonhead Common. This tract of land contains much bio-diversity and
has been recovered over recent by the diligent work of volunteers. The 'butting-up' of dwellings so close to this outstanding reserve would effectively starve the very nature of
the common and inevitably lead to its demise.
I feel strongly that if a line is to be drawn then it should be to the south of the Barton Road (but ideally south of the A505), leaving a tract of green belt (agricultural land) as a
buffer for the Ougtonhead Common. Furthermore the beautiful vista and panorama across the valley looking towards Offley from the west side of Hitchin (that is to say look
west between the Barton Road and A505) is one which should be cherished and not destroyed.
The obvious increase in traffic (and we all know what it is like trying to navigate the bottle-neck of Hitchin between the hours of 7am-9am and 4pm-6pm on weekdays - I should
know living near the junction of the A505 and Barton roads) will exacerbate the problem ¿ a link road from the A505 to the A602 Stevenage Road will do little to help it will
simply move the jam further up the 'chain'
But most importantly where do you propose to find the water supply for all these new dwellings. Our water supply is finite and the town had already come perilously close to
rationing in very recent times. The water pumping stations around Hitchin all stand on or near our spring heads. Oughtonhead, Hiz, etc all have at least one or more pumps
drawing water. You place that number of new dwellings in the area where are you hoping to extract more water?
How will sewage treatment work? It is close to capacity now.
Finally how will the area cope with the treatment of so many more people seeking medical help ¿ maybe double the size of the Lister Hospital?
LDF/7513
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Rose
Object
Whilst I agree that we there is a need for housing to meet the growing needs of our population, the proposal to expend Hitchin by over 6000 new homes is a gross over
development and will destroy the character and historic nature of this vibrant Market Town. The existing roads already fail to cope with the traffic passing through the town and
new development will bring gridlock and misery to those that live on the feeder roads around the town.
Some development will be good for the town because it will bring a mass of population that will help sustain the Town centre and high street but over development could bring
about the same fate that overtook Stevenage Old Town that has now been swallowed up by ring roads, retail parks and development not in keeping with the original town.
Hitchin and Stevenage have very different personalities because of the recent developments and I do not believe that Hitchin residents want to become Stevenage version 2.
Rather we should ensure we retain the historic nature of the town.
I welcomed the landscape sensitivity study that was provided by the consultation and this highlights the green belt areas of land around Hitchin that would be destroyed by
development. In particular I refer to areas OP1 and L3 which form the border with the areas of outstanding beauty and are home to natural water springs, historic and unique
farming land, a very varied wildlife population and have a network of bridle paths that the whole community use to walk, play, ride bikes and horses. This area provides the
really important leisure area for residents to escape the built environment and must be retained. It helps families and children understand the benefits of an outdoor lifestyle and
why the environment around them must be preserved and used. We complain that children do not go out enough, please ensure you do not take away the areas families can
use and enjoy, every town needs these spaces and I would argue this is what has helped Hitchin become so attractive to families and develop it's unique character. There are
therefore very real reasons why this was designated as green belt land and that designation must remain and development not be allowed with OP1 and L3.
New development brings responsibility and the planners must ensure that brown field sites within the town or other potential opportunities such as the football ground are
developed for family housing to ensure a mass of people live in the town and do not rely on the car for every trip. High quality architecture, not poorly detailed faceless housing
is required with developers expected to build to the highest energy standards such as passivhaus to ensure future generations do not rely on expensive energy.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
I therefore urge the committee to think very carefully about any development and to ensure that they retain the green areas that make Hitchin what it is today.
I and my neighbours love Hitchin so please don't destroy it
LDF/7518
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Smead
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/7519
Document Section:
2
Pells
Support
Representation:
Together with the non-Strategic sites this development would meet the proposed housing requirement completely.
There is good access to Hitchin and also good access to the M1.
A development of this size could easily incorporate the needed bypass to the south of Hitchin. This would also provide even better access to the proposed site.
LDF/7522
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Hackney
Object
I must object, most strongly to the 'pebble dash' effect of your planning proposals , affecting Hitchin Town. Anywhere there is a patch of grass you want to build on ! There are
places like the railway cuttings where flats would fit and not be out of place but as the planners have proved with the Churchgate Project that common sense is not a commodity
they are blessed with !
You do NOT have to build house/flat after house/flat ! If you want to be a City build a Cathedral ! Run a motorway through, open the Canal up, get rid of Hitchin ! Leave things
as they are with minimal building and structured expansion where OBVIOUS !
LDF/7534
Document Section:
4
Cant
Representation:
Object
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/7535
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Bransby
Comment
LDF/7537
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Harrington-Smith
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/7544
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Briggs
Comment
This development is simply too big and would overwhelm the existing town. The new bypass while desperately needed would only come one houses were built resulting in
significant congestion.
LDF/7547
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Lombard
Object
it is a great shame that we have to actually fight to save our natural beauty history and landscape surrounding Hitchin this is something that you would think should be cherished
by all including the NHDC , over the years Hitchin has already lost some beautiful historic buildings only to be replaced with ugly characterless boxes, the beauty of Hitchin and
the surrounding villages slowly over time keep being chipped away at until all the character will be lost, thank goodness that people still have Charlton the surrounding villages
and countryside to escape to, somewhere for them to breathe, walk be part of nature, which is just as important to the welfare of the community of Hitchin as anything else.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/7549
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Carvell
Object
We have read through the proposals and associated information on your website and are writing to express concern as to the scale of the possible development.
We understand that new homes have to be provided and that Hitchin will have to take a share of the new building, but if this proposal is allowed to proceed in its present form it
will change the nature of our town irreversibly. Hitchin is a very attractive town with a special character and it owes much of this its "small market town" feel and its proximity to
open countryside, reachable in any direction by a short walk from the centre. The extra pressure on the existing infrastructure will also be detrimental to the quality of life which
is one of the most important reasons why people choose to live in Hitchin. Anyone who has to use the Priory bypass everyday to get to and from work will agree that it is barely
adequate for the exiting volume of traffic it has to carry let alone that created by another 7000 plus householders with one or two cars per household. Similarly Hitchin's
wonderful medieval street layout is totally inadequate for a population increase on this scale.
A notable feature of the proposal is the concentration of development on one side of the town. This raises the concern that it is being driven by developers who may have no
real stake in the town and its history or any consideration for the existing residents. Has NHDC not considered any other possible options such as spacing the development
around the district in a more even spread? Why not consider more expansion to the North and South East of Hitchin? These areas are just as suitable and closer to the A1 and
the station. We also note that the proposals so far include quite a small development of 1000 homes in Letchworth. This is disproportionate in view of what is proposed for
Hitchin. Surely it would be better if the houses could be spread out more across North Herts, this would have less impact on the environment and create less pressure on
existing infrastructure. Why no proposals for South of Letchworth, or Baldock? Shouldn't every settlement take a fair share?
The proposed development south of A505, covering Charlton, Priory Park and Wellhead is especially worrying. Anyone who walks regularly will know that the area round
Charlton and south towards St Ippolyts is very popular as it has many footpaths and is of huge amenity value. The area is also full of springs, which is why it is green all year
round. It is completely unsuitable for the type of high density housing the developers would have in mind.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Hitchin has suffered so many times in the past because of bad planning disasters. Don't let this be another one.
LDF/7551
Document Section:
Representation:
Agent
4
Pearce
Comment
Hitchin has been recognised by English Heritage as an important historic town (Urban Panel Review July 2012) and by the council for british archaeology as of national
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment land use consultants landscape sensitivity study (LSS 2012) makes clear the significance and sensitivity of this
attractive area of countryside as an open undulating valley with its small villages and isolated farms lying between the historic town and the chilterns AONB and Langley scarp.
The town has a very clear edge along the ridge line to west and south so that even partial development into the valley would have very significant impact (which by the nature of
the area could not be successfully mitigated by tree planting). The area also provides an extremely important setting for informal recreation for a town with limited open space
within its build up area. Part of the site area is also ccrucialin providing separation between Hitchin and Stevenage and much of it is also vital in retaining separation between
hitchin and the villages of charlton, gosmore, st ippolyts, titmore green and little wymondley.
I therefore conclude that the strategic sites to the south west of hitchin are wholly inappropriate areas to develop especially when one considers the environmental impact on
wildlife and the natural springs around the source of the river Hiz.
LDF/7551
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Pearce
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/7559
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Jackson
Comment
to 8,000.
6.The proposed development in the strategic site " south west of Hitchin", being at a distance greater than any of the existing boundary would add further traffic to already
congested Hitchin roads and parking facilities, and, based on self containment figures, particularly the road links with the railway station at Hitchin, and road connecting
Stevenage.
7. Furthermore, based on these self containment figures, the proposed site and its distance from the railway station and rail corridor to/with London may limit its attractiveness
to prospective residents anyway.
8.While the additional residents of the proposed site may be expected to benefit to local retail businesses in the Hitchin area, it could be expected that retailers such as
supermarkets will be oversubscribed as extensive queuing is already common at break times. This would result in additional development. Schools are a similar issue.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/7560
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
4
Buckingham
Object
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/7561
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Buckingham
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/7564
Document Section:
10
Seed
Support
Representation:
Of the two largest strategic sites, South West of Hitchin strikes the best balance between all the considerations. The development has the added benefit of placing the nexus of
the town (the local shops in the town centre) back at the heart of Hitchin, and since there are already two large supermarkets on the West / South West of the town centre any
new shops built as part of the development would be primarily local shops that would boost the local economy.
LDF/7574
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Johnson
Comment
The proposal for a major urban extension to Hitchin of between 6000 & 7400 dwellings and associated infrastructure is both unsustainable and unviable as a serious option to
meet NHDC housing numbers. The information set out in the options paper under sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental assessment, clearly shows that the site
has far more weakness than strengths in terms of credentials for a viable site, but i would like to reinforce the following points;
The site is situated within a major green landscape buffer between the south west approach to hitchin and adjacent villages. This buffer has safeguarded the surrounding
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
countryside from encroachment and has served to preserve the historic setting of Hitchin town.
The site is a designated greenfield site, of grade 3 agricultural merit which is currently farmed.
The combination of SSSIs, 6 wildlife sites and the site bordering the chilterns AONB should be enough to reinforce the importance of this area to remain as a greenbelt bugger
to the south west of hitchin.
The proposal for a new bypass to Hitchin Town, would result in a currently thriving town centre being effectively bypassed by traffic would have a detrimental impact on its
vitality and commercial viability. It is worth noting that despite its proximity to both luton and stevenage and the many out of town shopping locations/superstores. Hitchin
remains a successful and thriving shopping destination, and this is mainly due to the level of vehicular traffic able to access the town centre. To proposed a bypass and
consider commercial development on the edge of this town goes against both government guidance and common sense.
A development of this size would also impact on junction 7 & 8 of A1 north, which is already at maximum capacity at peak flows.
Based on the above i would request that NHDC reconsiders these sites and removes them from the strategic/non-strategic sites options.
LDF/7576
Document Section:
1
Jennings
ADOC
Representation:
Additional document attached
We fully endorse and agree with the contents of our neighbour Jean Crystal's letter together with that of the Charlton's Village. However, we wish to highlight an important
aspect that has not been mentioned. The Avanti Stud, which we run at Temple End, has enabled a breed of horses to be taken off the 'Rare Breeds Survival Trust's Register'
and is an important resource both at home and overseas. Temple End was chosen for this operation mainly for its peaceful environment and total freedom from traffic noise
and distractions. Having the by-pass so close to the Stud (200 metres approx) will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on this important enterprise and future of a rare breed.
