The letter below has been sent to East Herts District Council by the Civic Society regarding the proposed development of 149 homes adjacent to London Road.
We also have a new entry on the Civic Society Initiative in the members section.
Ms. Elizabeth Humby
Re planning application 3/09/1061/FP
Civic Society (membership circa 250 local households) accepts that development
will take place on this site, we object to this proposal as it stands and ask
that the East He
1. The proposed density of housing is too high.
Each of these points is dealt with below
1. The proposed density of housing is too high
(a) It is
(b) It is
contrary to the East He
permission has been given for 60 dwellings on other sites within the Town (land
behind Greenways and the Allotment site). The proposal for 149 dwellings on this site will bring the total
approved in this period up to 209, almost twice the level proposed in the East
(c) Taking the developments on the three sites cited, together with that on recent windfall sites, the number of dwellings in Buntingford will expand by some 10% or more over a relatively short period, putting some stress on local facilities and the local community. Potential Gypsy and Traveller sites will only add to this problem.
(d) Taking the above into account, we propose that the building density be limited to 30 dwellings per hectare, rather than accepting the applicant�s high density of 43 per hectare. This would yield a total of 109 dwellings on this site alone.
2. There is inadequate provision for parking
(a) The provision of car parking space is not in
accord with guidelines laid down by
(b) As part justification, the applicant quotes that 2001 census figures show vehicle ownership at 1.61 cars per dwelling and that the application corresponds to a slightly higher figure. This is a false justification, as those likely to move into the new development will be of an age distribution quite different from the overall 2001 population of Buntingford. Comparison should be made with car ownership on a similar development with similar transport links, the Bovis Estate for example.
3. Affordable Housing should be more evenly distributed across the site
contrary to SPD Affordable Housing and Lifetime Homes, para. 6.20, which
quotes that affordable housing should be distributed across a site to
facilitate an integrated and sustainable community.
4. Additional Points
(a) Accuracy. The Civic Society is concerned that the application contains a few inaccuracies. Apart from the false claim that the site is well served by public transport, a point is made that the disused railway line on the site boundary is a public right of way. It is not. A more thorough reading than has been possible in the very limited time made available for consultation might show up other errors.
(b) East He
(c) Community Involvement. There has been no community involvement in the preparation of the proposal. The briefing of neighbouring residents a few weeks in advance hardly constitutes involvement; the Town Council were not informed until after the planning application had been registered.
We ask that the
planning application be refused for the reasons outlined above namely that it is contrary to
The Civic Society
would also like to point out that it suppo
On behalf of Buntingford Civic Society, yours sincerely,
R.F.Jackson (Trustee and Executive Committee Member)