Examination of the Welwyn-Hatfield Local Plan 2013-32
Comments on Inspector’s Matters and Issues Documents EX238 & EX239
Report compiled by: I.F. Skidmore MA DPhil (Oxon) Welwyn Parish Plan Group W.G. Morris MSc CEng MIET Welwyn Parish Council R.J. Haggar MA Welwyn Planning & Amenity Group
Approved by: Submitted on behalf of the Council by: Welwyn Parish Council Caroline Williams Planning & Licensing Committee Clerk to Welwyn Parish Council
Version 1.1 12th February 2021
Contents
Introduction ...... 3 EX239: Digswell Site Dig 1, East of New Road ...... 4 General Comment ...... 4 Response to Inspector’s Questions ...... 4 Conclusion for Digswell Site Dig 1 ...... 8 EX239: Oaklands/Mardley Heath ...... 9 General Comment on Sites OMH 6, 7 & 9...... 9 EX239: Site OMH 6, Land East of Danesbury Park Road (58 dwellings) ...... 10 General Comment ...... 10 Response to Inspector’s Questions...... 10 EX239: Site OMH 7, 22 The Avenue ...... 12 General Comment ...... 12 Response to Inspector’s Questions ...... 12 EX239: Site OMH 9, Rear of 19-23 The Avenue (12 dwellings) ...... 14 General Comment ...... 14 Response to Inspector’s Questions...... 14 Conclusion for Oaklands/Mardley Heath Sites – OMH 6, 7 & 9 ...... 16 EX238: Welwyn (Sites Wel 1, Wel 2, Wel 6 & Wel 15) ...... 16 General Comment ...... 16 Response to Inspector’s Questions ...... 17 Conclusion for Welwyn Sites – Wel 1, 2, 6 & 15 ...... 26
Page | 2
Introduction
Welwyn Parish Council (WPC) has responded in the past to various invitations to consultation on both the Draft Local Plan and individual papers, to Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (WHBC) and to the Inspector directly. We are therefore again pleased to offer further comments to the Inspector in respect of the Matters and Issues he has raised in Documents EX238 and EX239.
Our comments have been co-ordinated by a Working Group operating under the aegis of the Council’s Planning and Licensing Committee and which included representatives from:
• Welwyn Planning and Amenity Group - WPAG - formed over 60 years ago, to encourage, and coordinate public interest in all aspects of Planning and Amenities in and around Welwyn Parish.
• Welwyn Parish Plan Group - WPPG – responsible for compiling the Parish Plan in 2008 which represented the wishes and ideas of residents in Welwyn Parish at that time and which has been used to help drive change and to influence policy since then.
These groups may also directly contribute their own responses.
The Local Plan is an important piece of strategic planning for our parish and our communities and it is particularly significant as the fundamental backdrop for our own Parish Neighbourhood Plan 1.
Some of our responses involve visual perception and so we have included recent photographs of some of the locations. For ease of assimilation, statements and questions from the Inspector’s original EX238 and EX239 documents are presented in italic type and our responses are intercut as appropriate, in normal type. Within this response, when it helps to present a coherent and comprehensive response, we have included some relevant statements from previous responses, to obviate continual cross-referencing between multiple documents.
1 This is currently in the early stages of formulation (the process has been protracted due to the Covid-19 regime in 2020 and 2021).
Page | 3
EX239: Digswell Site Dig 1, East of New Road
This site is currently used for agricultural purposes and has no physical features defining its south-eastern boundary, other than the route of a public footpath. The site is within the Green Belt and the potential harm through development, to its purposes, was assessed as moderate in the Stage 3 Green Belt Review. The proposal would develop the site for residential purposes.
General Comment
The current green belt boundary of Digswell was very tightly drawn to ensure that the settlement did not expand to the east over open countryside towards Tewin and to the west across the Lockleys estate. Encroachment into either of these would degrade the views from the surroundings of Digswell: to the east across the Mimram Valley towards Tewin/Hertford and to the west towards the viaduct and across open countryside to Danesbury and beyond, again to the Mimram valley and to the green gap that separates Welwyn Village from Oaklands/Mardley Heath.
The railway station itself is not a key factor. The inner suburban trains from London terminate at Welwyn Garden City (WGC), which picks up most of the local traffic, although the outer suburban services, which stop at Welwyn North station (especially the few more direct services to Kings Cross during the peak morning and evening periods) are popular with commuters from Digswell, Welwyn village, Oaklands and outlying hamlets.
Dig 1 is a hillside site behind New Road. It abuts the Green Belt boundary and thus has the potential to be excluded from the Green Belt by extending that boundary. Whilst the new boundary would “even out” the building line, it would have no defensible features against future expansion. In its HELAA analysis WHBC was also concerned about water run-off on this hillside site.
Response to Inspector’s Questions
The site is close to Tewin Water Registered Park and Garden and to Digswell viaduct, which is a Grade II* listed structure.
1. To what extent would there be harm to these heritage assets? Would it be substantial?
There would be no direct physical harm to these sites themselves. However, the long- admired settings of both would be greatly compromised. See photographs. The view of the viaduct from the proposed Dig 1 and beyond would cease to exist. It is more difficult to argue for the Park and Garden (because there is a field created by a ridge that separates Dig 1 from the site); however, part of the reason given for failure in 2016 was Heritage England’s concern about overlook/enclosure of the Park. The development would be visible from the Park.
2. Is the harm capable of remediation by appropriate landscaping, with or without earth mounding?
Landscaping or mounding would not help as the view would be blocked by the buildings.
Page | 4
Viaduct from path that would be the Dig 1 boundary View of Tewin Water from Dig 1
3. Is there any objective basis on which the assessed Green Belt harm could be challenged or the weight attached to it changed?
In addition to the visual impact on Tewin Water Park and the Viaduct, the open nature of the land is important for views to the east and for the pathways that stretch across it giving access to the land and to Tewin and Burnham Green. Views of this area are amongst the most attractive in the parish; they are much-admired and loved by both visitors and residents. We also consider visibility over long distances is of at least as much importance as the view of the Park or the viaduct.
4. Could an appropriate new boundary to the Green Belt be established that could endure and have less impact on the wider Green Belt than the existing one? If so, how would this be achieved?
We believe that any new boundary that Dig 1 would provide is weak: it would just be a line across open farmland, with no physical or firm vegetative features that could define a defensible boundary, other than the lone oak tree shown in the photograph, which would be the only marker, totally surrounded by field. Tree on border of Dig 1, from the Dig 1 boundary
5. How many dwellings could the site deliver?
The promoted capacity in the 2016 and 2019 HELAA was 130 units (on 4.3Ha. at 30 dwellings per Ha). No further assessment of capacity was done as the site failed at stage 2. However the 130 number is misleading. The Digswell Character Appraisal 2 states, for
2 Produced for Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council and after consultation in 2003, published in January 2004 and adopted by them as a Supplementary Planning Document,.
Page | 5
the area of New Road 3: “ Houses along this stretch of the road are only fleetingly visible behind well-screened green boundaries. The deep set-backs, generous spaces between houses, and varied design on derivations of the vernacular style set the pattern for any new development”. An associated table shows the density of dwellings (and the typical plot frontage, width and depth) across the whole of Digswell and for this sector, which ranges between 3 and 18 per Ha: 3 for the area of New Road (sub-Area C) and 8 for the area of Mornington (sub-Area C1). Therefore, if any development on Dig 1 is to align with the adopted Character Appraisal and that sector of Digswell, then a lower dwelling density would result and the total number would be much lower than the 130 claimed (i.e. some 30 per Ha): pro-rata arithmetic suggests that number of dwellings would then be between 13 (as for New Road) and 35 (as for Mornington).
