Your name

Your email

First Line of Address

Your Postcode

Subject

Message (Edit just as you wish)
Dear Sir/Madam Objection to planning application 23/1795/OUT 49, Longview, And Land To The Rear London Road Shenley Hertfordshire: Outline consent for up to 103 age restricted dwellings (over 55yrs)…etc. I am writing to object to the above proposed development on green belt for the following reasons. This objection should be taken as my separate and individual submission in accordance with your agreed policy. 1. Harm to the Greenbelt and absence of ‘Very Special Circumstances’ The proposed development is in the Green Belt and nappropriate development is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances, which I do not believe is possible to show for the detailed reason below below. 2. Relevant matters from the recent ‘Shenley Grange’ HBC rejection decision (Application number 22/1826/OUTEI) On 30 March 2023 the Hertsmere Borough Council (‘HBC’) rejected the above application which relates to a site directly adjacent to the land subjection to the Longview application. In the Planning Statement issued by Pegasus (the ‘Planning Statement’) to support this 49 Longview application, paragraph 3.3 states that ‘It is however notable that in refusing planning permission (for the Grange) the LPA relied heavily upon changes to national policy which have not even taken place.’ However, the applicant’s Planning Statement does not specify which changes to national planning policy had not taken place, neither are they in any way obvious to any reader. The reasons listed in the rejection notice, are a relevant precedent and very relevant in considering the Longview planning application. Any claimed ‘change in policy’ must be publicly re-consulted, if they exist, to ensure they can be considered by the public as well as planers This 49 Longview site is directly adjacent to the Grange site and therefore all of the reasons for the rejection of the Grange site, are very relevant to Longview. These include: · Major urbanising development of an unallocated green-field site · Harm to biodiversity and protected species of wildlife · Harm to landscape and trees · Harm to significance of heritage assets HBC should ensure the 'Principle of consistency’ in decision-making is met as there has been a previous decision to refuse planning permission in respect of the adjacent site that in many aspects is materially the same at the site of this adjacent application. 3. Comments on certain specific matters in the Applicant’s planning statement including the ‘Three main issues’ and accompanying document 3.1.Need for age specific (over age 55+) housing in Shenley No consideration has been given to the housing needs of the 55+ age group in Shenley. Listed below are other factors to consider in assessing the suitability of this type of development for Shenley. · Based on an analysis of the 2021 census data for Shenley ward, of the 2100 households in Shenley, 50% of the households have one or more people over 55. This indicates that there are already a substantial number of people aged 55+ and substantial number of houses for the 55+ age group. · In addition there are three existing care homes in Shenley ; Wilton House, Shenleybury House and Villa Scalabrini. This further development, focusing on this age group, would be disproportionate to the village as a whole. Furthermore, the distribution of specialist housing such as 55+ over a wider area of Shenley and for the matter anywhere in Hertsmere follows good community planning and social mix. · Paragraph 2.17 of the Pegasus report, notes ‘The location of housing is a key consideration for older people who may be considering whether to move (including moving to more suitable forms of accommodation). Factors to consider include the proximity of sites to good public transport, local amenities, health services and town centres.’ Shenley village has limited amenities, compared to surrounding areas. In the settlement hierarchy in the draft Local Plan (which was set aside), Shenley was classified as a Tier 4 settlement. There is limited capacity in the local GP practice. Therefore, this site, does not meet the requirements stated above and is not directly suitable as a new development for the age55+ population. · The Shenley Housing Needs Assessment report completed by Aecom in May 2018 for the Shenley Neighbourhood Plan states that the estimated unconstrained housing need for Shenley for the next 15 years was 220 homes. Given a high percentage of Shenley Parish is in the Green Belt, the amount of housing on a ‘constrained’ basis would be significantly lower. · The Neighbourhood Plan highlights the need not only for housing for older people, but also for suitable affordable homes for young people and those people with young families. This proposed development of 103 units, solely for the 55+_age group and solely for ‘owned tenure’, would be disproportionate and not balanced for Shenley village when taking into account the housing needs referred to above. 