Archer’s Spring

Outline Planning Permission Approved

At Development Management Committee on April 10th Outline Planning Permission for Archers Spring was formally approved, subject to a legal agreement on section 106 (funding provided bt the developer for local amenities such as NHS, eduction, highways, sports and community facilities etc.), and a string of over 50 planning conditons covering topics such as the exact mix of housing, number of different types and their location, detail building design, highways design, decontamination of the land, biodiversity improvements, landscaping including the green corridor, construction traffic management, drainage, SuDS, utility sevices, parking, highway adoption, cycle- and footways etc. Outline Planning Permission is a preliminary step and firms up only the overall shape and accesses to the site, allowing conditions to be applied to the detail developement planning. The report presented by the officers is available by clicking here. A full recording of the committee meeting is on YouTube

Adam Leaf spoke on behalf of SWNA, and there was also an speech from the shooting range on Bramfield Road concerned that new residents will complain about noise and force them to close. The planning officers commented that the input from SWNA and the Neighbourhood Plan had been helpful in allowing them to frame the conditions and ensure that the development is suitable and compliant.

It will be a few weeks before we see the final documents coming out as a result of the decision and we will post links on here when available. The next steps then will be months of design work by the developer, addressing the conditions under what is called ‘reserved matters’. The district council will set up a Community Development Forum to share progress between the developer, the council and stakeholders, including SWNA. This will be the main mechanism for engagement with the developers to ensure that the conditions are met and we can influence the design aspects about which we are concerned. The developer will then need to apply for full planning permission and discharge of the conditions, as well as entering into a legal agreement to pay the section 106 funds

Key points from DMC (in addition what is presented in the officers’ report

• Outline Planning Permission approved subject to conditions and section 106 agreement, which is now at £4m (up from £2.7m)

• Developer want to proceed quickly and deliver the project within 5 years. The permission requires an application for full permission within 3 years and construction to begin 2 years after that is approved.

• The approval is for up to 342 homes, 693 parking spaces and 342 cycle spaces. Detail to be worked out under ‘reserved matters’

• Buildings will be up to 4 storey and the height in metres must be made clear during the design. Detail to be worked out under ‘reserved matters’

• Following our concerns about the bus route through Perret Gardens, the developer will need to work with HCC highways to look again at the design and get appproval for the revised design

• The plan is for the 395 bus to run via Perret Gardens to serve the new developemnt and Blakemore Manor with an increased frequency of up to 4 buses an hour. Section 106 funding has been set aside for this. The final decision will be under reserved matters and is subject to a satisfactory solution being approved for the layout in Perret Gardens

• The Green Corridor is approved but its precise location and landscaping needs to be designed under reserved matters and be approved. The council agreed to add a clause in the conditions that it comply with policy HSHE4 in the Neighbourhood Plan (this still means it can be in the the centre of the development but it means the corridor has to be a wildlife habitat not a playground)

• Whilst the development (in conjunction with Blakemore Manor) will deliver a shared cycle / footway from the junction of Welwyn Road and the Chain walk bridlepath to Tewin to Hutton Close pedestrian crossing, additonal section 106 money is earmarked to partially fund improvements to Welwyn Road that will provide a cycleway and wider footway as far as Hertford North

• There will be a number of informal crossing points on Welwyn Road with centre refuges to enable safer access to Panshanger Park

• A drainage parameter must be provided under reserved matters and approved

• A landscape strategy is needed as a condition to cover topography, woodland and ecology

• The 30mph zone will only be extended to the limit of Blakemore Manor and not to Archers Spring. This is because the road is not condidered to look like an urban 30mph road to drivers. This was decided by a committee that included HCC Highways and the police.

• There will be a contribution to enhancing Panshanger Park under the section 106

Once the formal minutes are published there will be a link here

Outcome of Public Meeting

Thank you to everyone who attended. I have incorporated your comments and feedback into what I will say tomorrow at DMC, and I have sent an e-mail to the councillors on the committee:

Dear DMC Committee Member,

 I am writing to you ahead of the meeting on Wednesday to put the position of Sele Ward Neighbourhood Association (SWNA) in relation to the outline planning application for 342 homes at Archers Spring in Hertford. We have consulted with residents in Sele to understand the main concerns of residents and submitted a formal objection through the planning portal last September. Having read the planning officers’ report in the pack for Wednesday’s meeting, I can see that many of the issues have been addressed, so I will focus on those areas which remain contentious.

 We recognise the work that has been done overall to incorporate the Sele Neighbourhood Area Plan (SNAP) policies, and trust that the council will continue to promote and enforce these at future stages of the development. Inevitably a lot of the resolutions lie in reaching a suitable solution post approval as part of the ‘reserved matters’. SWNA is keen to engage with the council and the developer to help reach a satisfactory outcome in these areas – whether through the proposed Development Management Forum or otherwise.

