DRAFT DEVELOPMENT BRIEF FOR AND THE GROVE SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES 2012

Respondent Comments SCO/0006 Minerals and Waste (HCC Brief area does not contain any areas of search for permanent facilities for reuse, recovery, transfer or recycling of waste. Design of any housing Environment) should accommodate space for recycling, bins and compost bins and be positioned to allow easy access for refuse trucks. Larger housing development should have regard to overall infrastructure required to support it, including sufficient waste management facilities integrated accordingly. Encourage the use of recycled materials where appropriate in construction.

Brief area within the sand and gravel belt designated as a Mineral Consultation Area. Application for development subject to consultation procedures outlined in MCA Supplementary Planning Document section 5. If development brief revised to include greater area, regard should be given to issue of mineral sterilisation and need to recover mineral prior to development. Should be stated in the brief.

Note that parts of western boundary adjoin Great Westwood Quarry. Do not prescribe distance within which incompatible development will not be supported, but permission granted recently to increase time period to complete infilling and restoration until 11 April 2014. Sand and gravel extraction has now ceased but site safeguarded until expiry of permission in 2014.

Highways

Description and depiction of Public Rights of Way, especially on The Grove site inaccurate and misleading. Described as footpaths of footpath cycle routes when a mixture of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways.

Keen to improve pedestrian, cycle and horse links along Grove Mill Land including a link to Whippendell Woods and existing routes to . Current position does not allow for shared use within highway boundary so would be beneficial to consider this within land ownership of The Grove.

SW Herts Cycling Strategy has identified improvements to the cycle network which proposals brought forward within the brief should consider incorporating/delivering: • TR1- cycle route crossing A41 to Gypsy Lane • TR13- to Croxley Green link via Gypsy Lane footpath and Canal • TR14- Hunton Bridge link to existing bridleways and The Grove.

Brief recognises that application should be supported by a Transport Assessment which assesses potential impact on operation of existing access junctions and local highway network. Recognises current Langleybury Mansion access below required visibility standards. As part of any scheme will need to be upgraded. Should proposals make use of Home Farm junction, assessment should be made of this junction, and if required improvements to bring it up to appropriate standards.

To ensure appropriate steps to encourage access by sustainable modes, any planning application will need to be accompanied by robust travel plan and package of compensatory measures and planning obligations.

Lead Local Flood Authority

Hertfordshire County Council as a Lead Local Flood Authority should be added to list of bodies at page 29. SCO/0014 WBC support the policy as long as the Green Belt location of development and accompanying restrictions on replacement floorspace are handled (Watford with care - with regard to the quantity of floorspace allowed, limiting the height of development and careful consideration of the location of the new Respondent Comments Borough floorspace with regard to the landscape, topography and views into the area. Council) SCO/0023 Policy background should refer to PPS25 as brief covers 150ha+ and includes flood zones 1,2,3a and 3b/ (Environment Physical context section refers to Grand Union Canal. Along the length of the site, the canal flows in channel with the River Gade. Flood zones 3b, Agency) 3a and 2 extend into brief area for Langleybury and The Grove. Needs to be fully addressed in the document, and will need to carry out the Sequential Test for any development to ensure it is steered away from areas at risk of flooding.

Site constraints and parameters plan to be updated to include flood risk.

Site also overlies source protection zones. Langleybury in Source Protection Zone 2 (contaminants would reach public drinking water abstraction point in less than 500 days), large proportion of The Grove in Source Protection Zone 1 (contaminants would reach public drinking water abstraction point in less than 40 days). Should be addressed in brief and be recognised in application scope towards end of document.

Document section should refer to Sustainable Drainage Systems not Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

Area south east of Langleybury site previously identified as an ideal area for a wet woodland. Would increase priority habitat in area and would be compatible with flood zone 3b designation.

As part of planning application, would expect a surface water Flood Risk Assessment for development greater than 1ha, an Flood Risk Assessment for any development in flood zone 2 and 3, evidence that you have carried out Sequential Test, a Preliminary Risk Assessment for development on areas which may be considered contaminated or for developments which cause contamination. SCO/0026 Langleybury House Grade II* listed building at risk. Clear opportunity to achieve repair and re-use of Langleybury House, setting of which has (English been degraded by adjoining, dominant and poorly designed modern school. Demolition of the modern building, and provision for replacement Heritage) within curtilage of The Grove could enable mutually beneficial development. Believe ‘trading’ of development on Green Belt is justified by exceptional circumstances pertaining to the highly graded historic building at risk. In addition, relocation consistent with aims and purposes of Green Belt in PPG2, in terms of enhancing the openness of the Green Belt in a sensitive position and re-placing such development where this purpose not infringed.