3.2. Relevance of the previous emerging HBC Local Plan which was set aside I disagree with the consideration of the draft HBC Local Plan and the weight given to it in the consideration of the planning balance in Paragraph 6.64 and 6.65 of the applicant’s Planning Statement. This is supported by the Planning Inspectorate’s recent Appeal Decision for ‘Land South of Shenley road’( see extract below) and the Planning Inspectorate’s appeal decision for Harris Lane. ( 22/0971/OUT) “Paragraph 27. ‘However, it is agreed that the policies in the ELP (Emerging Local Plan) – and therefore its allocations – carry no weight (emphasis added) because they were set aside by the Council. Furthermore, the VSCs that need to be established to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt as a windfall are distinct from the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required to change Green Belt boundaries in a local plan context.” In the context of the applicant claims the Green Belt review prepared by ARUP was prepared to support the new local plan and is focussed on the ‘Exceptional circumstances’ test for release of land from the greenbelt. It is not focussed on the ‘Very Special Circumstances’ test required to be considered for speculative applications including this one. This is supported by the Planning Inspectorate’s recent Appeal Decision for ‘Land South of Shenley road’. Paragraph 59 ‘More importantly in my judgement is the importance of the plan-led system, in particular as expressed in the Green Belt chapter of the NPPF, the difference between the exceptional circumstances test for reviewing Green Belt boundaries as part of a new local plan and the stricter VSC test for development management purposes. This difference has been re-affirmed in the revised NPPF’ But Arup’s Green Belt Assessments were carried out to satisfy the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test, which is essentially a wider strategic assessment of the whole of the Green Belt within the Borough, and not the stricter VSC test, which is not. So, whilst their conclusions are material, they are not determinative.’ 3.3.Consistency with the Shenley Neighbourhood Plan The applicant’s Planning Statement only refers to selected paragraphs in the Shenley Neighbourhood Plan and does not consider the overall objectives of the plan. Shenley is unique with the largest Conservation Area and collection of listed buildings in Hertsmere with rural countryside and Green Belt setting being integral part of its distinctive character. It is important that any development should both protect and enhance the village’s unique characteristics as per the fundamental aims and objectives of the Shenley Neighbourhood Plan, which came into force in May 2021 after a referendum in which 95% approved the Plan. Relevant extracts from the Shenley Neighbourhood Plan are included below: ‘to influence the design quality and type of development in the Parish to protect the rural character of our lovely village and surrounding countryside’. (Forward page 7). ‘The Shenley Neighbourhood Plan, once adopted, will help Shenley to retain the rural feel that is so beloved and admired by residents and visitors…. The Shenley Plan aims to provide for a clear design quality focused strategy whilst at the same time allowing for the retention of the Green Belt protection and nature in and around the village (June 2016 boundaries) as much as feasible’ (Summary page 9) ‘SH1.1 Rural Character Development within the Green Belt areas of the neighbourhood plan will be expected to ensure that the design of the development relates positively to its surroundings and enhances the existing distinctiveness of the rural character of Shenley, by reflecting the special and valued features that are unique to the locality, the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute to that local character.’ (Policies page 10). The design and density of this application is generally urban, or suburban at best; a good example of this is the proposal for 2-3-storey blocks of flats with pitched roofs. Such design is completely incompatible with sections SH1 and SH2 of the Shenley Neighbourhood Plan. It should be noted that, even in brownfield redevelopment locations around Shenley such as Old Nursery Close and Charrington Place, the density does not exceed 11 dwellings per hectare. The proposed development is over 25 dwellings per hectares and is nowhere near the density along the west side of a London Road. It can be seen, therefore, that not only does this development not meet SH1 : Rural Character and Shenley and Design Principles & Code, it demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of the SNP, Shenley’s rural and historic characteristics, the uniqueness of the village and the principles of Conservation Area status. The lack of understanding and empathy of the rural character of Shenley is illustrated in the applicants “Design and Access Statement: 4.8 The Proposed Perspective. This is nowhere near an acceptable design standard where bulk and scale of the 3 storey building clearly does not follow the SNP. Furthermore, the perspective highlights the need for steps due to the significant slope across the site and questions the suitability for housing for older people where a flat site is a primary requirement. In addition, the Applicant’s commentary in the Shenley Plan and Design Code Compliance Checklist includes ‘boilerplate’ responses and does not specifically address the requirements of the Design Code. 4. Other relevant matters from the recent appeal decision ‘Land South of Shenley Road’ (22/1539/OUT In addition to the matters referred to above in section 2.2, there are other relevant matters in the ‘Land South of Shenley Road’ appeal decision which are relevant to this application. 