6. Would there be any adverse ramifications for local infrastructure, services or facilities that could not be resolved during the plan period?
Access to the site is difficult. The only route possible is a partially-metalled single-track bridleway (No 37) with a restricted width entrance that runs from the bottom of Harmer Green Lane to Tewin Bury Farm; the site leads off from this (see photograph).
The entrance is less than 50 metres from the roundabout-controlled T-junction between Harmer Green Lane and Hertford Road.
There is a private entrance and metalled single-track road to the registered Tewin Water site between the bridleway entrance
to Dig 1 and the roundabout. There is no The narrow, part-metalled entrance to Dig 1. point of access to Dig 1 from this private The lead-off to the site is on the left, just beyond the road. There is no point of vehicular access telegraph pole to Dig 1 further up New Road and therefore no alternative access for emergency vehicles; it is difficult to see how this could be improved. Traffic management and pedestrian safety will be difficult.
The local primary school is some 0.5Km from the site, although the narrow pavement along Hertford Road is a risk. The school is rated as “Good” by Ofsted but is a single form entry with a total capacity of 210; typically half of the pupils live in Digswell with the other half coming from nearby areas of WGC. The school is over-subscribed. With reference to the answer at 5 above, the school could probably support 13 houses and possibly 35 (since they are unlikely to all require primary school places) but 130 would be beyond its
3 Dig 1 is behind the current line of houses along the eastern side of New Road and abuts the Mornington development.
Page | 6 capacity and site constraints mean it cannot be expanded. The three nearest alternative primary schools are: • Harwood Hill (WGC): 0.8Km radial distance with capacity for 240 and currently with some places; Ofsted rated “Good” • Homerswood (WGC): 1.3Km radial distance with capacity for 210 and currently over its capacity; Ofsted rated “Good” • Welwyn: 2Km radial distance with capacity for 420 and currently 4 places; Ofsted rated “Outstanding”.
Local geography (especially crossing the Mimram valley between Digswell and WGC) means actual route distances to these alternative schools are considerably longer than radial distances and the busy roads are not pedestrian-friendly; thus a car journey is probable. Other than a “bulge” classroom, should Herts County Council determine to expand one of these schools to cater for the 130 dwellings scenario, it is unlikely that a major expansion of around one class per year (7 classrooms) could be achieved within 5 years as it is not currently on their forward look.
7. Would the impact on highway safety and/or the free flow of traffic, following the site’s development, be severe?
Lorry traffic on the Hertford Road (variously B1000/C182) has been a problem for a number of years. Road construction ballast vehicles in particular follow Satnav guidance and use Hertford Road as a through route, despite being instructed by the police to use alternative wider routes. This brings a whole new dimension in pollution, noise, vibration and seriously prejudices road safety. Pedestrian and vehicle drop-off/pick-up traffic for the local primary school located on that road; a narrow pavement on the school-side of the road only and no pedestrian crossing (a “Lollipop” school crossing patrol is present near the school at start and finish times) make the section from the Harmer Green Lane roundabout to the school a dangerous place with car traffic frequently exceeding the speed limit (20 mph at school drop-off/pick-up times and 30 mph otherwise). The entire length of Hertford Road, from the Bessemer Road roundabout through to the school, cannot be widened and deployment of chicanes and a moveable Speed Indicator Device have made only marginal improvement.
The comment above emphasises the challenge to safe traffic management. In addition there is currently no scope for any alternative site access for emergency vehicles. With the exception of a very narrow footpath just up from the metalled entrance, housing is continuous up to Mornington, where the site terminates, and beyond.
8. Are there any flood risks that are unresolvable?
WHBC analysis at HELAA 2016 indicated that there is significant risk of water run-off from this steeply sloping site. Currently the land is open arable field that represents little damage risk and can absorb a reasonable proportion but the creation of the considerable area of hard surfaces involved in 130 dwellings and the associated servicing roads, would greatly increase water volume and exacerbate the problem.
9. What impact would the proposal have on ecological assets and to what extent could this be mitigated or compensated for?
This is top-grade, open, agricultural land, extensively in use for farming but otherwise uncontrolled. Its removal is highly likely to cause significant harm to the wider ecological Page | 7 assets and in particular to wildlife using that area as a corridor through to Tewin Water Park.
10. Should some of the trees on the site be retained and their retention referred to in the policy criteria?
As a principle, we believe that all trees should be retained and safeguarded, or if they must be removed, replacements planted. If development takes place then any trees lining the site to the west (behind the New Road houses) should be retained, as should any lone trees on the site itself, which is currently open agricultural land.
11. Is the site’s location sustainable in the context of its accessibility, on foot or by cycle, to retail and community facilities and frequent public transport?
The site itself is accessible by foot or cycle, certainly at the southern end of the site. Local amenities, such as they are (Digswell Village Hall and newsagent/convenience store near the station and the few local shops: hairdresser, beauty parlour, dog groomers and interior designer near the Station Road/Woodside Road junction) are accessible on foot or cycle but given the lack of convenient exit routes from the site the distance to them from the northern part of the site is at least 1Km. A car journey is usually required to shop anywhere else; Digswell residents use Welwyn Garden City for any significant retail needs.
Public transport to Digswell is very limited indeed. Local parish councils could not make up the shortfall when bus subsidies were cut in 2015 by Herts County Council. The 724 Green Line does not stop on Hertford Road. The current bus service to Digswell Is: 301: Good daily service but only stops at Digswell Park pumping station (bottom of Bessemer Road: 1Km walk to Harmer Green Road roundabout and 1.5Km to the station). 388: Single journey on each school day, from Stevenage to Ware via Knebworth, Welwyn, WGC, Digswell, Harmer Green, Burnham Green, Tewin and Hertford (and return). 204: Single journey on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday only: WGC, Digswell, Burnham Green, Tewin, supermarkets and WGC, with return about 2 hours later. 203: Weekly shoppers' bus on Thursdays, from Watton-at-Stone via Digswell to WGC; single journey, with return about 3 hours later.
12. Are there any other matters that weigh against this site being proposed for residential development?
When the Digswell Character Appraisal was written and adopted, the tight Green Belt boundary around Digswell had been established for 30 years and the Appraisal clearly did not envisage it would be extended in the manner proposed by the development of Dig 1.
Conclusion for Digswell Site Dig 1 Any new Green Belt boundary would have no defensible features against future expansion. The WHBC Green Belt Review rated building on this parcel (P17) high harm, on the basis of its visibility. We too would consider it very high harm i.e. on a par with Lockleys. Dig 1 failed HELAA in 2016 and that decision was confirmed in 2019. We believe those decisions were sound and that there is no reason to revise them.
Page | 8
EX239: Oaklands/Mardley Heath
General Comment on Sites OMH 6, 7 & 9.
