Objections 2020

Location 

The application site is located in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt, outside the settlement boundary of Royston as illustrated in both the current North Herts Local Plan – Local Plan No.2 (saved Policy 6 (Rural Areas Beyond the Green Belt) and saved Policy 9 (Royston’s Development Limits)) and the Submission Local Plan Policies (CGB1 and CGB2). 

The District Council has resolved to examine on the Main Modifications to the North Herts Submission Local Plan, which is currently on hold due to the impacts of COVID-19, this however should not be a reason for the applicant to benefit from such an occurrence. 

The Main Modifications provide evidence that subject to the inspector agreeing a staged approach for the 5 year supply, then North Herts can meet its obligations to provide for its future housing need, with a buffer. 

A number of housings sites have been identified in and around Royston, within the ‘adjusted settlement boundary” for the town. Royston is already contributing a significant number of the housing units towards the NHDC 5 year housing land supply. 

This site is outside the adjusted settlement boundary and has not been allocated by the Council, in either the existing or emerging local plan. It is the Council’s responsibility to determine if and where land should be made available to meet objectively assessed need. NHDC does not require the application site nor has the inspector requested any additional sites to meet its objectively assessed need and there are no overriding reasons why this land should be granted consent for housing development.

The emerging Local Plan and its policies should be afforded significant weight and taken into consideration by the planning officers for its assessment for titled balance of this site, as concluded in the recent high court case of Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2020] EWHC 518. 

Conclusion:

The application should therefore be refused for its location and its failure to comply with the adopted and emerging local plan and the council have resisted considerable pressure to allocate this site and have done so for very coherent and defendable reasons which includes the sites prominence on high ground, difficulty of physically accessing the site and also because of its poor location in terms of access to public services and public transport. Because of these difficulties NHDC have looked elsewhere around Royston to allocate sites and have made significant allocations. The Local Plan Inspector has not raised the need to allocate additional land for housing over and above that already identified by North Herts.

Highways and Traffic Impact

• Fundamentally the site is very poorly located in relation to access to services. 
• The distances and gradients involved makes it highly unlikely residents would walk to local facilities and would thus be car dependent, contrary to planning policy.
• The proposed footway widening along Sun Hill, promoted as part mitigation for the scheme and as illustrated in the Transport Assessment (TA) by Ashley Helme Associates, would still result in a design solution significantly below standards and loss of mature trees which form an important landscaping / street scene feature along Sun Hill.
• Concern for the safety of pedestrians due to narrow footpath along Briary Lane (approx 1m at most) which is not referenced / addressed within the applicants TA. This below standard route is still being promoted by the applicant as a good walking route for children to the local school.  
• On street parking creating one-way flow for traffic along Briary Lane and therefore road has in the past become blocked, with restrictions to emergency vehicles in the past.
• The narrow nature of Briary Lane and Sun Hill and steep slope of Echo Hill do not make it a suitable environment for cyclists. 
• Site is located outside the maximum distance to local public transport facilities (rail station, bus stops).
• Intention by the applicant to use Bridleway BW R013 as a secondary access point, to be restricted to walking, cycling and emergency access. At present the Bridleway is poorly surfaced, unlit and would not meet current design standards, especially in terms of permissible gradients for access by the mobility impaired. Pedestrians would also be expected to share the bridleway with vehicles. It is unclear whether the applicant has the right to make any improvements and the potential impact upgrading this route will have to the neighbouring SSSI of Therfield Heath.
• Proposed vehicle access design off Echo Hill, through the demolition of property No:24 is undeliverable.
• No details provided for the access route through Echo Hill and proposed access design which shows how this would accord to highway safety requirements and design standards. 
• No reference within the Transport Assessment on the amount of construction traffic, access for this traffic and potential conflict with existing road users. Highlight any concern you have with safety for those using, Echo Hill, Sun Hill and Briary lane.
• Echo Hill, Sun Hill and Briary Lane are not designed to current standards and are not appropriate routes for the additional traffic proposed.  

Conclusion:

The objections provided on Highways and Traffic are supported in the HCC response which recommended refusal of the site and the RSNtG transport and highways advice note by Royal Haskoning DHV. 

Based on the information reviewed, the planning application should be refused on highway and transport grounds, namely:

• The fundamentally unsustainable location of the site; 
• The constrained access route to the local primary school;
• The undeliverable proposed site access; and
• The constrained nature of the highway network in Echo Hill, Sun Hill and Briary Lane.

Based on these issues, the site must be judged to be contrary to paragraphs 108, 109 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposal is also contrary to local planning guidance of the Roads in Hertfordshire A Design Guide. 

Visual and Landscape Impact 

The site is a valued landscape as concluded in the supporting assessment on behalf of RSNtG by Jon Etchells Consulting. 