4.1.Lack of biodiversity net gains In paragraph 7.23 of the Planning Statement and supporting documents, the applicant refers to biodiversity enhancement and affords this limited/moderate weight. However, there are no specific details of the biodiversity net gain % which would be delivered. In the recent Shenley Hill appeal decision, it was noted that ‘merely doubling of the very soon to be legal requirement of 10% is a ‘fairly modest BNG. Consequently, I afford it only limited weight.’ It is difficult to see how there could be any significant BNG, given the nature of the land and wildlife, trees/hedgerows and other fauna and flora. Therefore, in the absence of further details, it should not be afforded at most limited weight. 4.2.Impact on grasslands The rejected ‘The Grange’ application noted the impact on grassland and more recently the Shenley Hill appeal decision also focused on the impact on grasslands which cannot be easily mitigated. ‘But the grassland that comprises the majority of the site will not be replaced and so can’t be mitigated. Hence the intrinsic character of the site would remain at substantially adverse simply because it would no longer consist of countryside but of built urban development. In conclusion, there would be substantial adverse landscape effects on the site as a result of the permanent residential development on approximately 8 Ha of it.’ (Para 44) This is equally relevant to this application where the majority of the site is grassland, and is adjacent to the ‘Grange’ site. The Applicant refers to landscaping activities in the Planning Statement (Para 4.12) , including tree/hedge planting and a shared garden space, but this does not replace the existing grasslands. 4.3. Limited economic benefits In paragraph 7.21 of the Planning Statement , the Applicant indicates: ‘Overall, it can be seen that the proposal derives significant weight in support of the economic role of sustainable development’. However, this weighting is contrary to that given in the Shenley Hill appeal decision, as set out below: Para 96 and 97 ‘Rather, that very much depends on all the circumstances of the case. To my mind, lesser weight should attach to such benefits where the location of new development is fundamentally contrary to national and local policy, as it is here, because the aim of the plan-led system is to deliver sustainable development. The fact that the spatial strategy in the CS is out-of-date due to the lack of a 5YHLS does not negate its soundness and compliance with the NPPF as a whole. Economic growth and productivity, the economic objective of sustainable development, does not necessarily trump environmental objectives. Whilst 80% of Hertsmere is Green Belt and housing development on some of it may well be inevitable, exactly where such development should occur, and the economic benefits that would attach to it are a matter for the new local plan. For these reasons I attach only limited weight to the economic benefits’ (emphasis added) 5. Other matters 5.1.Harm to wildlife, trees, air quality, and Shenley’s rural setting Even the applicant acknowledges that the proposed development will be seen beyond the site with rooftops visible. Inward views to the site will be adversely affected, particularly from the rural gate along Radlett Lane, the path along the Watling Chase Timberland Trail (WCTT) and the fields adjacent beyond the northern and south boundaries. I strongly disagree with the statement in the Ecology Assessment report below that there will be no impact on the WCTT. The ‘measures’ referred to in the report, solely refer to limited measures in the construction phase of the development and not to the on-going impact. Further, I disagree with the statement included in the ‘Landscape and Visual Assessment Report’ Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) paragraph 3.18. The WCTT public footpath and bridleway is an outstanding walk from Woodhall Lane to Radlett Lane and should be protected. It makes a significant contribution to the rural character and setting of Shenley village and its ecological richness and the diversity of animal habitats is very special. The proposed development will be visible and the noise of cars nearby will destroy the exceptionable environment of the WCTT. The flats proposed range up to 2-3 storeys, with one of the higher buildings (Block M) being the closest to the footpath and as the land rises to the NE of the site the mass of the buildings will be noticeable above and through the perimeter vegetation. The