There is a great degree of concern amongst parish residents regarding coalescence between Oaklands and Welwyn and reduction in the open views of the countryside and green belt between Oaklands and Welwyn. The area to the west of the A1(M), including the upper part of The Avenue, is washed over by the Green Belt, with the motorway creating a very firm defensible Green Belt boundary. Breaching this opens up the possibility of further expansion to the south and the erosion of the separation between Oaklands and Welwyn. While neither OMH 7 nor OMH 9 imply high harm in themselves, their geographical location to the west of the A1(M) would mean a breach of that effective green belt boundary and the additional 14 units that these two sites would deliver does not represent the exceptional circumstances that would justify resetting the boundary.
Significant roads in the area, other than the 20 th Century A1(M) and the earlier Great North Road - once the A1 and now B197, predate any development of Oaklands and Mardley Heath 4 by at least a century. Excluding service roads built for late 20 th Century developments, the earlier roads were rural and facilitated local travel (e.g. to Kimpton, Codicote or Knebworth) or servicing farms, or Danesbury House 5; they were and still are largely private roads and frequently narrow, so upgrading such roads and providing footpaths and cycle paths is both problematic and not guaranteed. The three OMH sites are accessed either from The Avenue (OMH 7 & 9) - a private road with no pedestrian pavement above the motorway bridge - and/or Danesbury Park Road (OMH 6) - a single track private road, with no pedestrian pavement and which is not fully made-up or metalled in places. Neither pedestrian nor cycle access can be readily catered for.
Egress from The Avenue to the B197 towards Welwyn is problematic as it involves crossing a dualled road section with a national speed limit.
The nearest local primary school (Oaklands) is some 0.8 to 1Km radial distance from OMH 6 and less from OMH 7 & 9, however, precise local access detail (e.g. to OMH 6 via Danesbury Park Road) will mean actual route distances will be longer than radial; since neither The Avenue or Danesbury Park Road is pedestrian-friendly, a car journey is a likely result. The school is rated as “Good” by Ofsted but is a single form entry with a total capacity of 210; there are currently a few places. The school could probably support a modest number of new houses (since they are unlikely to all require primary school places) but 70+ would be beyond its capacity and site constraints mean it cannot be expanded. The three nearest alternative primary schools are: • Welwyn: 1.8Km radial distance with capacity for 420 and currently few 6 places; Ofsted rated “Outstanding”.
4 The earliest development in Oaklands involved bungalows built in the 1920s. Mardley Heath is still wooded and includes the site of a large re-landscaped quarry. The whole area was much-developed in the mid-late 20 th Century with mainly detached houses in an informal layout of private roads on either side of the B197. 5 Danesbury Park Road is on the very early 19th Century OS map; it served the house, built in 1776 as St John’s Lodge. Renamed Danesbury House by its second owners, the Blake family, who (together with the Wilshere family - see footnote p22) were major local landowners into the 20 th Century. It was set in a 24 Ha. private park (now a public park owned by WHBC). In 1939 the house was extended for use as a hospital, and converted into apartments and mews houses in the 1990s. 6 Welwyn currently has 4 places free across the 7 years (i.e. 14 classes of 30 each).
Page | 9
• Woolmer Green: 1.8Km radial distance with capacity for 210 and currently a few places. • Codicote: 2.5Km radial distance with capacity for 270 and with no places, it is currently planned to expand to 420 to cater for new local housing developments as part of the N Herts Local Plan.
Should Herts County Council determine to expand a school, it would most probably be Welwyn and it seems unlikely that a major expansion of around one class per year (7 classrooms) could be achieved within 5 years as it is not currently on their forward look.
EX239: Site OMH 6, Land East of Danesbury Park Road (58 dwellings)
The proposal would remove open land, formerly used as pasture, from the Green Belt and develop it for residential purposes. A larger parcel that included more open countryside was assessed as making a moderate-high contribution to the Green Belt’s purposes.
General Comment
This site as originally proposed included both a Local Nature Reserve and a designated wildlife site. When these were discounted the site was not contiguous with a settlement excluded from the Green Belt; thus it was deemed contrary to NPPF on development in the Green Belt at stage 1 of the assessment (HELAA 2016, appendix D) and rejected.
When revisited in HELAA 2019, the revised site was also considered unsuitable with the additional point made that it is not served by safe and suitable pedestrian pathways or cycle routes and neither could they be provided within the land-ownership of the promoter.
There is no entrance point to OMH 6; access would be from Danesbury Park Road, having approached along The Avenue. Without access from The Avenue, getting there from Codicote Road will require re-engineering Danesbury Park Road up to behind Danesbury House and then along part-way towards the Avenue. On some maps a track to North Ride is shown; this is misleading and that track (originally the access route to Danesbury House) is not metalled, is narrow, with major potholes throughout its length and is utterly unsuitable for vehicular traffic. Approaching from the other end of Danesbury Park Road will require equivalent road engineering from Pottersheath Road (approached via either Canonsfield or Heath Road, past the top of The Avenue) to the same entrance point. In all cases vehicle travel distance greatly exceeds the radial distances due to the somewhat circuitous route of these roads, which are all rural rather than urban/suburban and some are private but with highway access. Considerable road widening would be needed, which in our opinion would be very difficult to achieve and in some places, impossible.
Response to Inspector’s Questions
13. Should the harm applied to the larger Green Belt parcel be applied to this site? Either way provide an objective justification.
Page | 10
The general comments above underline the importance of firm boundaries that should be considered independently of the harm consideration. Both harm and permanence are important considerations in any change to a Green Belt boundary.
14. Could an appropriate and defensible boundary to the wider Green Belt be established? If so, how and where?
The motorway provides a very well defined defensible boundary; alternatives in this area will be permeable and therefore under pressure. We believe it would be a major error to set such a precedent.
15. Would there be any adverse ramifications for local infrastructure, services or facilities that could not be resolved during the plan period?
As noted in the general comments, pedestrian and cycle access to the site involves a private road with no safe space or a single-track road. See also 17 below. There is a Right of Way across the site.
16. Are there any flood risks that are unresolvable?
We are not aware of any.
17. Would the impact on highway safety and/or the free flow of traffic, following the site’s development, be severe?
Pedestrian and cycle access (as commented at 15 above) will be hazardous. Vehicle access would be via the single-track, private, Danesbury Park Road that does not have scope for widening and currently has serious surface degradation and surface water run- off problems in parts. Alternatively, if OMH 9 were developed there is possible access along an even narrower track off The Avenue (also a private road).
18. What impact would the proposal have on ecological assets and to what extent could this be mitigated or compensated for?
The area under consideration is close to both Wildlife sites and LNR 1. We would strongly advocate expert advice being sought here. There are also comments in HELAA. In addition, the site is bisected by a Right of Way on the western side of which is a line of bushes and trees. Any development of the site would require rerouting or abolishing the Right of Way and the removal of the tree line, which would have a pronounced negative effect on the ecology of the areas. See also 21.
19. Is the site’s location sustainable in the context of its accessibility on foot or by cycle to retail and community facilities and frequent public transport?
The site is about 1Km from the nearest bus route. The frequent daily 301 bus service (St Albans and Hemel Hempstead to Stevenage) runs along the Great North Road with stops either side of The Avenue; however those stops are some 700 to 800 metres from OMH 7 and OMH 9 and 1Km away from OMH 6. Those stops are not readily accessible on foot. As noted above, neither The Avenue nor Danesbury Park Road is cycle- or pedestrian- friendly and for all of its length The Avenue inclines upwards towards Danesbury Park Road.