My wife has been a member of the Irish Draught Horse Society (GB) for 20 years and was Council Member for many years. Our stallion Archie is a pure bred Registered Irish
Draught Stallion Life Approved by the society, born and bred in Chalton Village in 2001 at Mill Farm where his Dam (mother) is still living today, having been retired from
breeding. Please find included with this letter details from a very prominent horse journal showing that in 2010 Archie had more foals born than any other Irish Draught Stallion
for the last 17 years proving that the breed is slowly starting to recover. Archie is fully approved worldwide and we have exported frozed semen to many countries resulting in
pure bred foals being born in Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, USA and 2013 saw the only pure bred Irish Draught mare in South Africa give birth to an Archie Filly
(girl) foal. The Avanti Stud is run as a labour of love and any profits achieved are put back into promoting the Irish Draught rare breed of horse. The conclusion of the proposed
by-pass will without doubt bring to an end the studs activities and will be a heart braking conclusion to 20 years of dedicated hard work put in to preserving the continuance of
this rare breed of horse.
LDF/7579
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Byrne
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/7579
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
8
Byrne
Comment
Agent
Market Town historically sleepy nature- Hitchin will now soon to be a suburb of Luton! or Stevenage!
LDF/7580
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Byrne
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7581
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Pearce
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7581
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Pearce
Comment
Hitchin is a historical market town which places pride on its countryside. By all means build on brownfield sites and ensure people are housed but leave greenbelt alone. The
turfmead planning not passed officially yet but road markings are being put in place for its go ahead. Its already a for gone conclusion from a corrupt system which make a
mockery of the objection system- democracy and fairness! not it seems.
LDF/7582
Document Section:
4
Pearce
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/7583
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Lipinski
Object
Development of south west Hitchin will subsume Charlton and narrow the strategic green belt gap between Hitchin, Gosmore and St Ippolyts to an unacceptable level. It will
harm areas of high landscape value.
LDF/7586
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Harte-Andrews
Object
This proposal is not appropriate, even with an extra road. There are no other local transport links. A huge amount of greenbelt land would be sacrificed and irreversible damage
done to an area of outstanding natural beauty. Part of the suggested area falls within flood plains, surely therefore not a safe place to build given the problems year on year with
flooding and the problems with obtaining insurance. Hitchin has a wonderful, vibrant, original in these times, town centre. The build could pull shoppers away from that
destroying the heart of the community. Your report also mentions wildlife sites and sites of specific scientific interest which would be lost. I object to the development of this site.
LDF/7590
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Waterfield
Object
South West of Hitchin - High threat to historic town community and character of town that currently attracts people to live and work in it.
LDF/7593
Document Section:
Representation:
10
Carley
Comment
An additional 6-7k new homes would completely overwhelm Hitchin. No new road until developer gets the money from the houses built. Traffic in Hitchin is already particularly
congested and the town is in no way capable of supporting an additional 6000 new homes
LDF/7596
3
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Sheldon
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/7597
Document Section:
Representation:
1
McDowall
Object
I would like to state that I am wholly opposed to ANY new developments, regardless of size and scope, and do not wish to see the town of my birth ruined by this terrible plan.
LDF/7599
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Wootten
Comment
Simply too large. It would swallow up or encroach on the green belt surrounding three villages - Gosmore, Charlton and St Ippolyts and be a blight on the landscape, especially
near Oughton Head. It would start to push the boundaries of Hitchin out towards Luton which is not desirable. Hitchin is not built for the significant extra traffic which would be
generated. The traffic on the A1M down to Stevenage would be significantly worse and the effect of all the extra commuters (even an extra 1000 people) on the train towards
London would be unacceptable - the railway is almost at capacity. The settlement would require its own amenities and that could threaten the viability of Hitchin town centre. In
conclusion, there are better alternatives.
LDF/7601
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Ainsworth
Object
This is unnecessary and inappropriate. This site appeared attractive at first because of the ¡¥carrot¡¦ of a new bypass but this creates its own additional problems. In summary:
a. it is far too big and would completely overwhelm the market town feeling of Hitchin
b. it would be visually obtrusive approaching Hitchin from the west
c. it would destroy the village of Charlton and coalesce with Gosmore and St Ippolytes
d. the new road would not be built until the developers got money from the houses built
e. the planned siting of the road is well to the west and south of the proposed development and this would encourage infill to the boundary of the road
LDF/7602
4
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Patten
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
The area:
- Is established Green Belt land
- Is an important wild resource and open space for Hitchin residents and the surrounding villages in terms of walking, running, cycling and spending time outdoors
- Provides panoramic views along the valley
- Is an important buffer keeping Hitchin distinct the larger neighbour Luton
- Contains many species of plants and is home for a wide variety of wildlife
Any new building will destroy the character of the area and undermine the reason why many residents choose to live there. It will place additional strains on Hitchin for which the
town, train station and other amenities are not equipped to cope. It will fundamentally change the nature of the area and encourage established residents to move away.
The South West of Hitchin is the least suitable site for any development
LDF/7605
Document Section:
Representation:
2
White
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/7606
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Wilkins
Object
LDF/7610
Document Section:
4
Else
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Object
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/7616
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Willis
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7625
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Kiddle
Object
I am making an objection in respect of the proposed expansion and development of houses west of Hitchin and the associated proposals for the development of a by-pass to
support the same.
This is an area of exceptional natural beauty and wildlife, and an area for recreation and leisure for much of the surrounding area, all of which would be destroyed with such a
development.
The development of a by-pass would effectively be a waste of time to support a development of such a size, the town's amenities, facilities and road network could not, in my
view, support such a development.
Having just been rated in the top 10 towns to live in the UK, such a development would very quickly destroy such a reputation, much of which I believe has been founded on a
strong community, a beautiful market town, with a "village atmosphere" and would wholly ruin Gosmore, St Ippolytts and the surrounding area.
Stevenage already has the facilities and infrastructure to support further growth, and I feel this is where the focus should be placed.
LDF/7631
6
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Cooper
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
The large scale development of South West Hitchin is highly undesirable for all of the reasons you list as disadvantages. It would in my view totally destroy the nature of Hitchin.
However, that is not to say that some development in this area would necessarily be unreasonable and I suggest that 500 houses would be realistic..
I would suggest that some of the zone to the south of Hitchin (towards St Ippolyts) and that straddling the A602 might prove to be reasonable. Similarly a small development
along the A505 might also prove acceptable. However, care must be taken to plan road access in a manner that does not intrinsically cause congestion (e.g. see Buchanan
report 1964). Overall I believe it is important to keep the number of houses in this zone to a much smaller number than the 6000+ under consideration and that this might then
be accommodated without destroying the nature of the town. A level of 500 should be plausible.
LDF/7631
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Cooper
Comment
The large scale development of South West Hitchin is highly undesirable for all of the reasons you list as disadvantages. It would in my view totally destroy the nature of Hitchin.
However, that is not to say that some development in this area would necessarily be unreasonable and I suggest that 500 houses would be realistic.
I would suggest that some of the zone to the south of Hitchin (towards St Ippolyts) and that straddling the A602 might prove to be reasonable. Similarly a small development
along the A505 might also prove acceptable. However, care must be taken to plan road access in a manner that does not intrinsically cause congestion (e.g. see Buchanan
report 1964)
Overall I believe it is important to keep the number of houses in this zone to a much smaller number than the 6000+ under consideration and that this might then be
accommodated without destroying the nature of the town. A level of 500 should be plausible.
LDF/7642
Document Section:
10
Hale
Object
Representation:
This vast site of 6,000-7,000 houses would completely over whelm the characterful market town of Hitchin. It would be visually obtrusive and would destroy the village of
Charlton and coalesce the villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St Ippolyttes and completely destroy the rural aspect of the area. Current traffic problems in this area would
escalate to a catastrophic level.
LDF/7643
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Yates-Mercer
Support
The size of South West of Hitchin means that development in that area can allow for greater potential for open space and will assist in preserving many of the desirable
aspects. The bypass offered will greatly alleviate traffic volumes though central Hitchin, thereby improving the environment there and making it safer for residents. It will also
provide a better flow of traffic between the A1 and the M1.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/7660
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
10
Lubbock
Comment
Agent
Development to the South West of Hitchin whilst potentially generating 6000 - 7400 potential homes would require the installation of a bypass to the South of Hitchin, something
arguably needed today, at considerable cost. There is an opportunity to develop that part of the area just to the north of the A505 which would have less of an impact and
potentially defer any need for a bypass in the future.
LDF/7669
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Bennett
Comment
Whilst I regard the proposed urban extension of between 6,000 and 7,400 homes to the south and west of Hitchin to be vastly excessive in proportion to the size of the town
and its growth needs, I do consider that there is some scope for expansion of the town to the southwest in order to fund much needed improvements to infrastructure.
A reduced urban extension of 1,000 to 2,000 homes could support the provision of additional primary schools and possibly a new or expanded secondary school providing new
school places to meet the growing pupil levels. It could also fund/facilitate the provision of a reduced scale link road proposal between the A505 Offley Road and the A602 at
Park Way. This would relieve the significant traffic pressures on central Hitchin at Paynes Park roundabout caused by traffic travelling from the A1(M) to Luton airport. This
traffic is only going to increase with any expansion of Luton Airport and forward planning needs to be put into place to deal with this increase. The existing road system in
central Hitchin cannot accommodate this increase in traffic and the pattern of existing development within Hitchin does not allow for any significant modification/enlargement of
existing arrangements. The best medium to long term approach is to remove the traffic from central Hitchin altogether though a new link road/bypass.
I recognize that in this economic climate such infrastructure will not happen without development to fund it.
The role of the planning system is to plan monitor and manage development. Monitoring of the traffic situation in central Hitchin has demonstrated a clear need to take action
to control traffic travelling through the town between the A1(M) and Luton, and to manage predicted traffic growth. Monitoring is also showing a need to provide a level of new
homes within the District. This necessary development should be accommodated throughout the District in a planned manner in order to achieve positive planning benefits in
the long term and minimize adverse impacts. It is the role of forward planning to anticipate need and to plan for it. Housing need should not be the sole focus in this approach.
I trust my representation will be given due consideration.
Regards
Duncan Bennett
LDF/7670
Document Section:
Representation:
11
Ainsworth
Object
This is unnecessary and inappropriate. This site appeared attractive at first because of the carrot of a new bypass but this creates its own additional problems. In summary:
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
the new road would not be built until the developers got money from the houses built
the planned siting of the road is well to the west and south of the proposed development and this would encourage infill to the boundary of the road
LDF/7676
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Reynolds
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7677
Document Section:
6
Ellis
Object
Representation:
Development south west hitchin will subsume charlton and narrow the strategic green belt hap between hitchin, gosmore, and st ippolyts to an unacceptable level. It will harm
area of high landscape value. The scale of development proposed is disproportionate to the size of Hitchin.
Development north east stevenage is poorly related to meet north herts needs, is of ecological, archaeological importance, and is of high landscape value. Access to the site is
wholly inadequate and any new link road would have many other negative impacts.
LDF/7678
Document Section:
6
Ellis
Comment
Representation:
LDF/7679
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Logan
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/7681
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Edwards
Comment
If there was development south west of hitchin then it would subsume charlton and narrow the greenbelt gap between hitchin, gosmore and st ippolyts to a undesirable level
and it will harm area of high landscape value.
LDF/7682
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Willmott
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7683
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Lewitt
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7684
4
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Brown
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
6. We are both definitely opposed to development around the south west of Hitchin as Green Belt land is precious.
7.As we have stated before the Nature Reserves are precious to people as it gives an insight to what goes on around and where would we be without walking and seeing
nature. Big developments would destroy all this.