density of such vegetation varies along the WCCT. In several places, there are gaps in the vegetation, such that the site ground is directly visible from the trail. Much of the vegetation is deciduous and therefore the site would be more visible in the winter. In addition, in order to facilitate the new access road a number of mature trees will need to be removed, including a horse chestnut with a TPO (.Tree T182 (Horse chestnut) Category A1 as referred to in the LVIA report para 3.13), Horse chestnuts and Oak trees have the highest carbon storing status also offering valuable flowers for insect pollination and housing a wide variety of bird and insect life. Trees are also extremely important to human wellbeing; In the words of the Wild Life Trust “ Trees are they ultimate carbon capture and storage machines. Like great carbon sinks, woods and forests absorb atmospheric carbon and lock it up for centuries.” Over the whole site, a significant number of trees would be removed, many mature. Although replanting is proposed it will be many years before carbon status will be replaced. 5.2.Impact on heritage assets The landscaped edge along the west side of London Road makes a significant contribution defining the western “rural edge” in the Conservation Area. This landscape edge of mature trees and hedges defines the character and “rurality” of Shenley Village and compliments the historic references of its listed buildings. Furthermore, this “rural edge” provides a rich ecologically bio-diverse habitat as well as a visual protective enclosure to the locally listed 49 London Road and adjacent houses from the increasingly busy London Road. 5.3.Inappropriate development in the Conservation Area In order to accommodate the new access road it will be necessary to demolish part of 49 London Road a locally listed building in the Conservation Area. Constructed in the 1830’s no 49 is a remnant of the historic Grange the main building of the estate that was destroyed by fire. The building has a historic value resulting in local listing in 2013. A significant issue is the loss of a large area of garden and the ruination of the “setting” of the locally listed building to accommodate the development access. At some points the proposed road access will only be 1.5m from the edge of the footpath. Furthermore, the roadway and the degradation of a locally listed building will result is significant harm in a Conservation Area. 5.4.Traffic, Road Safety, Access from London Road and Highways considerations The proposed development is for 103 dwellings, accommodating a higher number of cars and associated service vehicle journeys. The additional car journeys, pollution and danger posed to schoolchildren at Shenley Primary School make the proposal unacceptable. In addition, the applicant proposes a single access from London Road for vehicles and pedestrians, through the garden of 49 London Road. The illustrative highway measurements provided by consultants indicate that the required visibility splays of 43m in each direction will result in the removal of up to 86m of vegetation, including mature trees and hedging. The Applicant’s ‘Heritage Desk Report’ produced by Pegasus fails to appreciate the implications of the access to the site and consequently the harm to the Conservation Area and 49 a locally listed building. The ‘Landscape Master Plan’ also produced by Pegasus clearly shows the removal of vegetation extending beyond the boundary of 49 London Road to satisfy the highway vision splays. The overall setting out distance is 83m. Furthermore, vegetation extends belong the boundary of 49 London Road and adjacent buildings that would obstruct the required viewing angle consequently the access appears not to be possible and therefore has a consequential impact on the viability of this proposed development. The heritage report under 6.26 mentions for comparison purposes with 49 the access to number 45 and 47 London Road. It is very difficult to understand the relevance of the access to 49 London Road. Both 45 and 47 are two single detached houses that do not have the required highway viewing splays as 49 which are significant. Any access along the western side of London Road is problematic to a large development due to the highway viewing angles, the Conservation Area and in the case of 49 London Road through the ‘front garden’ of a locally listed building, requiring the removal of vegetation and approximately 11 trees. Furthermore, 49 London Road is the only access to a development of 103 dwellings for cars and service vehicles where the back edge of the new pavement is just a few meters from the locally listed building and on the other side almost on the site boundary. Clearly there are setting issues and harm to both the Conservation Area and locally listed buildings which would be significant. 6. Conclusion Overall, taking the above matters into account, we call upon Hertsmere Borough Council Planning Department and Committee to recognise this as wholly inappropriate development in the Green Belt and to refuse planning permission. Yours sincerely

I agree to the Privacy Policy