Page | 11
The closest retail facilities (a small parade of shops: florist, butcher, convenience store, Post Office/newsagent, hairdresser and fish and chip shop) are more than 1Km away along the busy Great North Road (B197); WGC is the main retail centre. There are no community facilities in the whole Oaklands area; no real cultural “centre” has ever existed and there has never been a play area for small children; now there is no suitable land for one to be created; the nearest play and cultural facilities are in Welwyn, with the Civic Centre some 2Km away and the play area for small children some 2.3Km away from the Oaklands shops.
20. Would the proposal clearly be deliverable within the first five years following adoption?
There is no data in the HELAA, but we believe this to be very unlikely, given the location of the site, the access routes and the problems associated with heavy equipment and deliveries of materials.
21. Are there any other matters that weigh against this site being proposed for residential development?
The Avenue area is a winter roost for a colony of Red Kites (milvus milvus ) 7.
EX239: Site OMH 7, 22 The Avenue
The proposal would redevelop a commercial property, largely used for the parking of vehicles and which is washed over by the Green Belt, with 2 dwellings.
General Comment
This can be considered to be, in theory, developable for housing. It passed HELAA stage 2 in 2016 but inability to establish a defensible Green Belt boundary led to its subsequent rejection. There have been several applications to develop this site, with various numbers of dwellings proposed, all of which have been refused by WHBC (most recently N6/2017/1751 for 12 dwellings). Reasons included noise, difficulty of access and very poor pedestrian access via The Avenue. Further analysis in HELAA 2019 indicated that the feasible capacity of the site was just two dwellings and thus too small to be allocated.
Response to Inspector’s Questions
22. What justification is there for the retention of this site and the wider area containing built development as land washed over by the Green Belt?
We believe this is a critical point. The strong boundary formed by the motorway is a key aspect and the area should remain as green belt for that reason. Any new boundary here
7 Red Kites have a special level of legal protection at all times. It is an offence to damage or destroy their nests whilst they are being built or in use. During the breeding season it is an offence to ‘intentionally or recklessly’ disturb adult or young kites at or near their nests. Special penalties could be imposed on a person convicted of any of these offences. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Section 1(4) and (5), (as amended under Schedule 12(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), Section 18 and Schedule 1
Page | 12 and with OMH 6 and 9 would be weak and a threat for further encroachment onto Danesbury Park and estate.
23. Would the impact on highway safety and/or the free flow of traffic, following the site’s development, be severe?
Access is not easy, via a single track with no opportunity to widen. The site is currently locked-up with no evidence of occupation.
24. What impact would the proposal have on ecological assets and to what extent could this be mitigated or compensated for?
We believe expert advice is required here. It is not clear what assets might be affected (although the site is bounded by woodland) nor what mitigation/compensation would be required, given the fact that it is a developed site.
25. Is the site’s location sustainable in the context of its accessibility on foot or by cycle to retail and community facilities and frequent public transport?
See 19 (OMH 6).
26. Would there be any adverse ramifications for local infrastructure, services or facilities that could not be resolved during the plan period?
We are not aware of any. For local primary school aspects see General Comment to OMH sites above.
27. Would there be unmitigable harm to living conditions on the site as a result of noise or atmospheric pollution from the nearby motorway?
Noise pollution will be considerable and was a determining factor in planning refusals in the past. The A1(M) has long been scheduled for upgrade in that area to a “smart” motorway (now anticipated in 2022/23) required to support today’s traffic flow along the A1(M) Stevenage - Hatfield corridor. It is hard to envisage that such an upgrade with the aim of increasing traffic, would not increase air pollution locally from oxides of both carbon and nitrogen and diesel particulates. Mitigation is not really possible for either noise or pollution. During its current use as a vehicle park, the pollution aspects were not a significant issue; as a residential area, they would be.
28. Given the character of the surroundings, is it likely that this site, if redeveloped, would contain sufficient dwellings to warrant its status as a Local Plan proposal?
WHBC consider it is too small to allocate and we concur.
29. Would the proposal clearly be deliverable within the first five years following adoption?
We believe this to be very unlikely, given the location of the site, the narrow access routes and the problems associated with heavy equipment and deliveries of materials. There may also be covenants and restriction that may prevent this
30. Are there any other matters that weigh against this site being proposed for residential development? Page | 13
We are not aware of any.
EX239: Site OMH 9, Rear of 19-23 The Avenue (12 dwellings)
The proposal would develop land for the rear of gardens of four properties for residential purposes. The site is within the Green Belt and a larger area, of which it is a part and included more open countryside, was assessed as making a moderate-high contribution to the Green Belt’s purposes. The site could accommodate about twelve dwellings.
General Comment
This site was rejected for development in 2013 by WHBC and dismissed on appeal in 2013 by the Secretary of State. This rejection was primarily due to significant impact on the Green Belt, specifically that development of the site would cause significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt and to the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
The WHBC Sustainability Appraisal evaluated OMH 9 as having minor negative effects for character, sense of place, agricultural land and previously developed land. We consider that OMH 7 & OMH 9, if developed, would significantly expand Oaklands towards Welwyn and erode the “green gap”. We concur with the SA that there would be “significant negative effects on protection of biodiversity and geodiversity” but we consider the “uncertain minor positive effect” identified for learning and skills (specifically that it is within walking distance of local educational facilities) is grossly misleading . It is only within realistic walking distance (some 800 metres) of one, single-form entry primary school (currently near capacity and not capable of further expansion due to land constraints). Travel to primary schools at Welwyn (some 2.5Km) or Woolmer Green (2Km) or even further afield, or to a secondary school, Sixth Form College or higher education site, would involve initially negotiating the problematic access routes, then either cycling on busy roads or taking a bus or buses to WGC, Stevenage or Hitchin. The bus is unlikely to be popular due to routes, frequency and journey duration, so the default method would be the car, contributing traffic loading, noise and pollution to roads that are already heavily-used, especially during the morning school run.
Response to Inspector’s Questions
31. Is there any objective basis on which the assessed Green Belt harm could be challenged, or the weight attached to it reduced?
We do not believe so.
32. Could an appropriate and defensible boundary to the wider Green Belt be established?
There is an implication here that the whole of the Avenue area would come inside the Green Belt boundary. This is a major change, not just a minor alteration and as noted above would remove the motorway as a strong physical barrier and replace it with a weak one with risk of further encroachment.
Page | 14
33. Would the impact on highway safety and/or the free flow of traffic, following the site’s development, be severe?
There would be additional traffic using The Avenue but access to/from that road is very narrow and single-track.
34. What impact would the proposal have on ecological assets and to what extent could this be mitigated or compensated for?
The proposed site has been modified to avoid a line of trees with TPOs and the site backs on to existing gardens. This area is a winter roosting area for a colony of Red Kites (milvus milvus ) about 12 strong (see footnote on p12). There will be an impact and it is hard to see what mitigation would assist.
35. Should some or all of the trees on the site be retained and their retention referred to in the policy criteria?
We believe that any trees on this site, whether with or without TPOs, should be retained. A number of trees were felled in recent years without permission, by a previous house- owner in the immediate area. If this site is developed the mature trees to the south must be retained.
36. Is the site’s location sustainable in the context of its accessibility, on foot or by cycle, to retail and community facilities and frequent public transport?
See 19 (OMH 6).
37. Would there be any adverse ramifications for local infrastructure, services or facilities that could not be resolved during the plan period?
