Topic ID 6747
There are posters and notices all over the Cole Green Way from the football club (West Street) to Hertingfordbury encouraging people to object to a proposed retirement village incorporating 3 storey buildings, restaurant, swimming pool and a new road off the Lower Hatfield Road. The site of the development is given as the old brickfields, 'off the Cole Green Way, Hertford' but I'm not sure where that is and East Herts clunky website isn't shedding any light. If anyone can post a more useful link than this, I'd appreciate it http://online.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3/12/1207/OP&backURL=<a%20href=wphappcriteria.display>Search%20Criteria</a>%20>%20<a%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=810361%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=wphappsresweek1%26BackURL=<a%20href=wphappcriteria.display>Search%20Criteria</a>'>Search%20Results</a>
Reply ID 89612
That link works ok If you go to Media Items and then Associated Documents you will see a selection of items inc a map which suggests it is the back of the park alongside the disused railway / cole green way/ behind the nursery
Reply ID 89613
The Design & Access statement features a section about the "Urban Context". The "Hertford Background" is lifted word-for-word from Discover Hertford. http://www.hertford.net/history/history.asp Although this is only an outline planning application, it's quite substantial, featuring 144 living units, recreation facilities and a restaurant, all on Green Belt Land. The developer appears to be taking advantage of new planning laws. My brief skimming of the D&A statement suggests the use of plain English was not much of a consideration when putting together the plans.
Reply ID 89614
Thank you Marilyn and Steve, most helpful. The proposal makes interesting reading. I realise this is just the initial pie-in-the-sky application that stands no chance but even when it's scaled down it will have an impact on a well-used local bit of countryside. The application gives the address as West Street which is very hard to drive along due to parking problems even without staff and visitors of hundreds of high-dependency residents using it. How come someone can even apply to build anything at all on a bit of woodland that has public footpaths going through it? I really am very ignorant when it comes to understanding planning, reading maps and applications etc so I'd welcome any views and comments anyone could add.
Reply ID 89615
I was cycling on the cole Green way only yesterday and saw some notices left by a local lady asking to contact her outlining your objections by 13th September. I personally see the Green Belt as massively under attack and the very countryside that makes people want to live there rather than in a city under threat, not just in herts but all over the UK. I am not in favour of this plan by the Government to tarmac over the UK. Its a huge dwelling and to say that it won't have an impact is nuts! Just in terms of the construction traffic and dirt on an already troublesome road (anyone living in these parts know how flooded the Lower Hatfield Road gets in most of the year and how dangerous it is already!) There is a large gravel extraction pit too and I am not in favour of this if only because of the amount of cyclists, horseriders and walkers who use the area and the scar on the landscape. Once one plan gets through there will be no protection of the Green Belt at all in my opinion. I am opposed to it on grounds of its upsetting a country Green Belt spot, the construction traffic and further traffic of visitors coming to a large number of people. This isn't a 10 bed place but a large hotel... Not something that should be sited on Green Belt land...
Reply ID 89621
There are plenty of brownfield sites without messing up our precious countryside.
Reply ID 89623
quote:Enough for 1.5 million new homes nationally according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
Originally posted by wizkid
There are plenty of brownfield sites without messing up our precious countryside.
Reply ID 89624
quote:And let's not forget all the empty homes. But let's not get distracted. This is a big development in the green belt on the edge of Hertford and is clearly aimed at testing the new planning laws.
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:Enough for 1.5 million new homes nationally according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
Originally posted by wizkid
There are plenty of brownfield sites without messing up our precious countryside.
Reply ID 89632
A couple of notes from my reading of the applicant's planning statement. "The Brickfields proposal seeks to secure the redevelopment of a previously developed brownfield site". This strikes me as a bit rich. The site is known as "Terrace Wood" due to the fact that it's got lots of trees, some of which I'd guess are probably over 100 years old. It hasn't been used as a brickworks for over half a century I'd imagine. "Although no pre-application discussions have taken place in respect of this application, a consultation exercise over the last three years on the feasability of the project has been carried out with several healthcare operators as well as local care providers" So at no time during those three years did the developer think it pertinent to discuss the plans informally with the Local Planning Authority? I find that surprising.
Reply ID 89648
If Russell Jeffery still hasn't managed to get a caravan past planning, then surely that's an indication? [;)]
Reply ID 89781
quote:So would the plan be to have access down past the football club and under the railway line? You'd have to do a lot of work to get that up to scratch notwithstanding the problems with West Street!