LDF/7687
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Cooke
Comment
to 8,000.
6. We should not be building on Greenbelt land.
LDF/7689
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Borner
Object
LDF/7690
Document Section:
4
Gulliver
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/7691
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Maddison
Comment
to 8,000.
6. Current rail facilities are hitchin station and A1(M) road width to the south make this devleopment unrealisable in my view.
LDF/7692
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Maddison
Comment
to 8,000.
6. The development would impact severely on land used by walkers. This land provides an important leisure facility and adds to the attractiveness of Hitchins amenities,
probably contributing to making Hitchin 9th in the list of best towns to live in.
LDF/7693
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Djuric
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
To develop south west of hitchin would engulf, Charlton and make a narrow green belt if any between Gosmore, St Ippolyts which is not acceptable and will diminish areas of
characterised landscape values.
LDF/7696
Document Section:
Representation:
4
McCann
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7696
Document Section:
Representation:
8
McCann
Comment
The blue area between B656 codicote road and A602 stevenage road contains the paddock wood, which is a local nature site. A large part of the wood is owned and
maintained by 4 households of the paddock. This area is in a zone 3 floodplain and as such will increase the probability of flooding should a new development be carried out
here.
LDF/7697
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Arend
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7697
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Arend
Comment
Whilst i accept that there is real need for affordable housing in the UK, the extent of proposed expansion seems excessively disproportionate to the size of Hitchin.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
The impact on the town centre, access to and around the town would be adversely impacted.
I fail to understand the rationale for the extent of the expansion.
My overall feeling is an expansion of the proposed size would be detrimental, not a benefit to the town and to the community.
I therefore do not support the expansion plans as presented.
LDF/7705
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Buckley
Comment
South west of hitchin is the one which would affect me. St ippolyts is a small and beautiful village and the plan to engulf it in 8000 homes would just link it to the town and all
semblance of village life would be gone, the same for charlton and offley.
We do need affordable housing for our young people but as the village is not adequately serviced by public transport then surely brownfield sites within the towns would be
better allowing young people to have access to all amenities.
Green belt- AONB surely should not be compromised.
LDF/7722
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Sutcliffe
Comment
SW Hitchin - popular amenity use of land shame to swallow up Charlton and build so close to the common. Not enough road or rail o support so many extra people, though this
also applies to other sites.
LDF/7728
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Morrison
Comment
Building significant housing to the south and west of Hitchin would place severe congestion on the roads through Hitchin towards Bedford and Letchworth. Congestion already
occurs on the A602 on Park Way; by the Hitchin railway station at the junction between B656 and A505; at the junction of Woolgrove Road and Cambridge Road. A relief road
to the South of Hitchin would not help this ccongestion. There would be demand for a relief road to the North West of Hitchin.
LDF/7728
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Morrison
Comment
The Priory Park area is of significant historic and natural interest. There are few country areas with the beauty and facility for interaction between town and country. There are
habitats for rare birds such as Nightingales and Greater spotted woodpeckers. The country footpaths are well used providing a portal between town and country.
The book by Bridget Howlett on Priory Park should be read by everyone with any influence on the developments highlighted in this consultation. The boo identifies the historic
and natural points of major interest worth protecting.
LDF/7731
4
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ogunleye
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Object
Agent
I don't believe that South West of Hitchin is a viable option. It is proposed that the town is extended by 50% again. It will destroy the Hitchin market town as we know it. It will
also put a tremendous strain on an already stretched infrastructure such as schools, doctors and services eg Fire and hospital. It is also proposed that houses are built on
precious greenbelt land which will have an impact on the environment. Once the green belt has gone it can never be replaced. The plans should therefore be rigorously
reconsidered.
LDF/7744
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Southwood
Comment
South West of Hitchin and many other strategic sites are very important breeding sites for many farmland birds whose numbers have declined dramatically in the last few
decades. Many farmlands birds are ground nesting relying on the protection of crops for the ability to raise young. Softening housing developments with tree planting would
have no benefit for ground nesting birds. These developments will greatly reduce the biodiversity of North Hertfordshire.
LDF/7752
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Waters
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7753
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Kostrzewski
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/7754
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
4
Kostrzewska
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/7755
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Robert & Else
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7756
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Bickerton
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7757
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Price
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/7758
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Mansfield
Object
LDF/7759
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Emanuel
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/7760
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Pitcairn
Support
I am in favour of development West of Hitchin on following grounds:
1. That development be scaled back to be proportionate ie 2,400 dwellings
2. That land on the crest of the hill be kept as open space to maintain quality of life for existing residents.
3. That local valuable assets ie Wobbly Bottom Farm be protected and maintained.
4. That Hitchin Hill be maintained as open space.
LDF/7765
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Newton
Object
1) I reject totally any plan to build on Green Belt land and expect the council to react to such proposals with integrity and honesty and reject them.
2) The proposal to build 6000/7000 homes south and west of Hitchin is a monstrous plan. The land covers areas of beauty, rich in natural history and indeed historical interest.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
To allow this landscape to disappear under a massive building programme would be a desecration and a disaster; an irreversible process, changing the face of Hitchin and its
surrounding countryside.
3) I am in agreement with the Hitchin Forum's response to the Housing Options Consultation and see little point in repeating the content of its document here. Hitchin is a much
loved market town and its councillors ought to be diligent in working to save it.
LDF/7773
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Stevens
Object
In terms of the projected target dwelling number, we are all aware that within Hitchin there has been significant in-building over the past number of years. To propose to build
the highest projected number of houses to the South West of Hitchin seems significantly unbalanced and unfair and appears to based on the need of 'New Roads
Developments'. It would affect the character of the town adversely. A character which only recently resulted in Hitchin being described as one of England's top 100 towns
(Times newspaper) to live. We should be proud of this accolade therefore look to provide development within North Herts which does not destroy the distinct diverse community
character that is reflective of Hitchin as a market town.
· Building on an area which would increase the urbanisation of Hitchin by 50% will have a significant negative impact on the character of the town and will destroy much of the
surrounding countryside, which is a reason that many people enjoy living in Hitchin.
· Building such a development would increase the need for infrastructure which would also have further negative consequences for the countryside. We are all aware that
simply building roads does not solve the traffic problem but merely moves it on. We are all aware that there is a 'sweetener' to build a bypass from the A505 to the A602, but
this again will cut across beautiful countryside and will merely move the' bottle neck' on; and does not answer the issue that such an increase in development will have on the
town's internal traffic.
· The further suggestion also that the proposed developments are 'environmentally sensitive' is to defy belief. All the area around the southwest of Hitchin consists of beautiful
countryside. Most of which is farmed. The areas cover Charlton which is in an established conservation area. The areas particularly around Gosmore and Charlton have been
identified in the 'North Herts Strategic Green plan' as areas that should be preserved. In particular, the 'Green Infrastructure Plan' rightly highlights the incredible views from
'Brick Kiln Lane' looking towards south to west, and states that these should be preserved.
· Whilst we live overlooking these amazing views, and feel immensely privileged to do so, we are able to observe the significant number of people, at all times of day and in all
weathers, using the local paths and enjoying the countryside which is accessible through the close network of paths that is indicative of an old market town. This includes
walkers, cyclists, runners and horseriders. These paths also form part of the Hitchin Hoop path and the Inca Way and are clearly advertised on North Herts website as a way to
explore the 'beautiful countryside'. The area also covers a marked cycle route designed to allow cyclists to explore Hitchin and the surrounding villages. To allow building next to
these paths would completely spoil the feeling of being in the countryside.
· The tarmac of Brick Kiln Lane means this path is particularly popular with families and people with pushchairs. It is even wheelchair friendly; which allows a wider group of
people access to the countryside at all times of the year.
· I note that a section of land along Brick Kiln Lane is categorised in the 'Land South West of Hitchin, Landscape sensitivity Study' as a 'least sensitive area'. Again I am aghast
that this should be described as such, especially as it impacts on two very popular footpaths and again would impact on the amazing views from these footpaths. Allowing
development on these areas would also be the 'thin edge of the wedge'; where the principle that development is allowed in this area is accepted.
· The area South West of Hitchin has a significant level of nature which needs to be preserved for the enjoyment of just not the local residents but all those that enjoy the
surrounding countryside. These include: redkite, kestrel, green woodpecker, lesser spotted woodpecker, heron, badgers bats and owls.
· The hamlet of Charlton, with the Windmill Pub and the source of the river Hiz is already an area that is designated as a conversation area and is a significant oasis; rare in an
area which is so close to a town centre. All this area would be significantly altered if the proposals by the 'New Road Developments' and the associated landowners were
allowed to go ahead.
Hence the South West of Hitchin should not be designated as a strategic site:
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/7778
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
4
Chamberlain
Object
Agent
I do not believe the building of over 5,000 dwellings in any site is acceptable. The South West of Hitchin site would be out of keeping with the town. A far more appropriate
development would be by development of smaller satellite villages within this area. 2 or 3 with maximum numbers of properties being in the region of 300 to 400. This would
be more in keeping with Hitchins historical market town history and its relationship to its surrounding villages.
LDF/7779
Document Section:
4
Earl
Object
Representation:
to 8,000.
LDF/7780
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Young
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/7781
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Harris
Object
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/7782
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Williams
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/7783
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Farley
Object
to 8,000.
6. Hitchin is taking more than its fair share of the demand. All the infrastructure, schools, parking would be overloaded.
LDF/7784
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Farley
Object
to 8,000.
6. Hitchin is taking more than its fair share of extra housing - all the infrastructure of the town would be overloaded.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/7789
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
1
Massie
Object
We conclude from the documents available that the offer of a bypass suggests an all or nothing approach to the size of development suggested. This development would wrap
around half the circumference of our precious ancient market town causing a complete traffic standstill and depriving the existing inhabitants of the facility of valuable
accessible countryside. As we live on the urban rural boundary we witness the number of townsfolk of all ages who appreciate and use the side range of bridlepaths and
footpaths. It is within access of so many people to set out and enjoy the stunning countryside without jumping in the car. There are many interesting sights and buildings which
have stood undisturbed and appreciated for hundred of years. Hitchin has always been a good commuting town. Now so few who work in London can afford to live any nearer
their work and they have chosen to settle and bring up their families in a place which is not a rambling suburb. The bypass would only relieve a proportion of traffic passing
through Hitchin, the number of vehicles generated by that size of development would bring the whole area to a complete standstill. We understand that Green Belt may only be
breached in special circumstances. The council has the unenviable task of supplying government with sites to build enough new homes. We query how these projected
numbers are arrived at and is the quality of life of existing inhabitants to be completely sacrificed for profit of developers and conveniently complying with questionable
government targets. We support small scale developments which supply homes to those in need, areas which are sustainable and can be absorbed around our town. At the
risk of being labelled N.I.M.B.Y. We would cope with a certain amount of development ruining our view but don't wrap it around half of Hitchin, throttle our town and make it
somewhere where nobody wants to live.
SUMMARY:Objecting to the size of proposed development in relation to the existing size of Hitchin.
Objecting to the breach of Green Belt and the impact of loss of countryside and views.
Objecting on the grounds of the impact of extra traffic.
Objecting to addition of a bypass to set off the housing which will only divert a proportion of traffic travelling from A1-Luton.
We support small scale development.