Concerned that proposal includes ‘around 25 homes’ within Langleybury site. Understand that The Grove requires new development to allow expansion of that business. This should be all the replacement development required to ensure that the future of historic building at risk is secured. Would therefore object to this aspect of the proposal in terms of the advice contained in PPS5, policies HE3.1, 3.4 and 5.1. SCO/0057 Policy background should refer to relevant Core Strategy strategic objectives and Development Management policies (when finalised) including (Natural CS SO9 and DM6. CS policy CP9 is also relevant and should be listed- protection of Green Infrastructure assets and incorporation of Green ) Infrastructure into development should be a key consideration. The Grove encompasses a Local Wildlife Site so Local Plan policy N2 is relevant and should be listed. PPS9 should also be referenced.

Delivery of Green Infrastructure and biodiversity enhancement should be listed as a key development objective.

Would like to see an ‘ecology and biodiversity’ section within development guidelines which highlights: • Detailed ecological assessment must accompany any planning application • Designated wildlife site (and any other important habitats identified e.g. UK/local BAP habitats should be protected and retained • Opportunities for management/enhancement of habitats as part of any planning submission should be identified. SCO/0058 (Highways Agency) No comments. Brief does not have any implications for the strategic highway network. Respondent Comments 00649 Locally there are important biodiversity resources which should also be taken into consideration on both Estates, and this should be reflected (Hertfordshir within the Policy e.g. Opportunities for securing and enhancing biodiversity and landscape resources on both sites will be taken where appropriate. e Biological I support the continuation of the agricultural use of the land at Langleybury. Records Centre) Support approach of linking future restoration and enhancement of Langleybury Estate to the use and operation of The Grove, and consideration of future development potential on both sites on an inter-dependent basis.

Linking estate management of both sites key to conserving and enhancing local and historic parkland character of estates and opportunities for enhancing biodiversity.

Home Farm is one of very few active working farm holdings in Three Rivers and has played an important part in providing livestock for grazing a number of sites of ecological interest.

Acknowledged that Langleybury Mansion and parkland have been neglected in recent years, however Home Farm is a working farm and listed buildings within farm have been subject to functional alterations over time. Would need to be considered in respect of protected species.

Buildings and landscape within Grove Estate generally well maintained, however section of open grassland between north of Heath Wood and M25 spur which was translocated as part of original Grove development. Despite advice to TRDC there was no obligation for management of the area which has left area in relatively poor condition. Development Brief or future proposals should address this. Potential for continuation of farm at Langleybury important opportunity to help deliver this, providing potential tools to maintain and enhance this and other grasslands.

Support reduction in impact of Langleybury School on Green Belt and landscape and restoration of heritage asset.

Support continuation of agricultural use of site where appropriate which will allow practical management of the estate and potentially similar land elsewhere.

Demolition of school and replacement development at Langleybury and The Grove must not include proposals that would detract from any existing interests and valuable character of sites.

Alteration of buildings would need to consider potential presence of protected species such as bats.

Historic maps indicate both Langleybury and The Grove had orchards associated with the estates. Consideration should be given to re-creating features and important wildlife habitats. Orchards are an ideal contribution towards objective of enhancing landscape features which have a visual role in the character or the site and surrounding landscape.

Brief makes no detailed reference to ecology. Needs to be addressed.

Proposed eco-farm could have potential but term used with no reference as to what this will mean.

Support requirements for reports on Historic Environment Statement/Archaeological Assessment, landscape, tree survey and report, biodiversity survey and report, flood risk assessment, lighting assessment, energy and sustainability statement.

Application should also be accompanied by landscape/biodiversity management plan to secure potential through a program of management. Must be used as the basis of a s106 to ensure delivery.

Management plan should outline how it is anticipated that the eco-farm will operate as without this, will not be possible to assess whether proposal can be delivered and beneficial land management achieved. Respondent Comments I fully support the continuation of a farming enterprise and the potential this has in providing local food, potentially contributing to the catering requirements of the hotels and leisure facilities. 01767 Historic Environment Record contains some additional information on sites: (HCC • Langleybury contains Listed barn which dates from 15th century (HER4851) and an earlier house than the existing 18th century one stood Historic on the site (HER11391). This changed hands in 1626 and may have been built earlier and replaced other houses on the site. Suggests Environment) medieval occupation of Langleybury. • Archaeological investigations at The Grove revealed occupation from the Mesolithic (HER11492), Neolithic (HER11492), Bronze and Iron Ages (HER11494). Roman (HER11387) and early medieval/Anglo-Saxon activity has also been found (HER11495, 11496). Evidence from this latter period is very rare in . The Grove was the site of a medieval manor (HER11506) as well as the existing house and estate (HER11507) which also contains various garden follies (HER1100, 11504, 11505).