 Affordable Housing

We remain disappointed that the HOU3 target of 40% has not been achieved, although we welcome the revised tenure split of 75/25 between rent and home ownership. This still means the level of affordable rent is around 54% of the HOU3 target. This of particular concern to residents who repeatedly find that their children are unable to find affordable housing locally. We would ask EHDC to provide data on the overall level of affordable rent and affordable home ownership being achieved across the district over the next 5 years as a percentage of the total number of new dwellings; we would also ask for an estimate on the impact of this development on the housing waiting list in Hertford.

 Existing Shops and Infrastructure

It is disappointing that no reference is made to the lack of local facilities in the development such as shops, hospitality venues, health and wellbeing facilities etc. The impact will be an increase in demand for the existing facilities in the Fleming Crescent area, yet with no provision for extension of these facilities to cope, other than through the section 106 funding for the NHS. There will inevitably be increased demand on car parking there as well as on the shops themselves. Car parking is already a significant issue and so additional funding is required to extend car parking provision and prevent shoppers from parking on residential streets in the vicinity. We would also recommend that as part of the detailed design, the developer consider providing a small number of commercial units for a café / pub or community shop.

 Referring to section 13.0: Recommendations covering Heads of Terms and Planning Conditions, we would ask you to consider the following:

 Section 106 Contributions

• Education. The bulk of this money should be made available to the 4 schools in Sele Ward and not pooled to provide facilities in Ware or any other location that is more than 20 minutes distant by bus.

• Bus Service. We welcome the increased frequency proposed to the 395, but suggest that an evening service be restored. This could be achieved by extension of the 395’s hours or by diversion of the 324 or 724 services to serve Archers Spring and Sele Farm after 19.00

• Sele Farm Community Centre (SFCC). This funding is related to the loss of parking spaces and the lack of access from the new development for elderly and disabled users without a significant diversion via Welwyn Road and Bentley Road; the money would be need to purchase / lease land adjacent to the centre. A condition should be added that a suitable area of land be provided to the SFCC as part of the reserved matters in exchange for a reduction in the section 106 funding equating to the value of that land. This should be situated so that SFCC can establish, as a minimum, access for dropping off elderly / disabled users from the new estate.

 Section 278 works

• The pedestrian link with Bentley Road, as shown on the parameter plan, would require the acquisition of a garden and driveway from 162, Bentley Road. We would propose that the link is resited to behind the flats West of the current bus terminus.

• We would propose an additional pedestrian access from the North East part of the site to the Ridgeway play area / MUGA just North of the SFCC. This would reduce footfall along Perret Gardens

• We recommend that the new bus stops on Welwyn Road are designed so the bus can pull in off the carriageway to avoid congestion, to be included within the section 278 works.

 Planning Conditions (numbering relates to the condition in the pack)

• 2. Approved Plans. We are disappointed that the plans showing a green corridor in the centre of the development have been approved. Referring to sections 10.123-7, the SNAP calls for this corridor (GC2) to be along the Eastern boundary, to the rear of the gardens on Bentley Road. SNAP policy HSHE4 calls for green infrastructure to provide ‘functional wildlife habitat linking habitats together’. The current plans do not guarantee this, for example part of the green corridor proposed has a playground in it which is not a functional wildlife habitat. The reserved matters must include provision for the design of the green corridor based on the Green Infrastructure Guidance from Natural England, 2009, including the provision for wildlife to cross the proposed residential road serving the development. If this cannot be achieved in the proposed central position, the corridor must revert to the red line described in the SNAP Appendix A; this remains our preferred option as most likely to achieve the objectives of the SNAP.

• 5-10, 20. Decontamination of the land is a major concern to residents, so we ask that residents are informed of the strategy, verification report, monitoring plan and of any work taking place on site. We recognise that the council are best placed to police this.

• 11-14. Accesses. The detail design will be critical to ensure public safety. We are particularly concerned about the Perret Gardens access which the report admits is sub-optimal. There is an inconsistency in the report in that the assessment was made against the current frequency of the 395 bus service (2 per hour in each direction) – section 10.96 - while the report requires the future service level to be 3 to 4 per hour in each direction – section 10.90. We support a return to the pre-pandemic frequency of the bus service, but this will impact the situation in Perret Gardens which is not wide enough for 2 buses to pass. The proposed frequency (equal to a bus every 7.5 minutes) significantly increases the risk of two buses meeting in Perret Gardens and also the risk of a bus meeting a stream of vehicles leaving Sele Farm Community Centre at the end of a session. We would ask that this be taken into account under reserved matters and further safety matters be adopted, for example signalisation of Perret Gardens and the Community Centre exit to avoid conflicts of traffic, and the installation of physical barriers to prevent vehicles mounting the footway. An alternative would be to serve the estate using a different bus service such as the H2 or 323 which would access the development from Welwyn Road (and could also serve Blakemore Manor).