Originally posted by Rachel
The application gives the address as West Street which is very hard to drive along due to parking problems even without staff and visitors of hundreds of high-dependency residents using it.
Reply ID 89782
Hi Newcomer, it looks like the access is just past the railway line as you leave Horns Mill - after the pub. Not sure if this is a speculative application or if they have done some research as quite a bit of money has been spent on the application; I'm sure there will be local objections but as others that have applied for planning permission in the area will tell you much of it can depend on who are your local friends/enemies.
Reply ID 89821
quote:And as of yesterday, who is the new Housing Minister? Our own MP, Mark 'Cornish Pasty' Prisk.
Originally posted by Steve This is a big development in the green belt on the edge of Hertford and is clearly aimed at testing the new planning laws.
Reply ID 90000
Having explored the site a little whilst walking the dog, I did notice some fairly large and beautiful Cedar of Lebanon Trees on the site. These will certainly be older than 100 years, and probably predate even the railway. I am hoping the preservation of these trees will be included in this proposal - they are at the northern end of the site (near Cole Green Way). If anyone has seen these mentioned in the proposal, please can you share. [:)]
Reply ID 90006
I know there are tree preservation orders on some of the trees in that wood, not sure if it's the cedars. One of the local residents told me she had chased away a contractor with a chainsaw quite recently! Those old Cedars of Lebanon can become unstable and do have a tendency for huge branches to shear off dangerously in high winds so the owners may be able to use that reason to cut them down if they are an inconvenience.
Reply ID 90012
In my books, nothing can justify the bulldozing of a natural woodland the size of seven football pitches, there is precious little of it left as it is, and walking through the regimented lines of planted woodlands just is'nt the same. I do hope that these opportunist speculators plans are axed instead of the woodland.
Reply ID 90311
Unsurprisingly, planning officers have recommended that this application is refused. The final decision will be made at next Wednesday's (10th October) Development Control Committee meeting. One of the more interesting observations in the officers report includes the following: "The documentation within the planning application states that a Forestry Commission Licence has been granted for the felling of trees. After discussions with the Forestry Commission however, it would appear that the licence is for coppicing to harvest firewood, as oppose to felling, and investigations are being undertaken as to the validity of that licence." This and other statements in the report call in to question the honesty and integrity of some of the "claims" made in the planning application, such as the site being Brownfield land.
Reply ID 90404
Hello I objected in writing to this and have been getting updates from the Planning Officer. This morning thy wrote to say that the application has been withdrawn. Hooray!
Reply ID 91200
The application has now been re-submitted with reference 3/12/1934/OP. Any objections must be made in writing by 27th December - email to [email protected] or mail to the attention of the planning officer, Tom Ayres. Please write in (and contact your councillor) if you want to see this green space preserved!
Reply ID 91233
In addition to the concerns already highlighted in this thread, what kind of lunatic puts a car entrance on the inside of the blind corner outside the Harts Horns pub? I shall be writing a strongly worded letter.
Reply ID 91334
Ok folks. I have submitted an objection in the strongest possible terms. We have tipped off Network Rail. I have got JackFM hopefully doing a news story on this. Bottom line is that if this application goes ahead, it will seriously disrupt: Local Wildlife, the Cole Green Way leisure pursuits, Equine activities from Cole Green Way Farm, Football fixtures at Hertford FC, and may also cause worse flooding than we normally get during heavy rainfall.
Reply ID 91335
quote:Owen, which specific policies are you challenging the developer on?
Originally posted by Owen Metcalfe
Ok folks. I have submitted an objection in the strongest possible terms. We have tipped off Network Rail. I have got JackFM hopefully doing a news story on this. Bottom line is that if this application goes ahead, it will seriously disrupt: Local Wildlife, the Cole Green Way leisure pursuits, Equine activities from Cole Green Way Farm, Football fixtures at Hertford FC, and may also cause worse flooding than we normally get during heavy rainfall.
Reply ID 91336
quote:I'd pick any of the ones listed in the Planning Officer's recommendation (for refusal) from the last application: GBC1 Appropriate Development In The Green Belt GBC14 Landscape Character SD1 Making Development More Sustainable ENV1 Design & Environmental Quality ENV2 Landscaping ENV11 Protection of Existing Hedgerows and Trees ENV14 Local Sites ENV16 Protected Species TR7 Traffic Reduction in New Develolments I'm not sure if there a Council Policy related to challenging the factual accuracy of statements contained the the planning application. The applicant claimed that they had a licence to fell the trees but investigations with The Forestry Commission revealed that the licence was only for coppicing and harvesting firewood. The Forestry Commission are now investigating the validity of that licence. This is just one example of questionable statements contained in the application.