The reason for refusal of the 2018 planning application, mostly still applies to the current proposals as follows:

• the prominent position and topography remain the same;
• the significant localised adverse impacts on the character of the area and visual receptors are essentially unchanged; and
• marked change in the character of the immediate locality and wider valued landscape. 

The same reason for refusal should therefore also apply to the current application.

In addition to these past reasons there is now the potential for significant adverse effects on the line of existing mature trees along the south side of Sun Hill and also still the proposed Bridleway (located within the SSSI), as supported by the RSNtG Independent Arboricultural Assessment, by Sharon Hosegood.

The assessment provided by the applicant does not give any consideration to the direct effects of the access proposals on the character of Echo Hill and are not mentioned within the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). Echo Hill has its own character its character would be harmed by the proposed access arrangements. Echo Hill is a quiet residential cul de Sac, the carriageway is narrow with on street parking, particularly concentrated adjacent to the junction with Sun Hill.

Conclusion

In terms of policy, the proposals would be contrary to the general landscape protection policies of the NPPF (including Paragraph 170), Policies 6 and 9 of the adopted Local Plan and a number of landscape-related policies in the emerging Local Plan. 

* Any additional concerns residents may have with loss of privacy, access to daylight in habitable rooms if backing onto the development should also be addressed by residents.

Ecology

The ecology assessment produced in support of the development in 2018 failed to detail a number of Biodiversity Action Plan species that are found at the site, including the Badgers, Brown Hare and Grey Partridge. In addition the site also supports a number of RSPB Red listed UK farmland birds of conservation concern, including Skylark, Yellowhammer, Corn Bunting, Mistle Thrush and Field Fare.

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 states local authorities are required to take measures to “promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species.” Priority species listed under Section 41 (S41) as being of principal importance found at the site include the Brown Hare, Grey Partridge, Skylark, Corn Bunting, Yellowhammer, Starling, Song Thrush, Hedgehog and Small Heath butterfly.

The appraisal commissioned by the applicant in 2018 and updated in February of this year was largely a desktop one. The proposal has also not highlighted the disturbance to the surrounding area, specifically the SSSI, from not only construction and the new residents, but from their pets as well.

The previous recommendation for refusal for this scheme by Natural England (NE) was because there was no acknowledgement of the impact on the SSSI within the Ecological Appraisal and therefore they considered this document to be incomplete. In addition, NE stated it was extremely important that direct impacts upon the SSSI are accurately quantified and assessed. In the absence of a separate SSSI Impact Assessment the potential for significant adverse impacts have not been adequately evaluated such that would demonstrate compliance with the provision of policy 14 of the adopted Local Plan and NEx and N6 of the emerging Local Plan and paragraphs 175 and 177 the NPPF.

Conclusion

Although the applicant is proposing to locate the main access off Echo Hill the applicant is still promoting the use of Bridleway 13 as a secondary access and for the installation of proposed services from the site. The effects to Bridleway 13 and the wider impact of the development to the SSSI, is still considered to not have been adequately assessed. Therefore most of the objections by NE of the impact from the site to the SSSI is considered relevant to this application and the significant adverse impacts have not been adequately evaluated such that would demonstrate compliance with the provision of NEx and N6 of the emerging Local Plan and the NPPF, therefore should still be refused.

Please note that we have employed an ecologist for the site and will update Ecology Objections if required in due course. 

Source Protection Zone and Flood Risk

• As noted in the applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), the site is located within a Source Protection Zone 1. The site is also located above a designated Major Aquifer. 
• The Source Protection Zone corresponds to the Therfield Heath Pumping Station. This is a public water supply, comprising of a number of Chalk boreholes, operated by Affinity Water.
• Due to the potential risk from highway drainage a groundwater risk assessment will be required for the site. If existing groundwater is shown to be at risk from the proposed development then there is no reasonable alternative to drain surface water as there are no watercourses or public surface water sewers in vicinity of the site. 
• The impact of the additional volume of surface water generated by proposed access road to the existing highway drainage infrastructure within Echo Hill has not been adequately addressed and could be a potential flood risk to existing residents,
• The impact from the proposed development to surface water overland flow routes to offsite areas  and potential subsidence as a result of concentrated surface water inflows (when discharging to chalk) are also not considered to be adequately addressed by the applicant.

Conclusion

The site therefore does not meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its supporting technical guidance document. 

In addition, the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) fails to conform to the Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) SuDS Design Guidance document and is contrary to the Environment Agency’s Groundwater Protection Policy and Guidelines.  

*residents should also mention any evidence of existing flooding. 

Additional impacts

• There is no capacity within the local primary school for the number of units proposed, as confirmed in the 2018 application. 
• Loss of high quality agricultural land.