Welcome inclusion of HCC planning and archaeology as pre-app consultees.

Page 18 refers to a desk top archaeological assessment. While useful, may not always be necessary or sufficient on its own. Intrusive archaeological evaluation may also be required.

Welcome statement that any consent will be subject to appropriate archaeological conditions, in some instances may be appropriate for office to advise refusal as PPS5 HE6.1 advises where an application is considered to have potential to include heritage assets, sufficient info should be submitted to allow assessment. HE6.3 says LPAs should not validate where the impact of proposals on significance of heritage assets cannot be understood. HE8 has a general presumption that identification of heritage assets will take place during pre-app stage. 03352 Ralph Trustees Limited’s objective (making money) should not be TRDC’s objective for the site.

Inclusion of RTLs proposition for Langleybury within Brief undermines objectivity of the rest of the document. Instead of a consultation, seems like a fait accomplit. 03707 Pavement along Old Mill Lane badly damaged by cracks/large potholes; mud from field banks coming away in part leaving muddy patches and grass starting to encroach. Also stones and litter. Cars in road outside industrial unit makes it dangerous for pedestrians.

Could Langleybury/The Grove brief incorporate improvements to area? 03881 Inclusion of 25 houses is a TRDC requirement. Ralph Trustees Limited’s sole interest is development of hotel and leisure business and no interest in establishing housing development.

Brief includes references to aspects of development that are purely aspirational –development of housing on HCC land, acquisition of Home Farm and pasture land. Therefore confusion as a result of mix of fact and fiction.

No reference in letter dated 23/05/11 to eco-farm, but a primary objective on page 26 of brief without any further explanation.

Brief shows lifestyle health farm adjacent to Langleybury Lane but agent advised would not be adjacent to Langleybury Lane but probably behind refurbished wall to the garden of the mansion so will be discrete and private and not visible from Langleybury Lane. No detail or definition in brief of what is intended by ‘hotel’ zone.

Linking restoration and enhancement of Langleybury estate to the use and operation of The Grove appropriate.

25 houses on Langleybury is not appropriate. Houses and associated urbanising development would fail to preserve the openness and rural character of the Green Belt and the character and amenities of the locality to the detriment of the visual amenity of Langleybury and the Gade Valley. Brief has not demonstrated very special circumstances to overcome presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Respondent Comments Refusal on 11/0725/FUL stated that remoteness, lack of services and public transportation rendered urbanisation unsustainable- applies equally to housing.

Brief contradicted by 23/05/11 letter to TRDC and clarifications provided by agent on behalf of Ralph Trustees Limited. Should be radically altered. For clarity, should focus on facts and situations as currently stand. Further detail should be shown on location and extent of refurbishment/redevelopment within RTL current ownership.

Brief should stipulate that demolition of secondary school and return to Green Belt should take place before expansion of hotel/leisure development at Langleybury and The Grove.

Restoration of the Mansion should be required from the outset. 03887 As a Resident’s Association, we are generally supportive of the majority of details contained in the Brief. We agree that ‘the future restoration and enhancement of the Langleybury Estate is best linked to the use and operation of The Grove’.

However we do not agree with the inclusion of 25 houses within the brief. We consider that the 25 houses, with the associated urbanising development would fail to preserve the openness and rural character of the Metropolitan Green Belt at Langleybury and the character and amenities of the locality to the detriment of the visual amenities of Langleybury and the Gade Valley. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated to overcome the presumption against inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt for the residential part of the proposal and the remoteness, lack of services, public transportation and facilities renders residential development on this site unsustainable.

We agree that not only should the repair and maintenance of the Langleybury Mansion be required as part of Phase one of the development, including any works to The Grove, but any consent granted for the new conference centre at The Grove should require the demolition of all or part of the old secondary school and the area returned to a condition in keeping with the surrounding Green Belt, before consented work is started. The remains, if any, of the school site should be demolished and returned to the Green Belt condition before the start of any works to the Langleybury Estate. 04028 Secure agricultural tenant on the site and object to proposals for Langleybury.

