Jonty Wild,
Cats’ Whiskers, 14a High Street, Pirton, Herts. SG5 3PS
Mobile: 07941 247129 Tel: 01462-711383
Email:
1

Dear MrEllis,

Ref: 17/04239/OP - Outline application for the erection of 25 dwellings (including 10 affordable dwellings), together with provision of open space with seating, a perimeter path, archaeological information boards, footpath link, landscaped bunds and access to Priors Hill. (All matters reserved except means of access.)

Location - Land On The North East Side Of Priors Hill, Opposite Hill Farm And North Of Danefield Road Priors Hill Pirton Hertfordshire

  1. General Context:

Thank you for the opportunityto commenton these proposals and I do so in the following context.

  • The application has all matters reserved, except access and therefore, I reserve my detailed comments on other matters for another time, with the exception of dwelling numbers which are relevant.[1]
  • This land is outside the Pirton Conservation Area.
  • This land is inside the proposed village development boundary.
  • It is immediately adjacent to a Scheduled Monument and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and is in the setting of another Scheduled Monument.
  • I fully support the Pirton Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNP), its contents and the contents of the associated reference documents including and especiallythe Character Assessment.
  • It was confirmed at the NHDC Cabinet meeting (23/1/2018) that the PNP must now be given material consideration in respect of this application (and all others in Pirton):

“9.4 As a consequence of receiving the examiner's report for the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan, the local planning authority must now have regard to the provisions of the neighbourhood plan as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications within Pirton parish.”[2]

  • As the NHDC Local Plan is only in Examination at present and therefore some considerable time off being ‘made’,NHDC Saved Polices: Policy 6 - Rural Areas beyond the Green Belt Policy 29, are current and should be applied.

Comments on the Application:

  1. Context:

I recognise that this land is available for development, or more accurately will be when the Local Plan and PNP are passed. However, as NHDC have passed other applications - ignoring the fact that the boundary has not yet changed, I must assume that NHDC will consider it available now.

In principle, I do not object to development on the site identified within the application, however proposals require special attention because of its position in respect of the two scheduled monuments and the AONB and therefore the impact of any development must be acceptable in that context.

Given this context and the special attention required, it is not appropriate to only assess some characteristics of the development, i.e. the non-reserved matters, in isolation. To do so may approve certain aspects of the attributes of the application without taking into account how they work together for this setting.

Objections:

  • I object because I believe that a reserved matters application is not appropriate and full application is required, in order to properly assess the full impact to this special setting.
  • If NHDC do not insist on a full application and wish to concede the principle of development at this stage, I urge you to include sufficient conditions to ensure a proper assessment of Historic England’s views and the impact of the development, as a whole, to the setting.
  1. Archaeology
  • It is unacceptable that the archaeological field evaluation done in December, has been only recently uploaded to the planning portal and therefore has not been available to those submitting objections and comments.
  • I understand that the report acknowledged finding part of a skeleton, but ‘found’ no dating evidence. This is not acceptable, especially given its proximity to the scheduled monument. Dating must take place and surely if it was unable to be dated there and then, it should have been reported to the police?
  • This situation must be corrected before any decision on the planning application is made.

Objection:

  • I object because the time given for people to take account of the archaeological field evaluation report was inadequate and because, without dating the human remains, the report is inadequate.
  1. Scheduled Monument

Given the status of the land immediately adjacent, as Scheduled Monument, which is recognised by the applicant, it is disturbing that the application fails to include the views of one of the leading interested parties, namely Historic England and refers only to “ongoingdiscussions”.

I find it unacceptable that we, as members of the public, are asked to comment, and NHDC are asked to decide on this application, without being aware of Historic England’s views. For instance, I think it highly likely that they will object to the following:

  • The height of the proposed dwellings
  • The density of the proposed dwellings and,
  • The proximity of the proposed tree planting to the Scheduled Monument.

Objection:

  • I object to the application because it fails to take into accountHistoricEngland’s views on what is acceptable in the context of the scheduled monuments. Acceptance of outline planning permission for 25 properties would be presumptuous and may conflict with the views of this leading consultee, complicating the future detailed application.
  • In particular, no outline planning permission should be approved that could result in conflict with the views of the leading stakeholder who has not yet been formerly consulted – this could be the case in respect of Historic England.
  1. Impact:

There is no doubt that building on this site will have direct impact to the adjacent Scheduled Monument and the AONB. Therefore, any application requires serious consideration and its impact must be acceptable in the context of the adjacent and nearby sites.

While recognising that the application is only for outline planning permission, approval should not be taken lightly, especially if it could result in an unacceptable impact to the setting.

An application that might be acceptable for other sites in and around Pirton would not necessarily be acceptablehere.