LDF/7793
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Prutton
Object
LDF/7800
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Hyde
Object
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/7846
Document Section:
1
More
Object
Representation:
The playing fields off Swinburne Ave that NHDC has put up for development is totally unacceptable. The land currently has two football pitches and changing rooms. This is the
only open space for Westmill , which is one of the most deprived areas in Hertfordshire.
The building of houses around the boundaries of Oughtonhead nature reserve should not be done as it will have an impact on it.
LDF/7872
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Lewis
Object
to 8,000.
LDF/7879
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Cairncross
Comment
This is predominantly rural with lovely villages such as Charlton, which would be totally swallowed up if developed. There is also a large network of public footpaths in this area.
All other priorities 2 through 6 were graded as we saw fit.
LDF/7882
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Covell
Comment
In reference to the south west of hitchin proposal i would like to make the following comments:
The size of the development would completely change the character of hitchin and is far too big in relation to the current size of hitchin.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Hitchin does not have the schools, GPs surgeries etc to sustain this level of development.
The road system in hitchin would not cope with the number of cars generated by this many households.
The residents of housing built would not be able to get into town to the train station or to the A1- which can not cope with the number of cars now.
LDF/7905
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Elliott
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7906
Document Section:
4
Wills
Comment
Representation:
to 8,000.
I am very concerned at traffic impact- this proposed area isn't in easy walking distance of the station, so current serious traffic overload will worsen. Much improved bus and
bike provision is required to make this workable, and covenants restricting car ownership in the area. I am also concerned that the overloading on the train network will worsen.
LDF/7907
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Mules
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/7908
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
4
Mules
Comment
LDF/7911
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Chilvers
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/7916
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Briggs
Object
Far too big. Would overwhelm the town and place a completely unbearable burden on the existing (overcrowded) road system.
LDF/7918
Document Section:
Representation:
15
Davies
Comment
LDF/7920
Document Section:
3
Pheasant
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
The site to the SW of Hitchin is hilly and has some low-lying land which is prone to flooding. This site should be re-evaluated and should probably stand about 4000 houses.
The river Mimram is already endangered for water supplying and a committee should be appointed specifically to look at the infrastructure of ALL of these sites, with a special
view to schools.
LDF/7921
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Barnard
Comment
Great Ashby and around can cater for growth. Hitchin cant!
LDF/7924
Document Section:
Representation:
1
McDowall
Object
The proposed development of green belt land around Hitchin must not be allowed to go forward.
NHDC should keep land owners and developers out of proposals for any site selections, they should only be approached when sites have been chosen. Common sense must
dictate the size of any development and the type of land to be used for that development. Hitchin is a historic market town and must remain so. Any development must be
sustained by existing services and the number of houses build should fit that criteria.
The adage, " less is more" should apply here. Assuredly more will be less for the people of Hitchin.
LDF/7928
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Hussey
Comment
Green Belt land around Hitchin - That is what is was set up to provide green lungs for everyone, and barriers between towns, and land to grow food, protected from developers.
How are we to feed ourselves, when they have cemented over the whole of the South East.
LDF/7929
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Broughton
Object
I object to the inclusion of SW Hitchin as a strategic site and believe this option should be rejected. Any development in this area could only be seriously detrimental to the
Chilterns AONB and would destroy greenbelt land which has so far protected Hitchin from insensitive development. Additionally the extra traffic associated with this level of
development would be completely unmanageable. The roads coming into Hitchin from this direction are already heavily congested and the existing access points are already
dangerous and the site of regular accidents. The proposed new by pass would do nothing to allieviate this and would only add to the current congestion.
The proposed new shops and services would compete with the town centre which is already suffering from decline. Local countryside crossed by footpaths and sweeping
panoramic views would be destroyed and would seriously reduce the attractiveness of this historic market town.
There is little opportunity for jobs to go with this proposed level of population growth so anyone living in the new development would need to travel to work. Local public travel
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
options are already under pressure and could not cope with this level of increase.
LDF/7930
Document Section:
Representation:
Agent
9
Ward
Object
South West of Hitchin - this plan appears to be extremely large in comparison to the existing size of the town, and also starts to join Hitchin to Little Wymondley, with the frankly
humungous development at Ashbrook. Again, those of us who choose to live in Little Wymondley do so as WE CHOSE VILLAGE LIFE, not town living, for that reason, I object
to the large scale development proposed on this site.
LDF/7938
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Tizard
Object
I live in Hitchin and have done so now for many years, I fully understand that new houses are required for both first time buyers and also for growing families. The government
believe that this approach will help us get out of the current recession we are still in.
I agree with this strategy, as it will bring jobs and money to our town and surrounding areas.
My concern is there does not seem to be the infrastructure for size of development to take place. I live in Kipling Close and work in London, as such I walk to the train station
every day, the walk takes circa 20mins which is fine as I am fit and healthy male, who is interested in fitness and I include the walk as a part of my exercise routine. But many
people are unable or unwilling to commit to walking this distance before & after work every day (this could be due to illness, disability, feeling vulnerable during the winter
months etc).
Where the new large development is being proposed is over two miles away from the train station, as such I believe people would need to drive to the station, but at £31 per
week to park in the station car park many people do not have the funds for this to possible.
This situation causes well know parking troubles in and around Hitchin station, with many people parking around the residential closes and or on St Michael's road.
St Michael's road is soon to have parking restrictions, which will force these drivers to park around the surrounding closes. This situation will only be exacerbated when over
6000 new homes are added to Hitchin.
If people could afford to pay for the parking then they would find that there is not enough space for their car within the current station car park.
You may say that a percentage of people would take the bus to or from the bus station, the last bus which leaves Hitchin Train station and heads toward Stevenage stops
before 7pm, which is not late enough for many people who work in London. Unless the busses run later into the night I cannot see how this will support the growth of the local
people, let alone the new number of people from the new development.
The current train service runs from Hitchin to London and works well in regard to amount of trains and time taken, but at present there is not one spare seat on any train from
7am till gone 9am, the trains are running at 120% capacity and I fear this will get become a serious issue with the sheer amount of people that will be brought to the areas from
the new development. As the train network will not be directly linked to the overall development, as such it is not clear how NHC will make the Network Rail provide a greater for
this area.
The final option would be that people drive from Hitchin to their place of work. This situation would rely on improved roads including that of the A1.
As Hitchin is a historic market town, is was not designed around cars and adding another 7000 houses and a potential 14,000 cars would cause many parking and traffic
concerns.
As it is not possible to expand the A1 the congestion that currently takes place from the 'clock hotel roundabout' all the way to junction 7 is going to become a critical bottle neck
that will hinder all transport up and down the A1.
Planning of this development is going to be critical as at present the government are stretched to provide all the service requirements such as Policing, Fire, primary and
secondary schools.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
I cannot see how these are going to be paid for, as the developer will not have the funds to supply all of these different vital services nor will the government.
NHDC need to think of the bigger picture and see how the impact of adding a development the size of Royston on the side of Hitchin will cause a 'New town' that could affect
this historic town for years to come.
LDF/7939
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Buckland
Object
1. It is far too big and would destroy Hitchin as a lovely and highly regarded market town.
Hitchin was recently voted in 9th place in the 'Best Places to Live in Britain' in 'The Times' survey.
2. To add another 6,000-7,400 dwellings would almost double the size of the place. The infrastructure would not cope. The road system in particular could not stand it and the
other services would be put under significant strain. Water in particular would be a problem.3. To place such a vast proportion (almost 70% if you use the 7,400 figure) of
NHDCs proposed growth of 10,700 dwellings in just one place is clearly disproportionate and totally unbalanced.4. It is in Green Belt and should therefore be opposed. It
would effectively destroy the villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St. Ippolyts and the history there. The historic buildings in these villages would be at risk and no longer in the
village settings
5. There are numerous rights of way and footpaths which would be destroyed. These are very actively used by walkers, riders and joggers and their eradication would be
injurious to the long term health of many people. The ancient 'Hica Way', would be destroyed or so altered as to ruin it's charecter entirely.
6. This proposal would fly in the face of the council's own Green Infrastructure Plan of August 2009. Many of the proposals contained within that Plan including Key Views to
Conserve, Green Gateways, and Level 2 Green and Blue Links are compromised by this proposal.
7. This proposal includes the flood plains of the River Hiz and Ippolyts Brook.
8. There is a site of Special Scientific Intersest within Oughtonhead Lane.
9. There are 6 wildlife sites and the area borders the Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
10. There are 4 known archaeological sites within the proposed area.
11. This is largely agricultural land and as such should not be developed. There is little enough farmland in this country and if we are to focus more on local produce we should
not allow farmland to disappear for deveopment.
Overall these arguments clearly show that this development is in an inappropriate location, and would destroy a wonderful town. It cannot be the desire of NHDC to do that I
would hope.
The other smaller developments proposed would be more than enougnh to satisfy the new development targets of the council.
LDF/7954
Document Section:
1
Dear
Representation:
Object
I filled in a questionnaire last Saturday very hastily I might have and filled in one section wrongly on
The Grid, I miss read and Iticked my Preference for Hitchin to be developed, No way was this intention. So I have written this letter to put my point of view across.
As I live on the outskirts of the westmill estate, I feel I shall be enveloped by a great Tsunami of homes and traffic, living as I do in Moss Way it is bad enough now being on the
rat run from Bedford Road down to the Red hill Road roundabout, The speed limit Just does not apply Having Oughton Head Lane designated an out road can you imagine
what it is going to be like, especially early in the morning from 7.30 to 9.30am as well as in the evening from 4.30-6.30pm, it's bad enough now with all the traffic merging from
Bedford Road Letchworth Stevenage and Luton, Hitchin is a bottle neck.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Another point is how you'regoing to cope with all the amenities that is needed, as were struggling with no school places, Doctors, Dentist, shops are closing all the time because
the rent and rates are so high due to fat cat landlords.
Another strong point of mine is that the whole area round Hitchin which is supposed to be Green belt is to be destroyed which consists of good arable land.
A nature reserve will be engulfed by pollution (light fumes and noise) which nobody wants round them.
The Community use the fields for parties, rounders, football leagues, picnics and kites. Families with no Gardens come and fun with the Ougthon fields and commons.
People come from miles around to walk round the public footpaths and enjoy the country side all around Hitchin and the Great Historic Town.
This will be no MORE!!
LDF/7954
Document Section:
5
Dear
Comment
Representation:
to 8,000.
LDF/7954
Document Section:
9
Dear
Comment
Representation:
Theres not enough doctors surgeries schools plus highway to support any more housing as well as destroying our countryside.
LDF/7956
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Dewhurst
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
* Charlton is a conservation area.
* Don't carve up this beautiful landscape
LDF/7957
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Townsend
Object
Whilst I acknowledge that new/additional housing is badly needed, I feel that a development of the size proposed would be disproportionate in scale to the size of Hitchin.
In addition, this is an area of recreational importance - many people ramble in the area, as evidenced by the large number of Healthy walks etc which include the footpaths on
their route. They also jog, walk dogs, and ride horses in the area.
I note on the North Herts Green Infrastructure Plan (Fig 6.1) that the views across at least part of this area are considered to be key views to conserve.
LDF/7958
1
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Thorning
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
Whilst I acknowledge that new/additional housing is badly needed, I feel that a development of the size proposed would be disproportionate in scale to the size of Hitchin.
In addition, this is an area of recreational importance - many people ramble in the area, as evidenced by the large number of Healthy walks etc which include the footpaths on
their route. They also jog, walk dogs, and ride horses in the area.
I note on the North Herts Green Infrastructure Plan (Fig 6.1) that the views across at least part of this area are considered to be key views to conserve.