The access road is difficult (see 33 above). There may be permeability with OMH 6 but this also has access problems.
For local primary school aspects see General Comment to OMH sites above.
38. Would there be unmitigable harm to living conditions on the site as a result of noise or atmospheric pollution from the nearby motorway?
The site is adjacent to and below the level of the A1(M) which is elevated at that point. There will inevitably be noise and air pollution issues with no scope for mitigation.
39. Are there any flood risks that are unresolvable?
We are not aware of any.
40. Would the proposal clearly be deliverable within the first five years following adoption?
We consider this to be unlikely given the location of the site, the narrow access routes and the problems associated with heavy equipment and deliveries of materials.
41. Are there any other matters that weigh against this site being proposed for residential development? Page | 15
We are not aware of any.
Conclusion for Oaklands/Mardley Heath Sites – OMH 6, 7 & 9
We consider that the decisions by WHBC to reject the development of OMH 6, 7 and 9 were sound and legally compliant and that the Green Belt boundary should remain defined by the A1M. There were no exceptional circumstances to justify amending the Green Belt and we believe there still are none..
In addition there is the issue of financial viability. All access to these sites is via private roads: The Avenue and Danesbury Park Road. As we note there are safety issues on The Avenue and Danesbury Park Road is totally unsuitable for two way traffic. As these are private roads Herts County Council Highways have no responsibility for them and the costs of the upgrade will fall, in toto, to the developers. We explain in the response to EX238 below, that Sites Wel 1, 2 & 15 need to be developed in concert to justify the extensive funding needed for the upgrading of public highways (in this case Fulling Mill Lane and Kimpton Road) to serve those sites. The far smaller scale of these OMH sites cannot justify the cost of such roadworks to serve them and we contend that the proposals are not financially viable.
EX238: Welwyn (Sites Wel 1, Wel 2, Wel 6 & Wel 15)
This proposal contains four individually promoted sites that are located on the north- western side of Welwyn village and surround its cemetery. Together, their development could provide about 250 dwellings. When assessed either cumulatively or individually, the sites are considered to cause moderate-high harm to the Green Belt’s purposes. Because of infrastructure concerns, relating to the need to widen the bridge on Fulling Mill Lane and the highway along that lane and along Kimpton Road, it is not considered economically viable to develop these sites, other than on a comprehensive basis.
General Comment
Of the four sites involved, we believe that at least 2 sites, possibly 3, are being promoted by one developer (Bayard/Wattsdown); they are not being promoted by separate individuals.
Previous reports and contributions concerning these sites have assessed harm to the Green Belt by considering each site as a separate entity. The view espoused by the Inspector (correctly in our view) is that these sites are only viable from a development infrastructure standpoint if they are developed together, thus allowing the financing of a new bridge over the Mimram replacing the current narrow bridge that is incapable of supporting heavy construction or building materials delivery traffic, and the widening of Fulling Mill Lane and possibly Kimpton Road. Developed together, these 4 sites would completely enclose the western slopes of the Mimram valley, Singlers Marsh and the rising land towards Linces Farm (with its listed buildings and nearby unexcavated archaeology) and Ayot St Peter. We therefore strongly contend that the WHBC assessment of
Page | 16
moderate-high harm is misleading; this would represent high to very high harm to the Green Belt.
Some 250 dwellings are proposed, including some 178 on Wel 1 – compared with the total of some 210 dwellings currently on the nearby Hawbush estate (built in the 1950s). Siting that many properties on the rolling hillside sloping down towards the Mimram valley would be visually massively detrimental to the village; its north-eastern quarter would no longer be a village landscape but a built-up urban area (see photographs below). The superficially attractive approach of using 4 sites collectively to fund road and bridge improvements to make the sites feasible is a circular argument as to what would come first. Road changes would be required to facilitate construction traffic and require removal of land from the Local Nature Reserve (Singlers Marsh, LNR 5) to widen the road, in contravention of its LNR status. There has been no direct consultation with expert bodies (see 30 below) about the effect on the site. If environmental grants (needed to fund sustaining the Marsh) are reduced or withdrawn due to any development, what will be the impact on the current management plan?
WHBC’s sustainability assessment for these sites in respect of public transport, proximity to learning and heritage/archaeology considerations contained possibly incorrect and certainly misleading statements similar to those for OMH 9. For example, these sites are only within walking distance of two primary schools (one along a busy dual carriageway and across an A1(M) slip road with no formal crossing). Travel to other primary schools (Woolmer Green or Codicote) or to a secondary school, Sixth Form College or higher education site, would involve either cycling on dangerous heavy traffic roads or use of bus or car. There are no bus stops on Fulling Mill Lane or Kimpton Road (the nearest to Wel 1 being some 800 metres road distance. Inevitably, the car will be used for all travel except possibly a quick trip to the centre of Welwyn village.
Response to Inspector’s Questions
13. Is there any objective basis on which the assessed Green Belt harm could be challenged, or the weight given to the findings reduced?
Far from any objective basis for challenging or for a downgrading of this assessment, we consider that there is a sound argument for upgrading it.
View across Wel 1 from the cemetery, showing the View across Wel 1 from Linces Cottages, showing the weakness of the boundary (see 14) with rising land boundary with the top of the Hawbush estate beyond it to the next line of trees/hedge Page | 17
• The view from the junction of Fulling Mill Lane and Kimpton Road will be only houses 8. Currently just the roofs of a few houses at the top of the Hawbush estate and the radio mast can be seen across fields beyond the Cemetery • The enclosure of Singlers Marsh by buildings along its western edge across Fulling Mill Lane) and the encroachment upon a LNR by road widening. • The sightline from the Danesbury Estate, the current vista looking to the west across open fields would be eliminated and all that will be seen are houses and the boundary of the cemetery; the crest would be a line of houses. • Looking north east from the Hawbush estate, the Mimram valley would be invisible and the view towards Kimpton Road and Linces Farm minimised by the houses on Wel 1.
14. There would clearly be a need to establish a new permanent and easily recognisable boundary to the Green Belt. Where should this be located within Site Wel 1, in order to prevent any impact from built development, on the four sites, causing harm to the wider Green Belt to the south?
The wider green belt is primarily to the south west. Due south from Linces Cottages is towards the Hawbush estate and not open countryside.
While there is a vestigial hedge on the proposed south-west border of Wel 1 it does not represent a defensible border. Before that there is no definable boundary other than the Cemetery; beyond that there is no border, natural or artificial for several hundred metres.
15. What harm would result from the coalescence of Oakhill Drive with the main built up part of Welwyn village?
Oakhill Drive is not part of Welwyn; it is in North Herts, on the boundary between Codicote and Welwyn parishes and thus between NHDC and WHBC. There is already a tenuous connection via Fulling Mill Lane but there is a distinct green gap formed by Singlers Marsh and the field represented by Wel 2. It is well-screened from the south by trees and as such is not visible when approaching from Fulling Mill Lane/Kimpton Rd. Both of these roads are narrow and have either bordering hedgerows or vistas of open fields. If Wel 15 and Wel 2 are developed, there will be built continuity with both the boundary of Welwyn village and the Conservation Area; this would constitute continuous urbanisation stretching about 1Km further than at present
It is important to recognise that coalescence between Oakhill Drive and the main built-up part of Welwyn village is only part of the issue; probably more significant is the coalescence between Welwyn and Codicote. Codicote Road (B656) has been subject to the “ribbon” development of houses along much of its length between the two settlements but this has been somewhat ameliorated by the open character of the land on the western side of the B656 especially closer to Welwyn, south of the River Mimram flowing east-west though the open countryside south of Codicote and the area south of Oakhill Drive (I.e. Wel 1 and Wel 2). Oakhill Drive is semi-rural with no footpath or street lighting and so is totally inconspicuous at night; the screening by trees delivers a similar appearance by day.