We remind the council that at present buses are frequently delayed or have to divert due to obstructions such as parked cars or utility works on the narrow route through Sele Farm; this will be a greater issue with an increased service frequency and should be addressed through section 106 funds.
Additionally, the loss of parking spaces outside SFCC will present a problem for the operation of the Centre as there will be nowhere to park for the caretakers while they open the gates – one designated parking bay is needed in the final design for this purpose (or additional section 106 funding to allow for automation of the gates).

• 15. Highway Works. We are disappointed that a shared footway / cycleway solution has been proposed as we believe this will be less safe than a segregated one. No mention has been made of parking provision and access for houses along Welwyn Road. Residents currently park on the verge which will be used for the shared footway / cycleway and we would ask that this be addressed under reserved matters, recognising that this will in future be a 30MPH restricted road. This must also take into account access to the new houses under construction between Welwyn Road and Carde Close. We would require a condition that no highway trees or mature hedgerow plants will be removed to facilitate the development of the shared cycleway and footpath.  

• 18. The Construction Traffic Management Plan must be made available to residents and an emergency telephone number with extended hours, including weekends,  must be provided to allow resident to report contraventions

• 21. Levels. The approval must also be contingent on protection of the View towards Goldings as described in policy HSHE7 of the SNAP.

 I look forward to speaking to you at the DMC and SWNA look forward to working with the council as this development moves forward.

 Regards
Adam Leaf
Chair, SWNA

Public Meeting: Monday, 8th April, 7pm, Community Hub, Fleming Crescent

Ahead of the April Development Management Committee of East Herts, we want to meet you all again to go through the latest position and get your input. We expect that there will be a 3 minute slot afforded to SWNA to highlight our concerns with the prposed development, which will need to be focused on non-compliance to the Neighbourhood Plan. We don’t believe we can stop conditional approval, but we need to make sure that there sufficient conditions to mitigate the impact of the developemnt on the existing inhabitants of Sele, our beutiful countryside and our new neighbours. So please join us at this meeting or send any comments to us by email

Agenda:

• Welcome and introduction

• Explanation of the process

• Summary of Planning Officers' Report (the full report is on the EHDC website as part of the pack - click and go to page 13) which recommends outline permission be granted

• Key issues we will be raising

• Your input and concerns

• Summary and next steps

Members of the public have the right to attend the DMC meeting in person or online. It will be on Wednesday April 10th at 7pm in the council chamber at Wallfields and live streamed on https://www.youtube.com/user/EastHertsDistrict

UPDATE - 23rd February 2024

Councillor Redfern was briefed yesterday by the planning officers at East Herts District Council. It is still unclear when it will be discussed at the Development Managment Committee (DMC - the committee that makes the final decision), but it could be March 6th or more likely at their April meeting.

Here are the main points:

• The council have conceded that there will only be 20% affordable housing, although have a commitment that 71% of the affordable housing will be social rent rather than ‘intermediate’ (i.e. discounted sale or rent). This means the development will still have fewer than half the council policy level of social rent dwellings.

• They have been advised that the green corridor should be sited in the middle of the development rather than on the East side. This looks to be the central corridor in the picture above. They have been informed that this is a better location for it in terms of wildlife movement. They also mentioned that the back to back gardens on the East side could also be a route for wildlife.

• The overall section 106 money has been increased to £4m., much of which will go to education. That will be spent at the discretion of HCC. Some will also be used to fund the cycle / footpath along the north side of Welwyn Road

• The initial assessment of Perret Gardens bus access shows that it is ‘not ideal but is safe’. They will therefore recommend that it goes ahead but will need to satisfy the Highways officer in relation to the impact of the detail design. Their view is that the importance of having a bus to the new development from a sustainability point of view takes precedence as long as it is deemed safe.

• The loss of parking facilities for the community centre should be offset by s106 money (presumably so they can buy the plot next door?) of up to £250k

• The cycle / footpath along Welwyn Road will not be segregated due to space constraints

• The turn off Welwyn Road into the estate will be similar to Bentley Road

• Swift bricks will be included as a condition for the detailed design

There will be a long list of conditions attached to the planning permission (if approved) to cover issues such as decontamination of the site, drainage, building standards etc.

From SWNA, we still feel that the conditions as briefed remain inadequate and we will continue to lobby for better. We will speak at the DMC and make it clear that approval of this goes against the District Plan and Neighbourhood Plan and against what the Green Party stands for.