LDF/7959
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Siddle
Comment
I would like to register my concern about the plans to add substantial amounts of housing in Hitchin. I recently moved from Winchester to London, and I'm considering a move
out to Hitchin because it has real character and reminded me of Winchester. It is very easy to believe that flooding the market with lots of housing will help the town by
encouraging investment, but I personally believe the result will be that Hitchin will lose it's charm, and become just another souless suburb of London, like Reading or
Slough.Please reconsider the plans to add more housing, as Hitchin has real character and life, and it would be terrible if that were lost.
LDF/7964
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Kilham
Comment
LDF/7977
Document Section:
1
Ide
Object
Representation:
I wish to register strong objection to the local plan showing gross over-development in Hitchin that will see this market town almost double in population, overstretch the already
creaking infrastructure, destroy the Town's character and threaten valuable green belt and recreational land around the boundaries.
LDF/7980
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Baxter
Object
other services would be put under significant strain. Water in particular would be a problem.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
3. To place such a vast proportion (almost 70% if you use the 7,400 figure) of NHDCs proposed growth of 10,700 dwellings in just one place is clearly disproportionate and
totally unbalanced.
4. It is in Green Belt and should therefore be opposed. It would effectively destroy the villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St. Ippolyts and the history there. The historic buildings
in these villages would be at risk and no longer in the village settings 5. There are numerous rights of way and footpaths which would be destroyed. These are very actively
used by walkers, riders and joggers and their eradication would be injurious to the long term health of many people. The ancient 'Hica Way', would be destroyed or so altered
as to ruin it's charecter entirely.
would hope.
LDF/7981
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Marlow
Comment
To us, this development is far too big and would destroy the lovely market town of Hitchin. Several villages would be swallowed up and a large area of countryside used. The
pressure it would bring on transport, schools, infrastructure and quality of living would be too high and could destroy Hitchin's reputation and appeal.
LDF/7996
Document Section:
1
Levy
Representation:
Object
I am 73 years of age, Hitchin born and have lived in the town my whole life. I have just managed to get to see the plans for the housing options for Hitchin and am horrified at
the scale of the development proposed for the south west of the Town. If it goes ahead this will destroy large areas of picturesque countryside which provides a habitat for
diverse birds, wildlife and flora. Once lost these can never be recovered, thus depriving future generations of the opportunity to enjoy our native countryside. Particularly
adjacent to Oughton Head Common the area is traversed by a number of public bridleways and used extensively by walkers, not only from Hitchin but surrounding areas,
including many organised walking groups, i.e. Hitchin Health Walks. Where will it be possible for local people to enjoy healthy walks in the open country?
Another concern is the impact of such a development on traffic, not only on major routes such as the Luton, Pirton and Bedford Roads but also residential streets to the south
west of town, i.e. Grays Lane, West Hill, Redhill Road, Swinburne Avenue and Burford Way. During rush hours the major roads are frequently congested and the impact of the
proposed 7,000-odd houses, many of which will undoubtedly be 2-car households, will only exacerbate the situation. I would also question whether the infrastructure is in place
to support such a large development. Schools in the area are currently full to capacity - will new schools be built? If playing fields and sports fields are to be lost, where will
recreational facilities be provided for the younger people.
Hitchin has always been regarded as a market town surrounded by rural countryside. Looking at the plan this development will increase the town by about 50% - are we
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
destined to become another Stevenage? This is not why people chose to live in and move to the town. There are many brownfield sites in and around the town which could be
developed, without building to this extent on the Green Belt. Several much smaller developments, spread around the town would surely be preferable to the destruction of such
a large area of open countryside.
On a general note, I would also question whether Hitchin needs the amount of housing proposed. Employment is not rising in the town, resulting in an influx of people wishing to
live here - indeed many current residents are unable to get jobs. I feel, therefore, that there are other areas in North Herts. more suitable for development, i.e. around
Stevenage or to the east of Luton, both much larger towns than Hitchin.
On the above grounds, I am totally opposed to the scale of the proposed S.W. Hitchin development.
LDF/8008
Document Section:
Representation:
9
Scales
Comment
LDF/8014
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Daniel
Object
Development of Hitchin to the extent suggested would totally destroy the character of the town, as would the level of development proposed for many of the village sites. There
appears to be an overemphasis on land being developed along the A1 corridor, thereby overly concentrating levels of traffic and pollution in already congested areas. While
this may benefit landowners and housing developers, little regard is being given to the quality of life of existing homeowners who paid a premium on their properties to be able
to live in a rural/semi-rural environment.
I wish to state that the questionnaire and the associated information assumes a much higher knowledge of both national and local housing policy than might be expected of the
average householder. It is one thing to be asked to comment on potential development in one's immediate surrounding area, however it is highly unlikely that most people will
have sufficient in depth knowledge of the existing infrastructure of other sites to be able to comment appropriately. As a result, the process will inevitably deter a significant
number of householders from participating, and their views regarding potential development in their own areas will not be voiced.
LDF/8015
Document Section:
Representation:
2
Walker
Object
The area to the south-west of Hitchin is the least suitable for development; the current infrastructure does not support this level of developmet.
LDF/8016
Document Section:
Representation:
13
Ludbrook
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
South of Hitchin (6000-7000) : a) it is far too big and would completely overwhelm the market town feeling of Hitchin, (b)it would be visually obtrusive approaching Hitchin from
the west, (c) it would destroy the village of Charlton and coalesce with Gosmore and St Ippolytts, (d)the new road would not be built until the developers got money from the
houses built ,(e)the planned siting of the road is well to the west and South of the proposed development and this would encourage infill to the boundary of the road, (f)the new
bypass is needed but this should be provided as an essential support for the total North Herts infrastructure and the expansion of Luton.
LDF/8021
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Porter
Object
LDF/8024
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Geary
Object
other services would be put under significant strain. Water in particular would be a problem.3. To place such a vast proportion (almost 70% if you use the 7,400 figure) of
NHDCs proposed growth of 10,700 dwellings in just one place is clearly disproportionate and totally unbalanced.4. It is in Green Belt and should therefore be opposed. It
would effectively destroy the villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St. Ippolyts and the history there. The historic buildings in these villages would be at risk and no longer in the
village settings
would hope.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/8026
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
3
Evans
Object
LDF/8032
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Burgess
Object
I would like to take this opportunity to register my objection to the proposed expansion plans for North Hertfordshire with particular reference to Hitchin. I am concerned not only
that this beautiful market town and surrounding area will loose its identity but we cannot substain the expansion with our current infrastructure. Already chools are
oversubscribed and roads are gridlocked. Also surely there are enough brown area sites and empty buildings that could be utilised before we use up our green belt and become
one big urban sprawl.
I have been for fortunate to have lived in Hitchin for over 35 years and I would like to think that my grandchildren will be able to enjoy the town and the surrounding countryside
for years to come.
LDF/8036
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Sander & Rogerson
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
* Charlton is a conservation area.
* Don't carve up this beautiful landscape
LDF/8045
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Press
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8046
Document Section:
4
Machen
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
6. Population increase of 20000 approx. Infrastructure of town/roads cannot cope with population
LDF/8047
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Neave
Comment
South west Hitchin will subsume charlton, and the strategic greenbelt hap between hitchin, gosmore and st ippolyts to an unacceptable level.
LDF/8050
Document Section:
4
Hart
Comment
Representation:
to 8,000.
LDF/8051
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Gentle
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/8053
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
4
Eayrs
Comment
Agent
It seems quite staggering that this site is even being considered as part of the SHMA. The "strengths" listed in the "summary of findings" for the site are all purely based on the
fact that this is a large site and they could all apply equally to any large area of green belt land randomly selected by a developer for their next project. The "weaknesses"
however are all very real and relate specifically to the area of land in question.
The proposed development would increase the number of dwellings in Hitchin by up to 8000, equating to an expansion of approximately 50%. This would clearly have a huge
impact on the nature of what is currently a historic market town. The edge of the town is currently well defined by a greenbelt boundary, with beautiful views and well separated
local villages. The proposed development would expand Hitchin towards Luton, engulfing the villages of Gosmore, St Ippolyts and Charlton in the process, with devastating
effects on the areas character. The proposed development would also encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chilterns Area of outstanding natural beauty with
adverse effects on both.
Furthermore, the site contains a number of wildlife sites, a site of specific scientific interest ( which should give legal protection for wildlife and geology in England under the
Wildlife and Countryside act 1981), sites designated Archeological areas and also has the potential to impact on adjacent conservation areas. The landscape (particularly to the
north of the A505) is also assessed as highly sensitive to development. Even if development on greenbelt land is to be deemed permissible by NHDC (which is a worrying
development in planning) the very specific issues with development on this site should surely rule it out of consideration. In addition to this Hitchin is already grid locked by traffic
at rush hour, particularly along the A505 from Luton into the town and around the Three Moorhens roundabout. A development of this size would put even greater strain on the
road infrastructure which a bypass would be unlikely to full relieve. In the interim, the additional construction traffic would essentially bring the west side of the town to a
standstill which could further endanger the commercial viability of the town centre.
LDF/8054
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Wright
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8055
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Baker
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8060
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Beach
Object
Hitchin is a desirable location to live, recently identified by the Times newspaper as the ninth best town to live in the UK. There is no denying the need for additional housing to
accommodate people who wish to move into the town. However, the proposed South West of Hitchin strategic area is unsustainably large for the town. Core to the appeal of
Hitchin is its historic character and the surrounding open countryside both of which this strategic area would destroy.
Hitchin has a population of around 30,000 people. If all the proposed new homes were to be built (including adjoining non-strategic sites), and assuming an occupancy rate of 2
persons per home the population would increase by 16000 people. This is an unacceptable increase. We do not believe that the infrastructure (Traffic, public transport, schools,
health services, sewage works, emergency services, childrens centres, leisure facilities etc) would be able to meet this increase, even with the improvements mentioned in the
summary document. It should be noted that the Ashbrook sewage works are currently running almost at capacity as identified in the consultation documentation and this facility
would be impacted severely by the Hitchin proposal.
Hitchin town centre is already reaching its capacity in terms of the volume of traffic. To create this number of new homes would increase traffic and parking problems to such an
extent that visiting the town centre would become incredibly unappealing. The proposed by-pass would alleviate the through traffic by creating an alternative bottle neck further
along the Stevenage Road. It would do nothing to relieve the traffic in Hitchin town centre or the traffic travelling towards Letchworth through the town. Additionally new home
owners would drive into Hitchin town centre increasing the traffic there, which the proposed by-pass does nothing to ease. The real traffic problem in Hitchin is not the
Stevenage-Luton traffic but the volume of traffic in the town centre, at the station and in the one way system. The proposed bypass is ill conceived in that there is an assumption
of either land owner agreement to sell land or compulsory purchase of land. A bypass would require extensive research and consultation to ensure it would improve traffic
issues rather than creating yet another problem area. We view the bypass as a separate issue that should be reviewed by the council and highways agency and not as a benefit
of allowing such an extensive and disproportionate development.
Hitchin schools are already operating at capacity. The strategic area would include plans to build new primary and secondary schools but we do not believe one secondary
school would be enough to relieve demand. Many people moving to Hitchin are families, or couples wanting to start a family. Existing transport (bus) links from the site area are
not good enough to support this development, or indeed the west of Stevenage site. A new bus route linking both sites to Hitchin (preferably the station to ease commuting)
would be essential for sustainability.