8 The ground rises from Fulling Mill Lane towards the cemetery and beyond, to the Hawbush estate; the cemetery is on an intermediate (and lower) ridge which screens the land beyond, but from Kimpton Road the whole open vista towards the Hawbush estate is visible.
Page | 18
When the sunken nature of the Fulling Mill Lane houses and Singlers Marsh are considered, just about all of the housing is screened, leaving the open vista to be enjoyed.
There is considerable local concern about the coalescence of Welwyn and Codicote. The residents of Oakhill Drive have never requested such a move and greatly value their semi- rural existence as being outside of Welwyn. It is unlikely, given NHDC’s decisions not to develop Green Belt land south of Codicote, that they would welcome 250 houses on their boundary, even taking into account the request to co-operate between authorities. New sites allocated in Codicote Village have resulted in considerable traffic daily along Codicote Road, adding considerably to the traffic flows for schools, doctors and station. The B656 is already a busy route from Hitchin avoiding the stationary traffic on the A1(M) between junctions 6 to 8 - southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening.
16. Would the necessary off-site highway infrastructure work impact upon the site of the Local Nature Reserve at Singlers Marsh?
Singlers Marsh was designated a Local Wildlife site in 1997 and a Local Nature Reserve in 2009, the latter being a statutory designation that provides significant protection. Management over the past decade, involving WHBC, Anglian Water, Environment Agency and Friends Groups of both the Mimram and the Marsh, has greatly improved the ecological status of both the river and its surrounding meadows. Other than the route of The Drain 9, the southern part of Singlers Marsh was severely damaged when the spoil arising from the construction of Link Road in the 1960s and 1970s was dumped there. It altered the ground level and has taken several decades for it to return to a natural, though managed habitat. Any widening of Fulling Mill Lane to accommodate expected traffic flows associated with any proposed development of these sites would destroy that part of the southern area unaffected by the earlier spoil dumping. See also 17.
We do not believe that the infrastructure concerns relating to the widening of the bridge on Fulling Mill Lane and the unsuitability of the highway along Kimpton Road are capable of resolution before the end of the plan period. Because it would be considered uneconomical to allocate individual sites it would therefore require all the sites to be allowed. This would result in a massive increase in traffic on the unsuitable Kimpton Road or to Codicote Road, where already traffic levels pre-Covid 19, were unacceptable at all major junctions and which result in Welwyn Village becoming the centre of one big traffic roundabout, involving the Bypass and Link Road and engendering major rat-run traffic through the village centre during morning and evening rush hours. The land needed for the widening of the bridge is owned by WHBC and this Parish Council would emphasise the need for local consultation, as to whether the removal of part of a LNR (Singlers Marsh) would be acceptable locally.
17. If there would be any harm to the Local Wildlife site, how extensive would this be, and would it be significant?
See also 27. This would be very considerable. The Drain has a practical hydraulic purpose but is also a useful wildlife habitat both for flora and fauna. However, in periods of excessive rain, it often floods – its northern part every year - due to: • Overflow from the river when it bursts its banks.
10 The Drain is present on the Ordnance Survey map for 1898. It is a depression running the full length of the southern part of the Marsh and an appreciable proportion of the northern part.
Page | 19
• Surface run-off from the surrounding land, especially Wel 2 and Kimpton Road. • A high water level in the chalk aquifer causing the level of ground to rise and appear above ground. The water level in The Drain is the level of the water table in the immediate vicinity.
Road widening would require rerouting the southern part of The Drain where it runs parallel with and close to the road. Re-engineering The Drain to conduct the water via a culvert to meet the existing route to the river after the bridge, would only serve to deny run- off water on the Marsh accessing the river via The Drain. The enclosure of Singlers Marsh by development would radically alter its environment with effects that are unlikely to be positive but difficult to model.
The Drain, in a flooded state in February 2021, View across Wel 1 from Linces Cottages to adjacent to Fulling Mill Lane, near to the pumping Lockleys Farm; the village is in the Mimram valley station. and screened by trees.
18. Could such harm be adequately mitigated or compensated for?
This is a matter for detailed engineering investigation but the comments in 17 indicate the scale of the problem.
19. What impact would the proposed development have on ecological assets within or adjacent to any of the individual sites and to what extent could this be mitigated or compensated for?
See comments in 17. There would be a radical change in the environment of the Marsh. Road widening would, as noted above require rerouting of The Drain. It would also require the removal of a well-established hedge and a significant number of mature trees of several species that line the road. As far as the ecological assets of the development sites are concerned, these would be destroyed. Of particular concern is the eradication of a wildlife “corridor” from the area of Ayot St Peter to the south-west across Linces Farm land to Singlers Marsh; development of Wel 1 and Wel 2 would remove that corridor. The ecology of virtually any area in England has been modified by human activity but the replacement of open arable land with housing, together with the reduction in size of a LNR to widen a road for access, rate pretty highly in terms of habitat destruction.
It is unclear from where the water supply for any development would be taken. Would the abstraction of water from local boreholes be used rather than piping from distant non- aquifer sources on cost grounds? Filtration would be effected offsite as before abstraction Page | 20 stopped in 2020, however the abstraction itself would be detrimental to the Mimram’s chalk stream environment, further lowering the river level in times of low rainfall and leading to its drying-up on its route through the village.
20. Should some or all of the trees on the site(s) be retained and their retention referred to in the policy criteria?
Wherever physically possible, trees should be retained. With the exception of the Cemetery and the south-western part of Wel 15 there are few trees in the area. Wel 6 is scrubby growth but any tree boundary with Fulling Mill lane or Oakhill Drive should be retained. Please note the comments in 17 and 19 on the trees lining Fulling Mill Lane.
21. To what extent could development on any of the sites harm heritage assets (including archaeology)?
AAS 7 covers most if not all of the area of Wel 15. Little investigation has been carried out to-date but it is understood that there are significant Iron Age and Roman settlement remains under the surface, as indeed there is throughout Welwyn 10 . Development without serious analysis of the area runs the risk of major loss of archaeological assets. We would be very concerned that development of Wel 15 be managed with the appropriate sensitivity to obviate any impact on the Conservation Area.
22. Could any of this be significant?
See 21. AAS 7 needs careful detailed study. Although not in AAS 7, the Rose & Crown public house in Church Street and 60 Mill Lane (both around 0.8 Km away from Wel 15) have both had thorough archaeological investigation and assessment prior to any refurbishment work proceeding. Similarly, when the houses at 10 Wendover Lodge (in upper Church Street – around 1Km away and also not in AAS 7) were being built, a brief physical archaeological analysis was done. AAS 7 represents a considerably different order of magnitude in terms of significance and the need for thorough investigation; in the case where there is known unexcavated material, this work would be much more involved.
23. Could any perceived harm be appropriately mitigated?
If AAS 7 were found to be important, following a detailed investigation that must precede any possible development, then no development should take place.