The detail of appearance would be dealt with at detailed application stage, however there are attributes that must be considered at outline application stage. In particular, and in this case especially, I consider these to be height, density and screening.

Objection:For the reason explained in detail below I believe the impact of the proposed development, in its current form, would have an unacceptably detrimental impact on the scheduled monuments and the AONB.

  1. Height[3]

I have not found specific details of the individual heights for the dwellings shown in the site elevation, however the applicant confirms that the dwellings would be two-storey and have a maximum ridge height of 8.5m. The elevation shows little variation, so itmust be that they will be predominantly 8.5m in height.

Dwelling heights in Baulk Gardens (8.8m) and Danefield Road (8.5m) are cited to justify the proposed height. In my view they do not.

  • Firstly, it should be remembered that neither site was built with the knowledge of the existence of the important finds that justified scheduling.
  • Secondly, the existence of such heights does not justify their continuation to the edge of the Scheduled Monument and consequential visual impact. The visual impact should be reduced not continued and,for the impact to be acceptable,a significant reduction in height is required.

Objection:I object to the proposed height of 8.5m. If permitted, the impact on the Scheduled Monument would be unacceptably detrimental.

  1. Density[4]

The applicant provides various calculations for the density, but it is misleading to include any land that is scheduled and therefore I only reference 20.8 dph.

Densities of Danefield Road (26 dph) and Baulk Gardens (25.2 dph) are cited to justify the proposed density of 20.8 dph. In my view they do not.

  • Firstly, it should be remembered that neither site was built with the knowledge of the existence of the important finds that justified scheduling.
  • Secondly, it should be remembered that Baulk Gardens is a small development and within the character of Pirton small areas of higher density are acceptable, and they should not be used for general extrapolation or on to larger sites. In Pirton, the traditional maximum density[5] is about 22 dph and the average 17 dph.
  • Thirdly, the existence of such densities does not justify their continuation andconsequential impact on the Scheduled Monument. The impact should be reduced not continued. There needs to be a transition by lowering the density. In this case a significant reduction is required.

I accept that the application has reduced the density across the site as it approaches the Scheduled Monument, however the larger houses are positioned such that their footprint continues the detrimental impact. Their orientation means that the largest elevation is generally broadside to the scheduled site thereby compounds the impact.

Objection:I object to the proposed density of 20.8 dph. If permitted, the impact on the Scheduled Monument would be unacceptably detrimental. At the edge of the built area it should be no more than the average for Pirton of 17 dph, but in the context of the Scheduled Monument it should be less. I suggest therefore, for this site, no more than 15 dph should be considered.

  1. Screening

I acknowledge that the applicant has sought to reduce the visual impact by proposing a bund and tree planting, however given the proposed location of these in relation to the Scheduled Monument and the potential damage to archaeology from roots itis very unlikely to be acceptable to Historic England.[6]

Objection:I object to the proposedscreening as I believe it will not be acceptable to Historic England and therefore it will not be practical.

  1. Character

The design conflicts with a significant element of Pirton’s character, that being the avoidance of ‘satellite’ developments or disjointed zones. Within Pirton this problem is solved by the integration of developments into the fabric of the village by means of direct access to other areas of the village via a network of inter-connecting footpaths and roads.[7]

I accept that a direct road link is impractical and probably undesirable in this case, however a footpath link to Baulk Gardens / Pollards Way from the eastern corner is essential and no evidence has been provided as to why this would not be practical. As far as I know, from the application, no attempt has been made to negotiate such access with the owner of the private road or with the owner of 29 Danefield.

The proposed footpath across the Scheduled Monument providing some access via a north-easterly route is not an adequate alternative because of the distance involved – leading first in the opposite direction and then parallel, and because it is unlikely to be ‘all weather’ as ‘hard’ construction (bitumen/concrete) is unlikely to be permitted because it would require excavation.

Objection:I object to the lack of direct footpath links to the main village and its facilities. Footpath access to Baulk Gardens or Pollards Way should be provided.

  1. House Type/Mix

The PNP evidences the community’s desire for a mix of housing with less emphasis on large detached houses and new properties to include bungalows and terraced housing and particularly:

  • The need for two and three-bed houses
  • Homes suitable for down-sizing and lifetime occupation by the elderly, including bungalows and sheltered accommodation.

The application proposes 25 houses; 6 three-bed houses, 9 four+ bed house market value houses and 10 two-bed houses. This does little to meet local need.

The proposal for 25 houses, burdens the applicant with 10 affordable houses. The evidenced local need for affordable housing[8] was met by the development of Baulk Gardens. Further, wider need will be met by the approved development of 78 houses (16/02256/1)including 40% affordable.