The North Herts Housing Strategy 2008-2013 identified the following themes as a high priority:
·
sustainable development challenging development within our green belt and ensuring that
·
Green issues to include development of our climate change strategy, retention and
any development which does take place is sustainable in the long
term
enhancement of green spaces
Additionally the strategy states that the councils vision for housing is supported by six priorities for action including to protect the natural and physical environment. The strategy
states that the planning authority is expected to encourage and promote the use of Brownfield land for development.
The site is located in the green belt. This was put in place to restrict the growth of Hitchin and preserve the rural character of villages such as Charlton, Gosmore, and St
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Ippolyts. We believe that a development of this size, on green belt land, is completely inappropriate. It is not sustainable in the long term in that the site will detract from Hitchins
desirability as a place to live. It will not enhance the green space around Hitchin in any way and does not protect the natural environment. The site contains wildlife sites, a site
of special scientific significance, and archaeological areas, all of which should be respected and preserved. The development would destroy the agricultural and rural setting of
this area as well as having an unacceptable ecological and historical impact.
LDF/8061
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Baker
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8065
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Corner
Comment
to 8,000.
I feel very strongly that expanding Hitchin to this extent would have a huge impact on its status as a historic market town. This side of Hitchin current has a well defined border
of green belt land, and well separated neighbouring villages. If this development went ahead, Hitchin would virtually be joined up with Luton. I am also concerned about the
effect it would have on wildlife in the area especially Oughtonhead Nature Reserve.
LDF/8069
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Jones
Comment
LDF/8071
1
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Hackett
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
I write to you with reference to the proposed planning applications for house-building in Stevenage and Hitchin.
I hope you understand that it would be seriously wrong to consider building any domestic dwellings within at least a miles radius of Lister Hosptial. The obvious reason for this is
that the infrastructure of the roads surrounding and leading up to the hospital, would be unable to cope with any more traffic. At the moment, the Hitchin Road and the North
Road are used to capacity, with fast-flowing traffic into and out of Stevenage all day, and during 8am and 9am these roads can come to a stand-still. Cory's Mill Lane, where the
main entrance to the hospital is situated, can be completely blocked, with many buses terminating there and turning round. Ambulances often struggle to get through the
congestion on these roads, especially the main Hitchin Road, where the exit from Sainsburys joins this road. This is an extremely busy junction, and accident have happened
here.
Furthermore, Lister Hospital is at the moment under-going huge, major expansions and re-development, and there is no way that the road structure surrounding the hospital
can deal with even more traffic. Chancellors Road and Rectory Lane are both, dangerous roads with many sharp bends, and could never safely take more traffic. Therefore, i
would suggest that no houses which would need to use any of these approach roads should be planned.
Stevenage was purposely built as a small New Town, with a capacity population of 60,000. At the moment, the population has reached about 90,000, so as you can see, not
only for the transport reasons i have mentioned, but also for the health and safety of the local inhabitants, it would not be safe or practical to build more houses in areas that use
these roads. There is no way that the road infrastructure surrounding the hospital can deal with more traffic without compromising the safety of the public.
I hope you will understand the seriousness of the issue when you have to make your expert decisions.
LDF/8074
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Briant
Comment
I see South West of Hitchin as a huge impact on this historical town.
LDF/8075
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Brennan
Comment
Generally, developing the strategic sites is preferable to the smaller non-strategic sites. The larger developments are more efficient and their impact on existing facilities and
road networks are more likely to be properly assessed and planned for.
West of Hitchin & East of Luton are the most unappropriate sites for future development in my view.
LDF/8077
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Ingleby
Comment
The South West of Hitchin plan is not for the people of Hitchin. It suits landowners and developers to dump a massive housing estate in one contained area that is not in
keeping with its unfortunate host town. Effectively doubling our lovely market town by plonking a sea of modern buildings on its side threatens the very nature of Hitchin and we
as a nation, should be preserving the character of our historic market towns, not diluting them. The size of this development beggas belief- it is utterly disproportionate to
Hitchins size and makes Hitchin a scapegoat for the extensive housing demands on N.Herts. This proposed development is poorly conceived- it detrimentally affects market
town status, puts pressure of water, sewage and other services, destroys precious green belt (agricultural, recreation, environmental, historical), swallows up long established
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
rural settlement and all they represents. The bypass is just a concept and wouldn't solve Hitchins transport issues and already busy roads. It would be better to consider building
a new town or settlement say between Royston and Baldock.
LDF/8079
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Jones
Comment
area of high landscape value
LDF/8080
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Jones
Comment
LDF/8082
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Walter
Comment
Preserve the identity of existing communities SW of Hitchin would destroy Charlton.
Make best use of land close to existing town centre. SW of Hitchin would be at a distance from the town centre.
LDF/8083
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Harrop
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8087
Document Section:
Representation:
2
England
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
South West of Hitchin - considerable potential to develop an area that both eases traffic around Hitchin and provides transport links equally to the A1 corridor and the M1
corridor. Along with the East of Luton development, this is the only area that has this dual road link. Many of the houses on the existing boundaries are already separated from
the proposed development area by major roads so the impact on their properties is likely to be less. Also, this is a development large enough to be able to create a new
community with new infrastructure built using 21st century technology. Also given the size of this development there would be better flexibility of where development would
actually occur, providing better protection for areas of particular sensitivity and special interest. This would also permit a more balanced development in relation to NHDC
needs.
LDF/8088
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Waterfield
Comment
South West of Hitchin - High threat to historic town community and character of town that currently attracts people to live and work in it.
LDF/8092
5
Graveley Environment Group
Document Section:
Graveley Environment
Group
Comment
Representation:
South West of Hitchin offers economies of scale for infrastructure. The developers have offered to help finance the bypass on the southern edge of Hitchin. This would reduce
congestion within Hitchin itself as well as improving east-west links. Hitchin town centre shopping would benefit from development.
LDF/8095
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Buckland
Object
1. It is far too big and would destroy Hitchin as a lovely and highly regarded market town. Hitchin was recently voted in 9th place in the 'Best Places to Live in Britain' in 'The
Times' survey.
other services would be put under significant strain. Water in particular would be a problem.
3. To place such a vast proportion (almost 70% if you use the 7,400 figure) of NHDCs proposed growth of 10,700 dwellings in just one place is clearly disproportionate and
totally unbalanced.
4. It is in Green Belt and should therefore be opposed. It would effectively destroy the villages of Charlton, Gosmore and St. Ippolyts and the history there. The historic buildings
in these villages would be at risk and no longer in the village settings
9. There are 6 wildlife sites and the area borders the Chiltern Area of Outstandin Natural Beauty.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
not allow farmland to disappear for deveopment. Overall these arguments clearly show that this development is in an inappropriate location, and would destroy a wonderful
town. It cannot be the desire of NHDC to do that I would hope. The other smaller developments proposed would be more than enougnh to satisfy the new development targets
of the council.
LDF/8099
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Williams
Comment
The Hitchin sites minimum number is so high that allowing for the Already Achieved figure along with the Priority 1 and 2 non-strategic sites leaves a target of 6133 dwellings
and means that distributing growth throughout the district becomes difficult, its either all in Hitchin or all away from Hitchin. Could a smaller site be considered up to 2031 with
the potential for further growth beyond?
Consideration to parking needs to be given taking the current Ford Focus or VW Golf as the basis for average car size rather than older figures. Developers should factor these
figures into their garage designs and driveway spacings.
LDF/8103
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Anrep
Object
I tried to find out about a plan to build on beautiful countryside between Charlton and Oughtenhead. However the URL could not be found and I know the deadline for objections
are 28.3.13. I only heard about this plan from someone today who lives in the village.We live in Hitchin and our regular and favourite walks are in and around this area. Most
particularly we enjoy the countryside in and near the line of the power line between Charlton and Offleyholes Farm where I understand a link road connecting the A505 and the
A1 is planned. We would like ourobjections to this proposal noted. It is beautiful rolling Hertfordshire. I'm sure we're not alone in finding solace from busy lives by walking in
this area. We even often joke that it is Hitchin's little bit of the Lake District!
LDF/8104
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Neave
Comment
Bidwells
LDF/8107
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Risby
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8108
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Barry
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8109
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Chater
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8110
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Chater
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/8111
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
4
Ward
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/8112
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Fulton
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8112
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Fulton
Comment
Without infrastructure improvements, roads, schools and doctors Hitchin cannot support these homes. Schools in the area are full, parking around town is always difficult and
the traffic is already a problem. Cambridge Road is always blocked with huge queues all day both way to and from Letchworth, Bedford Road is always blocked and travel is
difficult around the area of Waitrose. All these additional homes is going to cause even bigger problems unless this core infrastructure is upgraded to cope with this.
LDF/8113
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Ward
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
Has anyone considered the impact of traffic on the A1? (particularly southbound)
LDF/8114
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Newcombe
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8115
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Newcombe
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8116
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Chaudhry
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8118
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Johannessen
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8122
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Armitage
Comment
South West of Hitchin would seem the best option if of sufficient size to require the developers to build a bypass connecting to the new site.
LDF/8123
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Armitage
Comment
This seems a good option provided the bypass is included and that the bypass itself forms an access route to the site. Most of the new residents will not work in Hitchin. It's
essential that access to the main roads is available without using Hitchin's internal road system. A bypass will be even more necessary when Luton airport inevitably expands.
The section between the A505 and the B655 Barton road need not be included, and the section north of the B655 could be considered separately. There would be good access
to Hitchin town centre (given the bypass removing through traffic), helping to sustain the town's commerce.
LDF/8124
Document Section:
Representation:
1.
4
Stephens
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
6. Such development taken in the context of those around Luton and Stevenage will generate a continuous contiguous urban sprawl with little local town identifiers.
LDF/8125
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Parsons
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8128
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Massie
Object
I live in Gosmore having recently moved to the area with my family. My husband grew up locally and we have family members who live within the immediate Hitchin area. I know
the area to the south west of Hitchin (highlighted in the consultation) very well and use it regularly to take my children out for walks and to enjoy the open countryside. If you
have ever visited the area over a weekend you will know about the vast numbers of people who live in the area and further afield who use the south west of Hitchin area for
recreation purposes. How sad it would be to lose this land in its entirety.
