November 2007 (7.0MB pdf)

Registered with the civic trust
THE HITCHIN SOCIETY
NEWSLETTER
November 2007
“Brookers” site on Paynes Park, looking east
Town Centre Issues
One of the major issues concerning the Society in recent months has been the apparent
inability of the District Council to deal in a coherent and consistent manner with the various
pressures facing the town. The most forceful of those pressures is clearly that to increase the
density of housing. Whilst the historic core of the town has some protection in the form of its
conservation area, the outer fringes of the centre, largely developed during the late Victorian
period, have no such protection, and are highly vulnerable.
Industrial space too is being nibbled away – with both the Brooker’s site and the Warren site
in Walsworth Road currently under development.
The Churchgate project now seems to be expanding: experience with previous projects has
shown the Council’s own difficulties in managing large projects, and Churchgate seems to be
demanding ever an ever larger footprint in order to be “financially viable”. Viable or not, we
the residents will have to suffer the consequences, and a smaller, low impact scheme is likely
to do far less damage to the town as a whole than a large, poorly-conceived project which
destroys businesses in the building through disturbance and obstruction.
The Society joined with others in the town to deliver a letter to local politicians, explaining our
concerns. This was an unusual step, but one which seems to have had a marked impact, with
an awakening understanding of residents’ concerns, and a willingness to explore the issues
further.
Last Thursday’s issue of the Comet was full of major Hitchin issues. The front page dealt
solely with the Town Hall, and the announcement that the Council and the Town Centre
Initiative will jointly apply for a Big Lottery award to refurbish the hall. This is good news, but
the fact remains that lottery awards are strange animals, and one is reminded of the proverb
“Beware what you wish for, you might just get it!”. What might happen if the bid is
unsuccessful, is of course another matter entirely.
New housing developments
Inside, the Comet covered proposed and discounted options for further development around
Hitchin, Letchworth & Baldock. For Hitchin, some limited growth is proposed for the west
edge of the town, inside the existing ridge: around 84 houses could be built there. A public
meeting, on the Wednesday before the Comet went to press, on this issue attracted over 300
people, and raised a significant amount of money. Further development to the south and
south-west was discounted. For Baldock, limited housing development is proposed between
the bypass and the existing development to the east of the town, and a lesser amount to the
north: this would account for 410 new homes. Weston Woods would be consolidated and
replanted. Letchworth would have several regeneration projects, for Ivel Court on the
Jackmans Estate, for Pelican Way and Southfields on the north, and some new housing
development northwards, accounting for 548 new homes. In North Herts. there is some
provision in the proposals for new employment land, to replace that nibbled away by recent
housing developments. There has been curiously little publicity for these proposals. The
Council is currently consulting on the expansion of housing around Hitchin, Letchworth and
st
Baldock, and that process will finish on October 31 2007.
Stevenage would be wrapped by new housing on its west and north sides, some 1,400 acres
to accommodate 10,300 new homes, an approximate doubling of the previous proposals.
Consultation of the Stevenage proposals, known as SNAP (Stevenage & North Herts Area
th
th
Action Plan) will run from November 5 until January 18 , 2008.
Obviously your Society will be considering all of these proposals, and an article within goes
into more detail about your Society’s objections.
2
OBITUARY: Mrs Jane McMurtrie, The Society’s President.
Born in Wokingham in 1931, her father was a senior civil servant who eventually served as
Cabinet Secretary for a period during the second World War. Educated in Wokingham, she
went on to qualifying in catering and domestic science at Guildford College, while her ability at
tennis was such that she competed at Junior Wimbledon. Subsequently living and working in
London, she put her studies to good use, catering for the consultants at a London teaching
hospital, before running the Roof Garden Restaurant at Derry and Toms. In 1953 she
married Peter McMurtrie, a former naval officer, and moved into a cottage at St Ibbs Park.