Home Farm is one of few remaining livestock units in Hertfordshire. Without cooperation, brief is not deliverable as a large and important part of the land will not be made available, so significant as to prejudice the development proceeding.

Brief fails to link The Grove with Langleybury as sites are severed and will clearly function independently. Ownership is not a planning consideration. Brief clearly divides sites into discrete areas and deals with each separately. Does not justify inclusion of both within a single document.

Brief proposes significant buildings in the Green Belt. No justification of very special circumstances required for inappropriate development.

Evidence base (with regard to protected species, agricultural viability, highways, landscape impact) not provided which would impact on what is achievable.

Concept plan introduces uses which are disingenuous e.g. eco-farm with no information on what would be viable or achievable. Lifestyle buildings are clearly not a farm. 04172 Brief does not include plans for Langleybury Children’s Farm. Would be a great shame if closed and would benefit from investment to make it a nicer attraction. 04173 Urge architects and planners to visit school at busiest time. Parking is a major concern on Langleybury Lane 8.30-9.15 am and 3-3.45pm. As school has grown in popularity, car numbers have increased and despite some road safety measures parking is a problem and accident waiting to Respondent Comments happen.

School have worked with PCSOs and parents to try and find solutions. Have carried out numerous parking consultations and about to trial a drop off system in school, but now there are new plans for the road would like the school and the parking to be taken into consideration before any plans made to access new site at top of school driveway. Widening of access road (to allow two-way traffic and a lane of parking) and/or a roundabout at the T-junction would be helpful to discuss. Would welcome any feedback and the opportunity to discuss future recommendations. CU/0201 Area important for recreation, and paths and track used by walkers and cyclists need improvement: • Canal path surface needs improving, particularly in Hunton Bridge area. • RUPP71 through the Grove Estate often has gate by Langleybury Lane locked, restricting access to cyclists and horse riders. • New track should be provided through Langleybury for walkers and cyclists. Would be a useful safe link between Whippendell Woods, Hunton Bridge and Leavesden Country Park. NSO/0054 British Waterways would wish to be included in detailed site discussions to ensure that any proposals have a positive impact on the Grand Union Canal and the impact of potential increases in the number of users of the towpath is considered.

Access and transport section only concentrates on road access to site. Should promote alternative means of travel and have already identified canal towpath as a walking and cycling route to the site. Travel plan and transport assessment should cover alternative means of transport so British Waterways and TRDC can consider impacts of additional usage on towpath. Significant upgrading/mitigation may be required as part of development to ensure towpath is suitable to meet needs of users (existing and new). NSI/0017 Object to siting of housing, but not necessarily principle.

NSI/0060 From Hunton Bridge, currently can just see chimney tops of Langleybury House. Rest of the view is trees and green pasture and church spire. Not mentioned in Brief. Views relate to tidying up vistas from valley from Total garage/Hunton Bridge roundabout. Any new development should take into account view from Hunton Bridge and should not be seen.

25 houses does not accord with Core Strategy spatial vision a), b), e), f), h), i), and j).

Development would require private transport and would change character of rural setting on this road. Traffic already increasing and primary school attracts increasing cars which park on verges making road dangerous.

Development goes against CS Strategic Objective 1. Strategic Objective 2 states that it cannot be assumed that all previously developed land is appropriate for redevelopment.

Proposal seeks to enhance views across valley by removing school buildings, but moving housing to more accessible and visible main road may encourage future development and reduce amenity views from Langleybury Lane. Would be better for housing not to be so visible from Langleybury Lane and to be more discreetly placed in line with existing development.

Consider access and maintenance (encroachment of rhododendrons etc) of Rookery Wood and footpaths through woods onto HCC land at St Pauls.

Consider s106 to maintain and enhance use of open space at Langleybury and St Pauls playing fields. If 45% of houses are affordable, limited public transport and shopping will hamper sustainability. CS Policy CP9 states ‘ Three Rivers is well served by communication links. However, car ownership levels are high and car usage increasingly dominates patterns of movement in the District. Traffic levels in the District are forecast to grow by 21% by 2021. Increased congestion and car use could undermine the economic growth of the District and harm the quality of the environment and social well-being ’. CS Policy CP10 states ‘ All Respondent Comments development should be designed and located to minimise the impacts of travel by motor vehicle on the District. In particular, major development will be expected to be located in areas highly accessible by the most sustainable modes of transport, and to people of all abilities in a socially inclusive and safe manner. ’

CS paragraph 5.101- do not see that very special circumstances are met here.