This is would be a prime site for development in Pirton were it not for its proximity to the scheduled monuments and AONB. The main problem is the impact on those areas. However, that very issue provides a unique opportunity for meeting the needs of Pirton and still being a profitable site, namely:

  • Reducing the number of dwellings would remove the financial ‘burden’ of affordable housing[9].
  • This would permit the inclusion of a significant number of spacious, well-designed bungalows. This would significantly reduce the visual impact and, within Pirton, would be a much sought after and desirable dwelling type, which would meet an identified need for down-sizing and lifetime occupation.

This is an ideal site for bungalows.

Objection:I object to the dwelling mix because it fails to meet the needs of Pirton and would have too great a visual impact.

  1. Access

The applicant provided details of the likely traffic which will be generated by this site and has not considered the interaction of its access with the junction of Danefield, Hitchin Road and Priors Hill, which is in very close proximity.

The layout plans show tree planting in locations which would restrict the sight lines and are therefore not safe.

Objection:Given the proximity of the proposed junction to the existing three-way junction, the interaction of the new traffic with existing must be considered for safety reasons and is not. Therefore the access has not been demonstrated to be acceptable, practical or safe.

  1. Public Open Space

I applaud the proposal to use the Scheduled Monument as public open space, provide this does not damage the integrity of the archaeology, which I am sure can be avoided with careful consideration. However, the arrangements for this use should be formalised including any arrangement for maintenance. I assume this can be done by a planning condition and formal arrangement with Pirton Parish Council and / or the Pirton Bury Trust who would be ideallyplaced to take on this responsibility.

Objection: None, I support this proposal providing the arrangements are formalised.

  1. Pirton Neighbourhood Plan (PNP) specific

Firstly, it should be noted that applicant has not used the PNP in its post-Examiner and final form. I give the relevant final text and some comments:

  1. Policy PNP 2: “Residential development proposals will be supported if they are in accordance with the guidance contained in the Pirton Character Assessment . . .” and

The Pirton Character Assessment (PCA), confirms the whole of this site as “Visual Character Area 2” and “Any new building development in any of these Areas affects the visual character and the designation. They are also transitional zones linking the built-up areas to the open countryside and the Chilterns AONB. They should be maintained and protected.”

This does not preclude development, but the starting point is that there should not be more development here than in the adjacent built area. As a transitional zone any development requires a particularly sensitive approach

The applicant has failed to demonstrate how they believe that this has been done.

  1. Policy PNP 2.3:"The density of any scheme should be consistent and compatible with the existing and prevailing density and reflect the locally distinctive character of the locality in which the new development is proposed so that the village feel is retained."

I draw your attention to my comments given in section 4Density.

  1. Policy PNP 2.6: “Should take into account the Chilterns Conservation Board Position Statement “Development Affecting the Setting of the Chilterns AONB June 2011” or as updated, or provide a convincing explanation why compliance is not possible.”

The applicant has failed to demonstrate how this has been done.

  1. Policy PNP7:"The Plan seeks to protect and enhance the setting of Pirton village in relation to the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the surrounding rural landscape. Any new development in an area within the views specified below, described on pages 35 – 39 and shown on the map on page 36 of the Plan must ensure that key features of the view can continue to be enjoyed including distant buildings and landscape features, sensitive village edges and rural approaches to the village.”

In this case the following views:

  • 2 - The view from Shillington Road and the Driftway looking southwards to Priors Hill (water tower) and St Mary’s Church Tower.
  • 5 - The view from Priors Hill northeast towards Langford Water Tower and beyond.
  • 8 – NNW (North, north west) from the Baulk public footpath across Priors Hill towards the westward extension of the Chiltern ridge and the famous local landmark of Sharpenhoe Clappers.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate how this has been done.

  1. Policy PNP 8:

“8.1. Proposals conserve or enhance the heritage assets of the Parish and their settings in a way that is appropriate to their significance. Heritage assets include heritage assets and non-designated heritage assets;”

The applicant does satisfy the above condition, but fails to meet the following:

8.3“. . . In addition to consultation with the archaeological planning advisory service and the Herts Historic Environment Record, specialists undertaking such surveys should consult with the Pirton Parish Council which holds local knowledge on these sites.”

So, in short,there are a number of Neighbourhood Plan policies that are either not addressed at all, or are inadequately addressed.

Objection: Given the material consideration which is required of the PNP[10] I must object because the applicant has not considered the above planning policies and therefore the application is not demonstrably complete.

Yours Sincerely

Jonty Wild

Copies to Cllrs. Clare Strong,David Barnardand Faye Frost

1

[1]Referencing other outline application decisions, for example (15/01618/1), the misleading information given in the related Planning Control Committee Meeting (17/12/2015) subsequently referred to by councillors in the Planning Control Committee Meeting (25/5/2017) for the subsequent detailed application (16/02256/1), it is clear that dwelling numbers are dealt with at outline planning permission stage.