Encouraged by her mother-in-law towards public service, she soon made her mark through
membership of the Mothers’ Union, Parish and Church Councils, and the Rural District
Council, while also becoming a school governor. She served as a magistrate for many years
in Hitchin and then in Stevenage, becoming Chairman of the Bench. Her charitable work
included being County Chairwoman of SSAFA (Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families
Association) and of the Parkinson’s Disease Society. As a mark of this commitment and
service, she was appointed a Deputy Lieutenant of Hertfordshire.
She was also a strong supporter of CPRE - The Hertfordshire Society, not only when her
husband was Chairman of the Society, but also serving for many years as a judge in its Best
Kept Village Competition. In the year 2000, she agreed to become the Hon. President of The
Hitchin Society, regularly attending the Society’s meetings and providing unstinting support
and advice behind the scenes. In addition, she also found time to be a hard-working
volunteer at the Hitchin British Schools Museum.
But life was not all duty; she had a great interest in horse racing, with friends in Newmarket,
and deriving great enjoyment from Royal Ascot. She also took pleasure from the countryside,
liking nothing better than her morning walks with her dogs. Her household at St Ibbs Bush
was run with care and attention to detail, and she derived great enjoyment from her family,
and especially her grandchildren. Her firm political views and highly principled Christian
beliefs were central to her 55 years in St Ippolyts; she was a very private person, but people
were the thread that joined her life together.
Margaret Jane McMurtrie, born 1931, died 7 October 2007
HERITAGE OPEN DAYS 6th-9th September 2007
Every year in September, Heritage Open Days celebrates England's rich architecture, history
and culture. Thousands of buildings of every age style and function open their doors free of
charge. Many venues are normally closed to the public while others may charge for entry.
Although Heritage Open Days is a national event promoted by the Civic Trust in partnership
with English Heritage, its success depends on the efforts of local volunteers. Your local
organiser is of course The Hitchin Society. This year we were able to offer thirteen venues in
Hitchin, and the adjacent parishes of St Ippolyts and Preston, more than in any previous year.
Visitor numbers were in general not as high as in 2006, but at least two places had a
particularly successful weekend. The Biggin, Hitchin's oldest building dating from 1361, had
about 100 visitors. At British Schools Museum over 200 were offered tours which included the
recently renovated Headmaster's House. There was also an afternoon of “Reminiscences
Over Tea” on the theme of "What did we do in the holidays when we were young?"
Several churches were open with various displays, including St Saviour's in Radcliffe Road,
where there was a garden party and traditional children's games. New venues included the
Friends Meeting House and Benslow Music Trust.
The Heritage Open Day weekend in 2008 will take place from Thursday 11th September to
Sunday 14th September.
TS.
3
Planning Issues, 2007
Apart from the on-going major concerns of Churchgate, the Town Hall and the joint meeting of
Hitchin Community Groups with Cabinet members and the Chief Executive of North Herts.
District Council, the Society has also been actively involved in the following issues:
Brooker’s Yard - The revised application for development on this site was finally approved by
the Hitchin Area Committee at their meeting in December 2006. This was in the face of much
local opposition and only on a second vote, after the Principal Planning Officer had advised
members that it would be unwise to vote against it. Some councillors continued to oppose the
application, but others took the decision to comply with the advice ‘with a heavy heart’ or
‘reluctantly’, so a slim majority voted for the application, with the result that we shall soon
have a massive, extremely high-density development on the edge of our medieval market
square, whether we like it or not.
Public Conveniences in
Hitchin - Also in late 2006,
the Council decided, again
in the face of much
opposition, to close two of
the four locations in the
town. Although the Council
has no statutory obligation
to provide these facilities,
and
although
the
conveniences in the Arcade
are being re-furbished and
made
accessible
for
disabled users, the Hitchin
Society, together with other
organisations, was very
disappointed at the lack of
public consultation on this
issue. [Now open – Ed.]
Rose Cottage, 89 Walsworth Road – Sadly, public opposition failed to save this Victorian
villa, and in March this year permission was granted for demolition and redevelopment of this
property.
Gainsford School, Radcliffe Road – In contrast, the Society was happy to support a
sensitive and thoughtful proposal for the restoration of this landmark Victorian building;
permission for this plan to proceed was granted in June.