Originally posted by James007quote:Owen, which specific policies are you challenging the developer on?
Originally posted by Owen Metcalfe
Ok folks. I have submitted an objection in the strongest possible terms. We have tipped off Network Rail. I have got JackFM hopefully doing a news story on this. Bottom line is that if this application goes ahead, it will seriously disrupt: Local Wildlife, the Cole Green Way leisure pursuits, Equine activities from Cole Green Way Farm, Football fixtures at Hertford FC, and may also cause worse flooding than we normally get during heavy rainfall.
Reply ID 91342
I and my friends are objecting to the whole planning application. Why should I need to pick one aspect? Another reason for objecting is that this application seems to have been kept quiet. The only reason we heard about it was by word of mouth. No planning application notices have been seen anywhere. The location is not ideal and if you knew the proposed access point you'd know it's not ideal, maybe even dangerous. There will be numerous other more suitable locations for a retirement village, so why pick this one? Why add to the urban sprawl? Why displace protected species? Why disrupt rural life in all its forms? Need I go on?
Reply ID 91343
quote:I don't think Steve is nitpicking he's just highlighting the need (however distasteful it is) to couch your objections in "planning speak" - its the only language these people understand. Righteous high dudgeon has never been good enough to get planning approved or rejected (see archived forums re Starbucks).
Originally posted by Owen Metcalfe
I and my friends are objecting to the whole planning application. Why should I need to pick one aspect? Another reason for objecting is that this application seems to have been kept quiet. The only reason we heard about it was by word of mouth. No planning application notices have been seen anywhere. The location is not ideal and if you knew the proposed access point you'd know it's not ideal, maybe even dangerous. There will be numerous other more suitable locations for a retirement village, so why pick this one? Why add to the urban sprawl? Why displace protected species? Why disrupt rural life in all its forms? Need I go on?
Reply ID 91344
Thank you Darcy. Yes, the only legitimate reasons for commenting on a planning application is if they don't comply with the District Council's planning policy, as set out in the Local Plan (or as they will be known in the future, the Local Development Framework). You'll also notice that in all literature, the council refer to the submission of "comments", not "objections". You can object all you like, but if an application is in line with policy, then there can be little legitimate reason for it to be refused. Thankfully this application is clearly a blatant try-on and contrary to a wide range of planning policies, not least building on green belt land (that the applicant is trying to pass off as brownfield). With regard to advertising the application, I saw plenty of yellow signs for the previous application. The more recent application was only received on 14th November and the publicity start date is 6th December. This is when the notices go up and three week window for comments begins.
Reply ID 91346
Thank you for explaining that Steve. Without wishing to a
Reply ID 91347
Sorry..... Without wishing to appear sarcastic, I thought that it was possible to object to any planning application just because you are against the plan for personal reasons. I didn't realise that to to object it had to be specific objections to specific points in a plan, which means, if I understand correctly, as long as the applicant has complied with regulations he/she can build what they want where they want? If you look at the Hatfield incinerator debate, objections were raised because of its impact on the local area as much as any possible infringement of regs.
Reply ID 91353
quote:Owen - you are right and don't be put off. Impacts on the local area (infrastructure, environment, community) are planning considerations. You are part of the community so your "personal objections" are relevant. The point I think Steve and I are making is that your comments should be aimed at these issues more objectively. The Benington wind farm "objectors" did come accross as rather subjective and "nimby-ish" when more considered comments regarding impact and vialbility held more sway in the end.
Originally posted by Owen Metcalfe
Sorry..... Without wishing to appear sarcastic, I thought that it was possible to object to any planning application just because you are against the plan for personal reasons. I didn't realise that to to object it had to be specific objections to specific points in a plan, which means, if I understand correctly, as long as the applicant has complied with regulations he/she can build what they want where they want? If you look at the Hatfield incinerator debate, objections were raised because of its impact on the local area as much as any possible infringement of regs.
Reply ID 91360
Thank you both Steve and Darcy. We will continue the struggle in all ways possible. Let's hope for a reasonable outcome. One question however, if the application is likely to be successful, is there an avenue to pursue where the applicant can be asked of persuaded to improve existing facilities such as flood defences on the lower plain adjacent to Horns Road and possibly resurfacing and lighting work adjacent to Hertford Football Club.
