Bushey Museum Property Trust (BMPT)

Commentary on Hertsmere Borough Council (HBC) Green Space Statement of Representations (SADMS –SD04)

The BMPT made a detailed representation to HBC objecting to the designation of ‘The Paddock’ as a Local Green Space (LGS) as it was unsound. The response of HBC to our representation, contained in Document SD04a, is ‘The designation is considered to be consistent with the NPPF and with the Council’s criteria based approach to identifying sites worthy of designation as a LGS.’ (p105). No further evidence has been provided. Following a request by the Planning Inspector, HBC provided further justification for their Major Green Space and Local Green Space policies in the document ‘Justifications for the approach taken in policies SADM 35, 36 and 37’ dated December 2015.

The BMPT does not accept that these responses give adequate justification for designation of the field as an LGS because: • Criteria. The methodology used by HBC is different to that specified in the National Planning Practice Framework (NPPF) and has been applied inconsistently. • Evidence. No evidence has been provided, both in the original SADM and in HBC’s response to our representation, to support designation as an LGS.

Criteria 1. The criteria followed by HBC, ‘the value framework’, Table 3 of EB26, is based on that set out in the PPG17 Companion Guide, which has been superseded by the NPPF criteria, paragraph 77, of the policy. The Planning Inspector has noted there is ‘no direct read across between the criteria set out in paragraph 77 of the NPPF and the ‘value framework’ included at Table 3 of EB26’. By not using the correct criteria, the SADM must be unsound. 2. HBC justify using the incorrect criteria because they ‘undertook a consultation of the assessment before it is (sic) finalised and no objection was received’ (Justification document para 5). However, our criticism that the Council’s assessment criteria did not align with the NPPF (our representation pp18-20) was first sent to HBC Council officers on 15th January 2015, reiterated in our meeting with them on 10th February 2015, sent to Councillors on 3rd July 2015 and discussed with the Council member lead for the SADM on 5th July 2015, who committed to take them seriously. HBC made no changes following our objections. It is incorrect to say none were received. 3. There is no dispute that the first and third criteria in the NPPF Paragraph 77 have been met. It is the second criterion that is key - the site must be demonstrably special and hold a particular local significance. Hertsmere argue that their assessment using the PPG17 criteria had taken account of the second NPPF criterion by giving greater weight to three of their nine value factors – level of use, social inclusion and amenity health benefit. However, only two of these have the maximum weighting of 4 and the third one, social inclusion, has a weighting of 3 – a lower level than one of the other nine value factors, Cultural and Heritage benefits. The weightings applied are inconsistent with their statement that the maximum weight has been given to NPPF compliant value factors. 4. Note that the Paddock has a zero score against level of use and social inclusion, and only a ‘partial’ score against amenity health. To designate a site as a Local Green Space when it scores so lowly against the criteria that HBC has itself specified as the most important for such a designation makes their decision unsound. 5. Even if we accept the approach HBC has taken in using the incorrect PPG17 criteria, it has been applied in an inconsistent manner. There is an inconsistency in approach between Local Green Spaces and Minor Amenity Land, and the cut-off point for qualification as a LGS is inconsistent with the NPPF.

6. In HBC’s ‘Justification’ document, no reason is given as to why sites are designated Minor Amenity Land as opposed to Local Green Space – just that they are ‘not considered to be of particularly special local significance’. For instance BH019, Land at Lower Tub, is the same size as the Paddocks, has a greater overall score of 17, scores in two of the three value factors quoted by HBC as the key ones to qualify as an LGS including full marks for amenity health, but is not an LGS. The conclusion must be that the assessment is not evidence based and is therefore unsound. 7. The NPPF states that LGS designation will not apply to most green spaces. Whilst ‘most’ is not defined, a sensible interpretation would be that it would apply to those sites in the upper quartile or upper decile of a scoring distribution such as the one HBC has used (see appendix). Any scoring mechanism has to be tested against the sites that are obviously important to the local community. From local knowledge, the obvious candidates in Bushey are: a. BH002 Mary Forsdyke garden (score 37) b. BU001 Bushey Rose Garden (score 40) c. BU015 War Memorial (score 28) d. BU002 The Moatfield Major Green Space (score 26) e. BU003 King George Park Major Green Space (score 32) f. BU022 St James churchyard and cemetery Major Green Space (score 33) All of these can be justified by long standing use by the local community and historical importance, and have commensurate high scores. HBC have not given any rationale for the use of 11 as a cut-off point.