Area Governance - In March 2007 the Society, along with other organisations, wrote to the
Council to deplore the proposal to take away from the Hitchin Area Committee its powers to
decide local planning matters, but the Council went ahead with this, and planning decisions
have since been made by a Central Planning Control Committee.
Hitchin Museum – This is still an on-going concern, with no assurance from the Council that
our museum will be saved. However, more working party meetings are planned for later this
year, so we remain optimistic that we may yet be able to influence opinion on this.
Trees in Conservation Area – The Society was appalled to discover in July that several
trees at the rear of 9 Sun Street had been chopped down, ruining the aesthetic of the
Riverside Walk at that point. In response to our letter, the Senior Planning Officer expressed
her intention of asking the owner to replant trees on the riverbank. We shall continue to keep
an eye on this situation to check compliance and enforcement.
EJA
4
Town Quiz
We all walk around the town about our own business, and often fail to spot changes or
additions to the townscape. The following quiz is intended to amuse you for a little while with
details of the town and its scenery – see if you can tell where these building fragments are.
They’re all in clear view, there are no sneaky tricks here!
Answers on page 8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PM
5
A Town Council for Hitchin?
nd
Several members of your Society attended a meeting on October 22 to garner some
information about issues around the formation of a town council for Hitchin. The meeting took
place in the ballroom of the Sun Hotel, kindly made available gratis by the Sun for the
occasion. Called by the Forum and adroitly and wittily chaired by the Vicar Michael Roden,
the meeting heard Rosemary Read deliver an outline of the issues. Karina Helmn then
considered some of the on-going changes in legislation which may well re-define how town
councils may appear in the future, and lastly Garrick Stephens, a councillor from
Berkhamstead, considered the advantages which a town council might bring.
It must first of all be said that the two main speakers all painted a very rosy picture of town
council roles and responsibilities. In reality the view is rather different, though perhaps not
unexpected. Some parish councils (town and parish councils are functionally equivalent) are
excellent, and others struggle to survive with volunteer and part-time staff.
Rosemary Read’s admirably succinct overview did speak as if the difficulties currently faced
by Hitchin were unique. They most certainly are not, and are faced equally by other towns
across this and other districts. Hitchin and Royston have both enjoyed refurbishment of some
streets, and both now suffer low-grade replacement of missing cobbles or paviors by dabs of
tarmac, and the replacement of damaged bollards with carelessly applied concrete:
Bucklersbury has recently suffered the added indignity of replacement of damaged bollards
by those from another town altogether. For this we have to thank the Highway Authority.
Garrick Stephens painted a picture of local residents joyfully handing over their hard-earned
funds to a town council, secure in the knowledge that their aspirations were about to be
delivered. In real life many seemingly straightforward projects go awry through no fault of the
parish council, its staff or members. Karina Helmn’s overview of current legislative was a little
dry, and some of the proposed changes may yet be still-born.
Garrick Stephens was keen to emphasise how councils are driven by tax-minimalists. This
would be sad if it were a true picture, and ignores a not-so-subtle difference between third-tier
(parish and town) and second-tier councils (the districts and unitaries): second-tier councils
are capped by central government. Even if District Councillors felt their electorate could
cheerfully shoulder a greater tax burden, central government prohibits them from setting it.
Town councils have no such cap. We may have to choose ultimately between the Scylla of
low-grade services, delivered by steadily impoverishing district councils, and the Charybdis of
a steadily rising local council tax driven by enthusiastic aspiration. If you are on a fixed
pension, you might just prefer one alternative to the other. Most of Mr Stephens’ discourse
was philosophical, and he seemed rather hard-put when asked how Berkhamstead managed
matters better.
Questions were then invited from the floor, and these focused on real benefits. Judy Billing,
Chair of the Hitchin Area Committee, received warm applause at her suggestion of the
augmentation of existing ward members by representatives of ‘communities of interest’ – what
do our commuters want? What do our younger residents want?
In typically British fashion, Ellie Clark in closing suggested that a steering group be formed to
explore the way forward, though recognising that significantly more information would be
required before any decision could be contemplated. She also then undertook to collect
names for such a steering group, aware that the Forum was constitutionally unable to lead
discussion on such issues itself. The meeting closed around 9.45p.m.