As a starting point, the Council clearly notes that the proposal is being brought forward by the developer and not the Council. 'New Road Developments Limited' claims to
control of some of the site with option agreements in place with other landowners. The developer has then put forward
their summary argument which connects the delivery of the housing with a new bypass road that will connect the A505 Offley Road with the A602 Wymondley by-pass. The
Council will be aware that the developer's acquisition of land or option agreements over land is not a material planning
consideration. The developer will understand that the value of the land is characterised by the policy position today i.e. green belt agricultural land, promoting the use of the land
should be entirely at the developers risk and as addressed below a far more detailed evidence base exercise should be undertaken before a view can be taken about the
appropriateness of the land for development. The new development sites would provide around 6,000 new homes and associated supporting development which when you look
at it on plan would be a circa 40-50% increase in the size of the town. The developer goes on to note that the idea of a new by-pass is not new to address existing
traffic problems. My first comment is in relation to the by-pass road that has been proposed. Unfortunately I find the Council's consultation process inadequate on this point. The
supporting papers do not address the bypass road unless you dig into the transport papers in detail and even then the proposed route of the road is not included within the
documentation. It is not appropriate to undertake a consultation event and not include the route of the by-pass road and thereby avoid the questions about the cumulative
impact of the housing and road combined. Moreover I was extremely concerned to understand from an officer at the Council that this is an 'all or nothing' consultation i.e. the
developer would need to build the housing to pay for the road. I come on to the question of viability later in this letter. However, from the outset I would like to register my
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
objection to the misleading nature of the consultation and the fundamental lack of a joined up approach. I have not reviewed the Council's agreed approach to community
consultation but doubt that the consultation is adequate. I understand the Government's priority for housing delivery. However, what is not clear from the consultation document
is whether the land identified in Hitchin is necessary for the town's current and future needs or whether this is simply an opportunity to address housing need in the whole district
within a single housing area. This issue should be clarified. The consultation should also consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development
towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Even
as a headline figure it would be useful to understand the infill capacity of Hitchin within the existing town boundary e.g. redundant employment or industrial land, opportunities
for increased density. The land that has been identified falls within the green belt which means that 'very special circumstances' need to be made for development to be
acceptable. Mass housing by definition of government policy is unacceptable. Quite clearly the housing in the current policy climate is wholly unacceptable and I object on the
basis of green belt policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. I therefore assume that the idea of the consultation is to identify areas where the Council are
considering amending the green belt boundary as part of the local plan review. The test for the Council is whether there are 'exceptional' circumstances to alter the green belt
boundary identified in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). To recap the essential characteristics of a green belt are their 'permanence' and their 'openness'. It is
also recorded as having five purposes in the NPPF:
* to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
* to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
* to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
* to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
* to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Against this set of objectives I would expect a number of environmental considerations to have been assessed to help the public form their view including assessments such as
visual impact, traffic and transport, microclimate, air quality, noise and vibration, water resources, flood risk, geology, archaeology, cultural heritage, health and well being,
ecology, socio economic impacts etc. Although some effort has been made to look at the transport and landscape issues, the study as a whole is inadequate. Furthermore, the
exercise undertaken in the strategic environmental assessment does not differentiate between the different character areas that form the whole area identified to the south west
of Hitchin. For anyone who knows and uses the area there are many individual character areas within the land identified. Simply put, no evidence has been provided that
suggests exceptional circumstances have been identified for any, part or all of the land identified as part of the consultation process. A number of sensitive receptors have been
identified including the agriculturaI grade 3 land, AONB, SSSI, etc this in itself is not an assessment of areas that could be appropriate for development bearing in mind the
exceptional circumstances test. Therefore I object on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support the exceptional circumstances test as set out in the NPPF. This is a large
failure of the consultation. Knowing the area very well it is inconceivable that having undertaken all of the relevant environmental and socio-economic tests that the whole area
would be appropriate for development. When questioned on this point Council officers stated that the only exceptional circumstance was the need for housing. Once again I
acknowledge the Government's priority for housing, however, this is only one factor in the balance of the overall case which has not been made. In terms of the delivery of the
by-pass road I have touched upon the all or nothing approach that Council officers confirmed in relation to the need to deliver the housing to off set the cost of the bypass.
Notwithstanding the inadequate consultation in this regard a number of points around the proposed by-pass delivery should be clarified. As you are aware the Government has
set out 3 tests for the delivery of planning obligations set out in the Community infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. It states that a planning obligation may only constitute a
reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is:
a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b) directly related to the development; and
c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Is it the developer's case that the whole of the by-pass is necessary for the delivery of the housing or is it the case as set out in the transport documentation that there are
acknowledged transport issues on the routes into Hitchin? I would question the appropriateness of the developer funding the road if this is disproportionate to the level of traffic
that would be generated by the development area. In this instance I would like to understand the actual requirements for the by-pass derived from the development and the
transport alternatives that have been assessed e.g. it is known that a route to the north of Hitchin has also been tabled that would also remove heavy goods traffic travelling
through the town centre to access the town's industrial area. This benefit in terms of industrial traffic would not be delivered by a route to the south-west of Hitchin. This issue is
linked with a lack of clarity within the consultation information about whether any part, or all of the land identified is appropriate for development. It may be the case that the level
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
of development that is actually appropriate does not warrant such large amounts of transport infrastructure.
Furthermore, if the developer is proposing to provide funding for the by-pass in relation to the demand created by the housing what other elements of the proposal are being off
set to pay for the road e.g. education, health, open space, play space, community facilities etc. It is important that the Council has a clear understanding of the form of scheme
that is viable and deliverable. Viability is a key issue identified in the NPPF. I would question the ability of the proposed development to meet the exceptional circumstances test
if e.g. it lacked supporting infrastructure such as the uses listed above. In the absence of information clarifying this issue I therefore object to the principle of linking the delivery
of the by-pass with the housing areas to the south-west of Hitchin.
There are also a number of areas that are sadly lacking from the developer's comments. It appears that the delivery of the road is the be all and end all. Is there no vision for
how this quantity of housing would integrate with the rest of the town or headline design objectives for the quality of the architecture and 'place-making' of the area. These are
important issues that should be addressed from the outset of considering the release of Green Belt because they are fundamental to the Council's understanding of whether
exceptional circumstances exist for any part or all of the land identified. They are also enshrined in national planning policy guidance. Whilst this is not addressed in the
consultation exercise there is not a sufficient level of evidence to understand the proposal and
therefore I object on these grounds as well. Whilst I have no issue with the fundamental issues identified in this letter being passed on to other stakeholders and would be
happy to clarify any of the points set out above with Council officers, I do not want my contact information being passed on to any third parties.
LDF/8129
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Ashby
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8130
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Wright
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8131
Document Section:
4
Ashby
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Representation:
Applicant
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/8132
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Collyer
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8133
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Collyer
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8134
Document Section:
1
Hills
Representation:
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8135
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Waldock
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8136
Document Section:
1
Hills
Representation:
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8137
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Waldock
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8138
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Winter
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8138
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Winter
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8139
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Winter
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8139
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Winter
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/8140
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
1
Saunders
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
LDF/8141
Document Section:
Representation:
Agent
1
Saunders
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
LDF/8142
Document Section:
Representation:
Agent
1
Chaudhry
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8143
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Plant
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8144
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Gorowski
Comment
LDF/8145
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Ivanoski-Nichol
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8146
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Ostrowski
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
LDF/8147
Document Section:
Representation:
Agent
2
French
Comment
The amenity of the woodland running parallel with Burford Way must be preserved as it is home to wildlife such as various wood peckers, migrating birds, jays, amphibians, roe
deer, foxes etc.
The oasis is a green lung providing oxygen to the area as its residents. I do hope that you will be able to protect this tiny piece of woodland with its mature trees and wildlife.
LDF/8148
Document Section:
4
Kelly
Support
Representation:
Large site - could provide almost all houses needed - offer flexibility within site as to where development could take place permitting protection of areas of particular sensitivity
or special interest. Developers offer of by-pass would reduce congestion within Hitchin. This development would help sustainability of Hitchin.
LDF/8165
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Hewitt
Comment
LDF/8169
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Parker
Comment
LDF/8170
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Pickett
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8170
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Pickett
Comment
Hitchin recently noted in one national paper as a top ten town to live. Development on this scale would totally ruin the character of the town. We have already had a large set of
developments, particularly flats. There are already few area of accessible green space locally and these plans would impact on what there is.
A significant number of new residents would not doubt which to commute from Hitchin station. Our roads is a 10 min walk at most to the station and already has significant
issues with commuter parking, as restrictions are imposed elsewhere, such a plan would exacerbate such problems.
LDF/8171
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Prutton
Object
LDF/8175
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Clarke
Object
1. The preparation of the documents has clearly involved an enormous amount of work, for which you are to be commended.
2. However, while this is a first draft, based only on what developers and landowners suggest is possible, and desirable from their business and profit orientated situation, I
believe that it would have been better to have made clearer that there are other ways to think about it.
3. This approach may seem desirable to NHDC if the main criterion is getting over the first hurdle of land availability, but it seems to ignore a wider perspective.
4. When I read the Landscape Sensitivity Study I thought you had there many reasons not to build the South Hitchin Suburb.
5. When I read the figures on 'relative self containment' with so many Hitchin residents travelling out of the town to work I thought you would be suggesting more initiatives to
attract businesses to Hitchin, not building more houses so that a higher percentage would have to commute.
6. The building of a South Hitchin Suburb would lead to a conurbation extending from Stevenage to Luton, as infilling would continue. That would lead to an unhealthy
environment for all residents. How can there be 'health walks' if the countryside becomes remote.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
7. The arguments about the spoiling of the nature of the historic town of Hitchin remain ¿ and once that is done it cannot be corrected.
8. The argument for thinking about and discussing a new settlement needs to be made now. This should be the start of a process of seeking a sensible answer to a difficult
question. Some blue sky thinking before the green fields and green belt in the south west of the district are built on. All of the options should be considered, not just the one
which seems easier.
LDF/8177
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Eayrs
Object
It seems quite staggering that this site is even being considered as part of the SHMA. The "strengths" listed in the "summary of findings" for the site are all purely based on the
fact that this is a large site and they could all apply equally to any large area of green belt land randomly selected by a developer for their next project. The "weaknesses"
however are all very real and relate specifically to the area of land in question.
The proposed development would increase the number of dwellings in Hitchin by up to 8000, equating to an expansion of approximately 50%. This would clearly have a huge
impact on the nature of what is currently a historic market town. The edge of the town is currently well defined by a greenbelt boundary, with beautiful views and well separated
local villages. The proposed development would expand Hitchin towards Luton, engulfing the villages of Gosmore, St Ippolyts and Charlton in the process, with devastating
effects on the areas character. The proposed development would also encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chilterns Area of outstanding natural beauty with
adverse effects on both.
Furthermore, the site contains a number of wildlife sites, a site of specific scientific interest ( which should give legal protection for wildlife and geology in England under the
Wildlife and Countryside act 1981), sites designated Archeological areas and also has the potential to impact on adjacent conservation areas. The landscape (particularly to the
north of the A505) is also assessed as highly sensitive to development. Even if development on greenbelt land is to be deemed permissible by NHDC (which is a worrying
development in planning) the very specific issues with development on this site should surely rule it out of consideration. In addition to this Hitchin is already grid locked by traffic
at rush hour, particularly along the A505 from Luton into the town and around the Three Moorhens roundabout. A development of this size would put even greater strain on the
road infrastructure which a bypass would be unlikely to full relieve. In the interim, the additional construction traffic would essentially bring the west side of the town to a
standstill which could further endanger the commercial viability of the town centre.
LDF/8182
Document Section:
Representation:
7
Mahoney
Comment
LDF/8183
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Knowles
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8184
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Parker
Comment
LDF/8185
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Newcombe
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
foreseeable future.
LDF/8186
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Newcombe
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
foreseeable future.
LDF/8192
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Hazelwood
Comment
As discussed in previous questions little town planning seems to be critically analysed. Hitchin will become a grid-locked town unattractive to residents/visitors/commuters!
Limited mobility/infrastructure will develop and foster logistical chaos for all.
LDF/8193
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Mahoney
Comment
LDF/8197
Document Section:
Representation:
1.
4
Mitchell
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/8199
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Sheldon
Object
1.Out of proportion to the size of the town - 7000 new dwellings would accomodate about 1500 people - just under half the current population of the town
2.Increased traffic, especially between the new development and the Railway Station, which is on the opposite side of the town
3.Strain on infrastructure of town - parking, for example
4.Loss of visual amenity and recreational area - the area is one of the most pleasant and picturesque areas of countryside around Hitchin and is used extensively by walkers,
cyclists, dog owners and riders
5.Loss of wildlife habitat - area is home to species including the rare red kite, buzzards, deer and polecats
6.Irreversible change to character of town - Hitchin town centre is currently only a few hundred metres from open country, which under these plans will be replaced by housing
as far as the foot of the Chilterns
7.Loss of village of Charlton, irreversible change to character of St Ippolyts and Gosmore
8.The need for a Southern Bypass does not justify infilling with housing and is doubtful anyway. Much of the congestion between the A505 and A602 could be mitigated by
upgrading Willow Lane and the junctions at either end
9.I believe the Council's argument about proposed housing growth, essentially that Central Government will not accept lower numbers, is a poor one. The council should be
representing the views of their electorate even when these conflict with Central Government, and I doubt that there is much local support for these proposals
LDF/8200
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Fowler
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8201
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Duncan
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/8202
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Duncan
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8206
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Metcalfe
Object
We strongly disagree with the proposed development on the greenbelt land near Oughton Head Common,
whilst Hitchin may need more affordable housing, the proposed development on Greenbelt land is unacceptable.