Evidence 8. Hertsmere have provided no evidence in SDO4a in response to our representations – merely an assertion that they believed the correct criteria had been applied. Neither has any evidence been provided in the original SADM documents – merely a scoring mechanism based on incorrect criteria. 9. Apart from the sites listed in para 7 above, evidence for other LGS sites in Bushey is equivocal and none has been provided by HBC– in fact the lack of evidence is implied, as often the sites have no particular name (e.g. BH028 Land between 22 and 24 Prowse Ave). The name of ‘The Paddocks’ has only been used as shorthand since planning permission has been sought – it is not an official name and never has been. 10. Comments received from local residents supportive of the council’s position on the Paddock do not cite any evidence as to why it should have particular local significance. Many of the comments come from the viewpoint that Bushey has suffered from too much development. This is not a reason that is particular to the site. 11. As the site has never had any public access, the site itself must have particular significance – historic, ecological, cultural etc. to determine LGS. Our representation has demonstrated conclusively that there is no such evidence. Nothing historic has happened on, or been associated with the land either before its acquisition in circa 1929, or subsequently. Aside from parking once a year between 1990 and circa 2008, it has not been used by the community. An ecological survey has shown it to be ‘poor semi-improved grassland’. It is certainly not tranquil as it is on a busy main road. Several of the trees on site have preservation orders, including along the border with Elstree Road, which will remain whether or not LGS designation is granted, and which will therefore soften the street-scene.

Bushey Heath Residents Association and others: The many points raised by BHRA to support the designation of ‘The Paddock’ as a LGS lack supporting evidence and are superficial in nature, or are just plain incorrect. For example: • BHRA (ref: 059a – supporting information) states that the Paddock ‘was bequeathed to the people of Bushey’. This is egregiously untrue: Eila Chewett, the last owner of

Reveley Lodge and ‘The Paddock’, bequeathed both to the Bushey Museum Trust. Her will dated 17th October 2002, Clause 6, clearly states:‘ I GIVE all my property both real and personal whatsoever and wheresoever subject to and after payment of my funeral and testamentary expenses and debts and the legacies given by Clause 4 hereof (“my residuary estate”) to BUSHEY MUSEUM TRUST (Charity Registration Number 294261) absolutely for its general charitable purposes’.

• The BHRA argues that ‘The Paddock’ is ‘historically important as a last piece of the ‘heath’ in Bushey Heath’. The BHRA does not provide any evidence to support this claim and in their representation (ref: 059a) and admit that it is anecdotal hearsay. In contrast the BMPT has clearly shown in their representation booklet, p 14-15, that the Paddock is not part of the historic heath and therefore is not historically significant.

• A supporter of the BHRA (ref: 063a) states: It’s a beautiful peaceful setting. Residents enjoy sitting on the benches and enjoying rural setting’. However, the benches face onto the busy A411 road, facing away from the field and are not in a tranquil or rural setting. Very few people use the benches at any time of the day.

Conclusion: Designation as an LGS makes any development very difficult, rather than just stopping inappropriate development. Inappropriate development is prevented by compliance with Hertsmere’s planning policies – indeed, inappropriate developments have been halted twice under existing designations. There is no reason to believe that a future modest proposal could not be produced that would be fully compliant with Council policies.

We respectfully submit to the Inspector that Hertsmere’s SADM is unsound because: a. The criteria used by HBC are not consistent with paragraph 77 of the NPPF. b. No site-specific evidence has been presented by the Council to justify designation as a Local Green Space. c. No evidence has been provided as to why some sites are to be considered as Local Green Spaces and not Minor Amenity Land and there is an inconsistency between the two designations. d. The sheer number of sites that the Council has proposed as Local Green Spaces is not consistent with NPPF guidelines because the cut-off point for designation is too low, for which no justification has been provided. e. No supporting evidence produced by the BHRA stands up to scrutiny and therefore cannot be cited as evidence of particular significance. f. Support by a goodly number of residents for the designation of the Paddock as a Local Green Space is balanced by a similar number of residents who oppose this designation and therefore cannot be used as evidence that the site is demonstrably special to a local community.

We understand that the Council may be changing its approach, and if so, we respectfully request that we be given the earliest possible notification of new documentation, policies or evidence so that we have adequate preparation time ahead of the Examination.

Granville Taylor MA CEng MIET Chairman Katharine Whitaker Trustee For and on behalf of the Bushey Museum Property Trust. 24th January 2016

Distribution of Scorings on Green spaces Hertsmere SADM

All excl very small Minor Amenity Major Green Space land 25 100 20 80 Upper quar3le = 30 Upper quar3le = 22 15 60 10 40 No. sites No. sites 5 20 0 0 0 to 5 6 to 11 to 16 to 21 to 26 to 31 to 36 to 41 to 46 to 0 to 5 6 to 11 to 16 to 21 to 26 to 31 to 36 to 41 to 46 to 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 48 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 48 HBC score HBC score

Local Green Space 25 Upper quar3le = 26 20

15

10 No. sites 5

0 0 to 5 6 to 11 to 16 to 21 to 26 to 31 to 36 to 41 to 46 to 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 48 HBC score