24. In the context of the site’s proximity to retail and community facilities and frequent public transport; to what extent can each of the constituent parts be considered to be a sustainable location for development?
Wel 15 effectively joins the village and is 5 minutes’ walk from the High Street and St Mary’s Church and 10 minutes from the Civic Centre and Library. Wel 1 and Wel 6 are both 15 minutes’ walk from the High Street and 20 from the Civic Centre. There is no public transport serving Fulling Mill Lane/Kimpton Road at present and the current roadway is narrow and has no cycle track or a footpath, except in front of the pumping station by the Fulling Mill Lane bridge. The bridge crossing has no pedestrian walkway.
10 E.g. the famous Roman Bath House (under the A1(M); various villas/buildings in the area of Dicket Mead, Lockleys and Sherrardswood; Roman cemetery off the Hawbush estate.
Page | 21
25. Are there any issues affecting highway safety and/or the free flow of traffic in this part of Welwyn that are incapable of satisfactory resolution?
Currently Fulling Mill Lane and Kimpton Road are too narrow for vehicles to pass with ease and safety, Kimpton Road is almost single track (under 3.5 metres wide in places) for most of its length in Welwyn parish and only widens slightly when the countryside opens out south of Codicote, heading towards Kimpton. In addition above the Cemetery up to the turn to Linces Farm there is a 6 metre drop on either side. There is no safe pedestrian or cycle access. This road would present a major engineering challenge. Although any design for Fulling Mill Lane will be the purview of Herts County Council Highways, a useful comparison can be made with Wilshere Way, the access road to the Wilshere Park development 11 from the B197, at the south end of the village. Wilshere Way is a reasonable guide to a minimum width 12 for a widened Fulling Mill Lane, both during construction work and later once all the houses are occupied. Such widening 13 would mean the loss of 9.3 to 9.8 metres of easily-accessible river frontage, out of a total accessible frontage at the Marsh of just 75 metres; that is a substantial 13%. Although again the purview of Herts County Council Highways, this Council understands that ideas from the developers about remodelling the bridge and the junction (including the required bell-mouth) with the Codicote Road roundabout, involve major re-engineering of the complete roundabout, maybe its removal. The area would need major alteration to cater for the high volume of traffic anticipated from the four Wel sites, plus added traffic from new developments at Codicote (along the B656) in addition to the current level, the current level of traffic from Link Road and finally village egress (via Codicote Road), all meeting at the current roundabout. A considerable amount of land is likely to be taken from the green areas around the road edges as well as the Marsh itself.
Should Fulling Mill Lane require closure to re-engineer the bridge and the junction, traffic from Riverside, Kimpton Road, Oakhill Drive and Fulling Mill Lane would need to egress via the northern junction with the B656, near the ford; similarly access to and from the countryside beyond, and even from Kimpton would use that route, which is in our view a dangerous junction approached by a narrow road with tight bends and only used for occasional vehicle traffic.
26. Are there any perceived infrastructure constraints that are incapable of resolution before the end of the plan period?
Given that access to Wel 1 is proposed to be via the Kimpton Road, noted above, with no access from Wel 2 or from Hawbush Rise, this represents a major infrastructure constraint. The Bayard Developments’ proposal shows three access points off Kimpton Road that
11 A brownfield site, “The Frythe” was the home of the Wilshere family, who were significant local landowners. Post WW2, research laboratories were built there. The site was re-developed from 2013 to deliver some 200 houses and the house remodelled to provide apartments. 12 New service roads were built for the development but the access road from the B197 already existed; that road is 5.5 metres wide, extending to 5.8 metres allowing for edging or kerbing. According to documents lodged with WHBC planning department at the time of approval of the development, the previous road was the same width. 13 At the bridge, an electricity supply cable across the river on the north side of the road bridge is fixed in a concrete base, whose furthest edge is 1.65m away from the northern side of the bridge. Assuming that it would be best to avoid interfering with that cable, a new road bridge would have to be positioned on the far side of that concrete block, say 2 metres north of the current bridge. If the new road bridge is to include a footway as well, then the result is likely to be 5.8 metres of road/edging and around 1.5 to 2 metres of pavement (as per Wilshere Way).
Page | 22 would require very major re-engineering work to take two-way traffic of considerable volume and also provide safe pedestrian and cycle movements along the road. Access to both Wel 2 and Wel 15 is from a single point opposite 1 Kimpton Road and there is no evidence of any emergency access point. Extensive widening of Fulling Mill Lane, with consequent loss of LNR land and wildlife habitat, would be needed to provide safe two- way vehicle, pedestrian and cycle access. For all sites the initial point of access is via Singlers Bridge which is currently single track with no pedestrian walkway and very poor sightlines.
There is likely to be pressure to open up a through-route from Wel 1 via Hawbush Rise and School Lane to the High Street/London Road and beyond to the major roads to offer alternative access, including for emergency vehicles. This would turn Hawbush Rise from a quiet residential cul-de-sac with near-contiguous on-street parking on both sides and the even narrower School Lane, with its own problematic parking, into major through-routes with consequential adverse impact of noise, pollution and on road safety, especially for the significant number of elderly people living there. Widening of either road is impossible due to housing; the inability to widen School Lane was one reason for the rejection of Wel 16.
All 4 sites are broadly the same radial distance from the local primary school (1.1Km from Wel 1) and the actual road distances for pedestrians are only marginally greater than the radial. The point about the current absence of footways near the sites has been made elsewhere. From previous local school travel experience, we would suggest that an over 1Km journey to a primary school by foot would not be popular and so car journeys are probable. The school is rated as “Outstanding” by Ofsted and has a total capacity of 420. There are currently 4 places across 7 years (a total of 14 classes each of 30 pupils) and the school is usually over-subscribed (often with applications from nearby WGC). The school would probably have difficulty (without expansion) supporting the modest number of new houses contained in the current draft of the Local Plan (e.g. the 30 from site Wel 4) so the 250 these 4 sites would represent would be well-beyond its capacity. The nearest alternative schools are: • Oaklands: 1.8Km radial distance with capacity for 210, currently few places, site constraints mean expansion is not possible and this would be the preferred school for any OMH sites. • Codicote: 2Km radial distance with capacity for 270 and currently planned to expand to 420 to cater for the considerable new local housing developments as part of the N Herts Local Plan.
It should also be recalled that the additional places required for children that will live in the Dig 1 and OMH sites are also likely to attend Welwyn school as schools nearer those sites cannot be expanded and building a new school is highly unlikely. Should Herts County Council determine to expand the Welwyn school, it seems unlikely that a major expansion of around one class per year (7 classrooms) could be achieved within 5 years as it is not on their latest forward look.
The sustainability of the sites is questionable with regard to the changing nature of the High Street, where we are seeing the slow demise of specialist shops as online shopping offers cheaper prices; the butcher and greengrocer were lost over 30 years ago and only the convenience store and two bakeries remain; the rest (other than pubs and restaurants) are beauty parlours, hairdressers, estate agents, restaurants/cafes, ladies clothing, sub- post office, funeral parlour and a violin shop. Further factors against added major volume
Page | 23 of housing are: the lack of public transport to Welwyn North Station 14 and of the parking spaces there (the station car park is full before 0900 most days and cannot be extended); no more on-street parking can be created in Welwyn village 15 and there is no available land for a further or extended car park in the village centre. There are no public transport alternatives or safe cycle routes or footpaths for these sites, unless delivered as part of the development of infrastructure.