Further consideration must be given to developing brownfield sites and to preserving Hitchin's existing greenbelt which is both a haven for wildlife and enables
many people to enjoy the country side.
This proposed development would have considerable access problems as existing residential roads already suffer from congestion problems( and lack of maintenance!!). This
would also
have a knock on effect on the existing sports facilities that take place on the sports field , this would go against the North Herts own policy on preserving such recreational
facility's.
LDF/8207
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Perry
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8209
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Harrop
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8210
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Parker
Comment
LDF/8213
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Wilcockson
Comment
to 8,000.
6. If this goes ahead then the green belt legislation ceases to have any meaning. The quality of life for people living in the areas will diminish. They will have a roof over their
head so that they are able to work in or around local and rent is all!
LDF/8214
5
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Tapfield
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
LDF/8216
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Lampard
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8216
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Lampard
Comment
Building this many dwellings will ruin hitchin- especially the plans for south west of hitchin- this is greenbelt land that should be protected.
You will turn Hitchin from a market town thats residents care about into a place overcrowded and common and rough!
Such a large amount of dwellings being aded to an already over populated small town will ruin all of hitchins uniqure character and charm. Lastly Hitchin, the surrounding
villades and towns will extremely struggle with the extra traffic this will cause.
LDF/8217
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Passmore
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8217
8
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Passmore
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Comment
Agent
I strongly oppose the development of this many dwellings in Hitchin. Hitchin is already struggling with the amount of traffic passing through it. Not only will an influx of new
residents add to this it will diminish what hitchin is- a market town. The character and identity will be destroyed.
LDF/8220
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Arnold
Comment
Development north east stevenage is poorly related to meet north herts needs, is of ecological, archaeological importance, and is of high landscape value.
LDF/8223
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Cowie
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8223
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Cowie
Comment
Hitchin is a market town with beautiful nature reserves and green belt land which should be preserved. As highlighted in the comet newspaper this week pollution is aleady an
issue and this development would further add to the problem. School places are already full. Hitchins roads are already gridlocked at times. We should be celebrating our "9th
best town" in the country not seeking to ruin it.
LDF/8224
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Lawther
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8224
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Lawther
Comment
Hitchin is a wonderful small town, many residents know one another due to its history and size. It has 3 schools which belong to a consortium which adds to the young peoples
sense of belonging and gibes them security. We already have building- particularly flats on any brown site going- this already is changing hitchin- heading towards becoming
another unipersonal sprawling urban town!!
LDF/8227
Document Section:
Representation:
4
James
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8227
Document Section:
Representation:
8
James
Comment
If these houses were built in the area south west of hitchin where would these residents work? It wont be hitchin and the trains to london or the local roads couldn't take the
strain. Rush hour in Hitchin is already a nightmare as it is. Also the strain on Hitchins schools, doctors, roads, amenities would be considerable, as well as the damage to
countryside and the rural nature of hitchin (as well as the surrounding towns) This isn't an appropriate place to build 10700 dwelling and it isn't NIMBYism, its logic and common
sense!!
LDF/8228
Document Section:
Representation:
6
Parker
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
LDF/8230
Document Section:
Representation:
Agent
4
Georgiou
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8230
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Georgiou
Comment
South west Hitchin- already congested road at 3 moorhen roundabout asume acceptable levels. Would see massive ncrease in road use and traffic. Would expand hitchin
another 1/3 of original size.
Hitchin is an historic markey town which owuld loose its unique character if such an expansion was carried out.
LDF/8234
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Dawson
Comment
West of hitchin too large. Will create new town in sensitive area with no access to local amenities.
LDF/8238
Document Section:
4
Mills
Representation:
Comment
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/8239
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
4
Mills
Comment
Agent
to 8,000.
LDF/8240
Document Section:
4
Mills
Comment
Representation:
to 8,000.
LDF/8241
Document Section:
4
Mills
Comment
Representation:
to 8,000.
LDF/8248
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Spicer
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
foreseeable future.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
LDF/8249
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
1
Spicer
Comment
Agent
foreseeable future.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8250
Document Section:
1
Hale
Representation:
Object
foreseeable future.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8251
Document Section:
1
Hale
Representation:
Object
foreseeable future.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8252
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Destro
Object
foreseeable future.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8253
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Dewhurst
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
foreseeable future.
LDF/8255
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Jones
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
foreseeable future.
LDF/8256
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Wilkins
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
foreseeable future.
LDF/8257
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Wilkins
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
foreseeable future.
LDF/8258
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Pyefinch
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
foreseeable future.
LDF/8259
Document Section:
Representation:
1
O'Donnell
Comment
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
foreseeable future.
LDF/8261
3
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Wilson
Ref.
Document Section:
Representation:
Rep No.
Applicant
Object
Agent
The plan has a fundamental flaw in that it is developer and landowner led rather than being a strategic view for the area. Developers and landowners have their own interests to
consider and are likely to propose sites which they own and/or maximize their profits. These sites may not best serve the needs of North Hertfordshire.
number of dwellings by up to 8,000.
encroach on Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the Chiltern's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and both would be adversely affected.
The proposed Hitchin development would also encroach on the villages of Gosmore, St Ippollyts and Charlton which would lose their identity and coalesce with Hitchin.
Significant issues with the development are highlighted in the council's own Landscape Sensitivity document.
LDF/8264
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Dixon
Object
LDF/8270
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Childs
Object
I am responding to your consultation on Housing options in Hitchin. Other than piecemeal 'brownfield regeneration', I vehemently oppose the planned proposals to build new
houses on green belt land surrounding Hitchin. We have a very special town here that people cherish dearly. However, such development would change Hitchin beyond all
recognition. It is not fair on our children to allow such a desecration on the wonderful countryside surrounding our wonderful and unique town. There is clearly not the
infrastructure nor facilities in our town to support such an expansion. This must not be allowed to happen to a town that has just been voted the ninth best town to live in. Surely,
a new settlement, away for Hitchin, with a new infrastructure would be a more logical approach if this additional housing is needed?
LDF/8273
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Wilcockson
Object
to 8,000.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
6. The green belt is designed to prevent urban sprawl into the countryside this requirement is paramount and has not changed. If developments such as this go ahead then
the greenbelt legislation ceases to have any meaning. This area is extensively used for recreation which will be lost. Promises of green areas is a mockery as it is already a
green area which would be destroyed.
LDF/8276
Document Section:
Representation:
5
Alderson
Comment
to 8,000.
LDF/8277
Document Section:
Representation:
8
Kilroy
Support
A very large site offering economies of scale for infrastructure and should reduce the number of off site journeys to access schools and shops, reducing pressure on the heavily
congested A1 corridor road network, especially during peak times.
Development of this site would attract support from developers to help finance a bypass on the southern edge of Hitchin, reducing congestion within Hitchin itself and improving
the attractiveness of the area for many of the existing residents (which some current planning proposals, most notably the NS3 Roundwood proposal, totally fail to achieve).
Hitchin has its own sewage treatment works and unlike Stevenage related sites would not require a major upgrade in sewage treatment capacity or gas pipeline supplies.
Development on this site would increase shopping activity within the town centre, unlike development of any of the three sites just outside of Stevenage, which clearly would
increase shopping activity within Stevenage (and hence outside of the North Hertfordshire district).
LDF/8283
Document Section:
Representation:
3
Brigginshaw
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8284
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Griggs
Object
Like many others, I use the countryside in this area for outdoor activities, such as dog-walking and jogging; and I feel that to build over the open fields would be such a shame.
Why are the needs of the birds and animals who would have their habitat destroyed seemingly not considered at all in this process, let alone those of us who love the
countryside?
The housing targets you are working towards are much too high; but this is, in my view, by far the worst option for a development site. With that in mind, I say to you: please
don't build on site Ref 37.
LDF/8285
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Almond
Object
Such a massive development would ruin Hitchin for those of us who already live there, and I feel it is only being suggested as it is in the interest of the landowners.
The current housing targets are vastly over-inflated, and I think they should be downgraded to a much smaller number.
LDF/8287
Document Section:
Representation:
4
Evans
Object
If this area was built on the market town ambience of Hitchin would be destroyed as well as a significant recreational area for walkers. Most residents of Hitchin can access the
area without requiring transport to get there. Hitchin would certainly drop down The Times league table of Best Places to Live.
The context and setting of The Priory would be ruined.
LDF/8296
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Palfreyman
Object
As a Westmill resident and living with Oughtonhead Common on my door step we are concerned about the impact the additional housing will have on the wildlife, flora and
environment of the area. This area has been protected for centuries and we feel that housing is already too close to the area.
Secondly the additional housing will potentially double the population of the town, these extra people will add to town traffic (where will they park?) and will add to congestion on
trains to and from the town (which are already pack to capacity during rush hour), these extra people will need jobs (where are they to work)?
We do not think that building a bypass around Hitchin will reduce town traffic, and building schools, shops etc. in these new proposed areas will not be able to sustain enough
work for these extra people.
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Please stop these plans now and listen to the people of the town.
LDF/8300
Document Section:
Representation:
Agent
1
Coyne
Object
Printed: 28/06/2013 09:12:56
Ref.
Rep No.
Applicant
Agent
LDF/8304
Document Section:
Representation:
1
Wingstedt
Object
I have lived as a resident in Hitchin for 45 years and Hitchin has always been protected
by its Green Belt¿¿no development, no more housing¿¿.when our family first came to Hitchin ¿.it was promised by a certain Councillor that the Green Belt would never be built
upon¿¿but obviously that is going to change if you have your way. I object most strongly to the proposal of 6000 homes being built in west of Hitchin. No to building on the
Green Belt.
The current planning minister also agreed that the Green Belt should not be built on.
The land is currently enjoyed by walkers, hikers, bikers, and horse riders and the occasional hunt.
I live on the west side of Hitchin, and are very fortunate to have green fields, agricultural,
with Oughtonhead Common, with its wildlife area¿..when we first came to Hitchin,
There was plenty of wildlife, foxes, hares (aren't they protected??), rabbits, deer, bats but due to the intensive farming, we have lost the wildlife and such birds as the skylark,
yellowhammer, lapwing and cuckoo and the tiny sparrows¿.. Foxholes in Pirton Road has become a wildlife haven, otherwise they would be Lost forever¿.especially if the land
is to built on, but you do not care ¿..as long as the Developers have their way, it won't matter if certain spec

South West Hitchin - North Hertfordshire District Council

Transcription

Similar documents

71 The Essex County seat, Tappahannock, is finally coming into its

here

TOLEDO- SPAIN

Kings Community Economic Development Agency

Relationship of A.C. Moore and Michaels Arts and Crafts stores in

Patients Served by Town in FY13

Paradores de Turismo - #ParadoresPlans: what to see in Tordesillas

Spring 2015

tropical storms - Pearson Schools and FE Colleges