Reply ID 91361
FWIW I would wager a considerable sum that there's no way this proposal would get planning permission - even if it went to appeal.
Reply ID 91364
quote:As Steve says this one probably isn't a flyer anyway (for a number of reasons he's already stated) but if you remain concerned there is a mechanism for what you refer to called a "Section 106" agreement. The developer agrees to include "community" project work or even provide a cash sum towards something of benefit as part of any permissions granted. This (I suspect) is why Weatherspoons built us some nice new public loos and Sainsbury has a "Museum". Back in the bad old days one would bung a councillor to assure your planning permission. A Section 106 agreement is a more legitimate version of the same thing.
Originally posted by Owen Metcalfe
Thank you both Steve and Darcy. We will continue the struggle in all ways possible. Let's hope for a reasonable outcome. One question however, if the application is likely to be successful, is there an avenue to pursue where the applicant can be asked of persuaded to improve existing facilities such as flood defences on the lower plain adjacent to Horns Road and possibly resurfacing and lighting work adjacent to Hertford Football Club.
Reply ID 91376
quote:Not so sure anymore with the advent of new planning reforms, and of course facilities to cater for the elderly probably tick a lot of the right boxes... [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/9700722/Swathes-of-green-belt-land-sacrificed.html[/url]
Originally posted by Steve
FWIW I would wager a considerable sum that there's no way this proposal would get planning permission - even if it went to appeal.
Reply ID 91381
quote:This can still only be done as part of council policy. "At least 40 per cent of councils with green belt land in their areas have already redrawn, or plan to alter, the boundaries of the protected areas in an attempt to meet demand for housing and development." I'm not aware of EHDC having redrawn or having any plans to redraw the map of Green Belt land around Hertford. Newspapers and journalists usually have agendas and that should always be taken in to account when reading any newspaper. This is why the maxim "always get your news from more than one source" is so important.
Originally posted by Ted Badgerquote:Not so sure anymore with the advent of new planning reforms, and of course facilities to cater for the elderly probably tick a lot of the right boxes... [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/9700722/Swathes-of-green-belt-land-sacrificed.html[/url]
Originally posted by Steve
FWIW I would wager a considerable sum that there's no way this proposal would get planning permission - even if it went to appeal.
Reply ID 92486
quote:Can anyone tell me which document has the exact layout of the proposed access road as I can't seem to see it. I am interested in how it will affect Tanners Crescent/Waterdale/Glovers Close area.
Originally posted by Marilyn
That link works ok If you go to Media Items and then Associated Documents you will see a selection of items inc a map which suggests it is the back of the park alongside the disused railway / cole green way/ behind the nursery
Reply ID 92488
quote:The road is shown in red on the first document - the Location Plan. Judging by some of the emails flying back and forth, the applicant flatly refuses to accept many of the objections raised by various parties.
Originally posted by Georgie
Can anyone tell me which document has the exact layout of the proposed access road as I can't seem to see it. I am interested in how it will affect Tanners Crescent/Waterdale/Glovers Close area.
Reply ID 92506
quote:This is on the [url="http://online.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3/12/1934/OP"]second application[/url] not the first. Sorry if this is obvious but this confused me for a while! Edit: Meant to say I had a note through the door saying that this application is being presented to the Council Development Committee at the Council Chamber, Wallfields on Wednesday 6th February at 7pm.
Originally posted by Stevequote:The road is shown in red on the first document - the Location Plan.
Originally posted by Georgie
Can anyone tell me which document has the exact layout of the proposed access road as I can't seem to see it. I am interested in how it will affect Tanners Crescent/Waterdale/Glovers Close area.
Reply ID 92509
quote:Unsurprisingly it's been recommended for refusal by the planning officer. Interesting to note that the developer sent an email to the Chair of the Development Control Committee asking for her personal support for the plans. She immediately forwarded this to the planning department and it's now a matter of public record.
Originally posted by newcomer
This is on the [url="http://online.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3/12/1934/OP"]second application[/url] not the first. Sorry if this is obvious but this confused me for a while! Edit: Meant to say I had a note through the door saying that this application is being presented to the Council Development Committee at the Council Chamber, Wallfields on Wednesday 6th February at 7pm.
Reply ID 92591
Application refused. Phew.
Reply ID 92602
quote:No surprise there. There's no way it was going to be approved. The developer will either sumbit a revised application or take it to appeal (which I doubt would be upheld).
Originally posted by IsaacTheCat
Application refused. Phew.