27. What is the nature of the alleged flood risk and is it incapable of resolution through mitigation?
None of the sites in themselves (with the possible exception of Wel 15) is at risk from flooding. Currently in wet weather, surface water flows down Kimpton Road, off Wel 2 and floods the junction between that road and Fulling Mill Lane. The introduction of hard surfaces in Wel 2 in particular, but also from major elements of hard surfacing arising from a built-up Wel 1 and Wel 15, will increase this risk considerably and would need careful mitigation.
It should also be noted that Riverside itself required further work to mitigate flooding shortly after it was built, when the Mimram broke out of its channel, flooded The Drain and thence the new houses. Following remedial work on the culvert under the bridge and (the then) regular abstraction of water from the chalk aquifer via the Fulling Mill Lane pumping station on the Marsh, this has not recurred. However, in summer and times of very low rainfall, the level of water in the chalk aquifer, exacerbated by abstraction, leads to the Mimram all but disappearing. Reduction and near-withdrawal of abstraction licenses by the Environment Agency in recent years has helped restore the precious chalk stream ecosystem of the Mimram. A flooding contingency plan is now in place to abstract continuously a much smaller amount of water from the Mimram (which can be increased if flooding is imminent). See also comments about The Drain, at 17 above.
28. Are there any noise or air pollution issues affecting any or all of these sites that are incapable of resolution through mitigation?
There do not appear to be any noise or air pollution issues that affect these sites
29. Does the infrastructure evidence actually confirm that it is necessary to develop these sites as a complete whole and together?
This would require a detailed cost analysis. However, developing Wel 15 on its own would in all probability require the widening/replacement of the bridge, widening of the road and rerouting of the drain culvert that runs under Fulling Mill Lane before the bridge. While it is true that the 4 Riverside dwellings were built without doing this, the scale of Wel 15 (14 dwellings proposed) is considerably bigger. Preliminary infrastructure work would also be needed if either Wel 1 or Wel 2 were to be developed first, and then of course further work along Fulling Mill Lane and Kimpton Road would be needed. Piecemeal infrastructure work would be neither cost- nor time-effective. (See also 32).
30. Is third party land involved in providing the off-site infrastructure and is agreement to use this legally secured?
14 See comments at 11 under Dig 1 on p 8 15 Several on-street spaces were recently removed from use to improve safety or provide parking for the disabled.
Page | 24
See also the answer to 25 above. The widening of Fulling Mill Lane is certainly one aspect of off-site infrastructure that would involve third party land: Singlers Marsh (owned by WHBC). If Kimpton Road were to be widened, further third party land may also be involved along its length.
There has been no public disclosure of any agreement of any sort between WHBC and the potential developers to provide land currently part of Singlers Marsh LNR for the widening of Fulling Mill Lane. We have concluded that no such consultation has actually taken place about developing any of the land on Singlers Marsh 16 . Any such development proposal would therefore need to go out to a full consultation on environmental, ecological, wildlife, archaeological and cultural grounds. Not only would this inject a considerable delay, but, given the current strength of local feeling about the Marsh, the outcome of a genuine consultation could not be predicted with certainty to allow development to occur.
31. Has any formal consultation with North Hertfordshire District Council been undertaken? Particularly but not exclusively in the context of Site WEl6 and the adjoining land to its south-west?
There is a comment in HELAA 2019 about the land adjoining Wel 6, noting that N Herts District has no intention of including any development of this land in its Local Plan, currently under examination. All of this area in NH District (including Oakhill Drive and Kimpton Road houses) is very clearly Green Belt and it appears from recent maps that there is no intention that this should change. Therefore any development there would not be contiguous with a Green Belt Boundary and thus be contrary to NPPF. The same of course applies to Wel 6 if it were developed in isolation. The land in question is referred to in some documents as an old quarry and certainly at the border between it and Wel 6 there is a radical change in ground level (see answer to 25 above) that would make its development very challenging.
32. To what extent would it be feasible or practicable to bring these sites forward for development in a phased manner?
As noted in 29 it would in theory be feasible to phase development of these sites. However, the infrastructure needs: bridge widening/replacing, major widening of Fulling Mill Lane and Kimpton Road, re-routing of culvert and drainage, could not be phased and would have to be financed up-front which does not seem practical if there is no income from developments not yet started. Comments on Wel 6 indicate that it would not be expected to proceed until the other sites were developed.
16 At the WHBC Cabinet Planning and Parking Panel meeting held on 23 rd January 2020, the Head of Planning was asked by a Borough Councillor if there had been any consultation with wildlife bodies; the reply was: “ We would have consulted key ecological bodies: the Environment Agency, Natural England, and various others: Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust, Hertfordshire Ecology and other local bodies on our database. And in terms of the regulatory and the statutory bodies (Environment Agency, Natural England) side of things there was nothing particular said that gave us cause that something couldn’t be done in that regard,” thus implying that some consultation had taken place. Following a protracted series of written queries, WHBC clarified at their Cabinet meeting on 9 th February 2021: “There are no proposals which result in the loss of Singlers Marsh as a nature reserve, as an archaeological site, as a wildlife site or its ability to continue function as all of these things” and “Local Plans do not however contain detailed proposals for accessing sites which are detailed matters considered at the planning application stage and which would be subject to consultation at that point”.
Page | 25
33. If developed, should a masterplan be prepared to ensure the comprehensive development of the area proposed for development?
The briefest outline of a master plan (a drawing of the Bayard Developments proposal for Wel 1, 2 and 15) exists and has been used as the basis for some of the comments above. If development were to be approved it would have to be on the basis of a fully approved master plan
34. Could any of these sites clearly deliver dwellings within the first five years following adoption?
HELAA analysis in both 2016 and 2019 suggest that for Wel 1, 2 and 15, 6-10 years is probably more realistic than 0-5 given the on-site and off-site infrastructure requirements needed to make the sites physically viable. Wel 6 would be deliverable in 6-15 years. See also the answers at 30 and 31; the need for at least two courses of consultation would suggest further delay and the absence of any assured outcome supporting development.
35. Are there any other matters that weigh against any of these sites being proposed for residential development?
The Parish Council are aware of the very strongly-held local concern about development on or near Singlers Marsh. The vast majority of Welwyn residents, (many of whom regularly use the Marsh for exercise, playing with their children and dog-walking) are vehemently opposed to any development that would affect the Marsh or mar the views of and from the area.
Conclusion for Welwyn Sites – Wel 1, 2, 6 & 15
We do not believe there are any exceptional circumstances why these 4 sites should be allocated, other than simply to increase the number of houses built. Any decision to allocate would prove detrimental to both the Green Belt and to Welwyn village. Given the engineering issues associated with the widening of Fulling Mill Lane and Kimpton Road; the need for a wider and stronger bridge over the Mimram; re-routing of The Drain; major re-engineering of the Codicote Road roundabout and its 4 feeder routes; the visual impact on what is currently attractive rolling countryside and views; the closing of the green gap between Welwyn and Codicote; the reduction of a LNR; the exacerbation of transport and parking, footways and bus services near the sites themselves, it is hard to envisage allocation of these four sites as being sound. It would be massively deleterious to that area of countryside on the boundary of the village (and thus the village as a whole) and deliver catastrophic impact on Singlers Marsh .
Page | 26