Site divided from community of Hunton Bridge by A41 main road. TRDC Would like to address potential cycle links onto towpath in the vicinity of Hunton Bridge which are currently poor. Would like a link (or improved and Sustainability way marked link) onto canal close to Bridge Road bridge crossing – next to A41 south bound bus stop there is a strip of woodland through which you can get unofficial access to towpath, would like to explore more official route. Alternatively Peter Bretts have drawn up cycle track along north bound A41 from Hunton Bridge Roundabout to Langleybury Church, from which there would be scope to provide ramped access to towpath at bridge where A41 crosses canal. Implementation could be assisted by s106 or similar contribution.

Would support improved cycle routes taking in Watford town centre, Cassiobury Park, Whippendell Woods, the area around The Grove and linking to Hunton Bridge, possibly via Grove Mill Lane, Langleybury Lane and the Langleybury Brief site.

Track along verge in Langleybury Lane surface is very poor quality, not compacted and undulating and very exposed where it passes over M25 spur due to low railings. In present state it is dangerous.

In assessing possible cycle routes, consideration should be given to best routes for accessing and Watford Junction stations by bike as an integrated approach to transport.

Would be worth looking at definitive map and seeing how Brief links with network of footpaths and bridleway/cycleway opportunities.

Bus stops at Hunton Bridge are unattractive and unappealing for use. Would be good to see better bus stop facilities including improved shelters on both sides of Langleybury lights on A41.

Further inspection for subway under A41 for refurbishment, cleaning and/or improved lighting.

Bypassed section of road close to school important for parking and access to school and as a footpath link. Would welcome improved lighting.

Parking for school and church limited and parking along road dangerous for pedestrians and people getting in and out of cars. Crossing the road can be dangerous. 04176 Appreciate amenity afforded by the Grove and in principle increasing accommodation here and improving Langleybury with removal of school and restoration of Manor positive. Challenge will be getting the detail right. 00269, 01389, 01390, 01679, 01727, 03454, 04115 Site should be a secondary school. 03839 I would prefer to see more residential development on the Langleybury site as it has excellent access and would be a great place to live. 00837 How about access from The Grove to Langleybury House? Over or under M25 sliproad. 03880, 03881, 03887 (CCRA), 03935, 03936, 03940, 03969, 04066, 04141, 04150, NIS/0110 Generally supportive of the majority of the policy and the Development brief. 03880, 03881, 03887 (CCRA), 03935, Agree 'that the future restoration and enhancement of the Langleybury Estate is best linked to the use and operation 03936, 03940, 03969 of The Grove'. Respondent Comments 03880, 03881, 03887 (CCRA), 03892, 03935, 03936, 03940, 03907, 03948, 03950, 03969, 04032, 04040, 04066, 04068, 04069, 04070, 04071, 04072, 04141, 04150, NIS/0108, NSI/0110 Object to inclusion of 25 houses. 03895, 03908, 03950, 04066, 04068, 04069, 04070, 04071, 04072, 04084, 04085 25 houses should not be developed on rural Green Belt. 03880, 03881, 03887 (CCRA), 03935, 03936, 03940, 03948, 04048, 04068, 04069, 04070, 04071, 04072 Restoration and maintenance of the Langleybury House should be required from the outset of the project. 03880, 03881, 03887 (CCRA), 03935, 03936, 03940, 03948, 04048, 04068, Any new floorspace granted at The Grove should require the demolition of all or part of the old school buildings, with 04069, 04070, 04071, 04072 any remaining to be demolished before any works to the Langleybury Estate. 03892, 03895, 03950, 04084, 04085, 04140, NSI/0110 Concern about traffic on Langleybury Lane. 03892 Limited access to residential development. 03948, 03950 There are no very special circumstances for Green Belt development. 03948, 03978, 03997, NSI/0110 Poor access to services and public transport. Residential development unsustainable. 03948, 04048, 04066, 04068, 04069, 04070, 04071, 04072 Ralph Trustees Limited not interested in building houses. 03950 Would create accident hot spot on Langleybury Lane. 03956 50% of houses should be low cost for workers. 03956 Infill between this site and Watford/Abbots Langley should not be allowed. 03997 Excessive noise pollution in area. 04039 Buildings should be sympathetic in keeping with Green Belt. 04052 Overpopulation of area. 04084, 04085 Houses would create an opening for caravan site. 04150 Langleybury and The Grove should be developed simultaneously. CU/0377 Public affordable golf course would be nice. NSI/0204 Something needs to be done with site. NSI/0204 Proposed mix of residential/leisure/farming makes sense.