6
The Society’s objection to proposed westwards expansion of
Hitchin
As discussed earlier in this newsletter, the Council’s Local Development Plan, the
successor to the old District Plan, outlines the shape of future developments across
th
the District. The Comet for October 18 carries plans of Hitchin, Letchworth, Baldock
and Stevenage, showing areas indicated for future development. The following text
forms part of your society’s objection to those proposals, particularly with reference to
Core Policy F: Provision and distribution of new housing.
1. Lack of proportionality in dwelling numbers
Excluding provision for the expansion of Stevenage, and a possible expansion of Luton, the
preferred policy wording calls for the provision of sufficient land for 6200 dwellings to be
completed in the District between 2001 and 2021. This total includes 1964 that have been
completed in 2001 to 2006 and a further 3209 to be accommodated on previously developed
land in the four towns and identified villages. This leaves just 1027 dwellings to be located on
greenfield sites outside existing settlements.
The preferred policy identifies greenfield land outside the boundaries of each of the four
towns, possibly to give the impression of equality of treatment of each town in North
Hertfordshire. This is reinforced by the way in which each town is required to accept just one
principal area of greenfield development beyond the settlement boundaries. However, this
seemingly equitable approach fails to take account of the distribution of completions in 2001
to 2006 taken together with the forecast number of dwellings to be accommodated on
brownfield sites within the four towns and identified villages, as shown in the table below.
Settlement
Completions
2001-2006
Baldock
Hitchin
Letchworth
Royston
Villages
Total
132
516
207
778
331
1964
Brownfield est.
Completions
2006-2021
133
1765
579
408
324
3209
Total
estimated
2001-2021
265
2281
786
1186
655
5173
Percentage of
Total
2001-2021
5.1%
44.1%
15.2%
22.9%
12.7%
100.0%
This table (all data from NHDC documentation) shows that Hitchin is forecast to provide
44.1% of all new dwellings in the period 2001 to 2021 excluding the small number to be
provided on greenfield sites beyond settlement boundaries. In the case of forecast brownfield
completions 2006 to 2021, this rises to no less than 55.0%.
This is in stark contrast with the stated preference for proportionate growth in the location of
new dwellings, as in paragraph 5.28. Such a disproportionate allocation of new housing to
Hitchin calls into question the appropriateness of allocating any more housing provision to
Hitchin in the form of a greenfield extension to the town.
Such an extension is, however, proposed in the Preferred Policy wording which specifies
development outside the settlement boundary of Hitchin “principally to the west … but not
breaching the ridge line west of Lucas Lane and Crow Furlong”. The number of dwellings
which could be accommodated in the specified area has been estimated as between 83 and
108, depending on precise boundaries and density. Even taking the lower estimate, this
would raise the total housing allocation to Hitchin 2001-2021 to 2364 dwellings, or 38% of the
District total of 6200 (excluding the expansion of Stevenage, and a possible expansion of
Luton).
This is so far out-of-line with any application of the principle of proportionality, that the
allocation of even 83 additional dwellings to Hitchin appears to be driven by nothing more
than a requirement for all four towns to have some greenfield expansion, even if only of a
tokenistic nature. Without any greenfield expansion to Hitchin, the 2001-2021 total of 2281
7
dwellings would still represent 36.8% of the District total, more than exceeding any
requirement on a proportional basis. In contrast, the number of households in Hitchin is
estimated as only 24.2% of the District total (NHDC data for 2001).
On this basis alone, it is argued that the external greenfield expansion of Hitchin is unjustified
against the stated criteria, and will exacerbate the pressure already felt on infrastructure
arising from an already disproportionately high number of new dwellings in the town.
2. Disproportionate loss of amenity
The proposed external expansion of Hitchin is inappropriate, as the loss of amenity which
would be experienced by a significant part of the population of Hitchin far outweighs any
benefit that would be derived from the relatively small number of new dwellings. The present
easy access to open countryside, including the Oughtonhead Common Nature Reserve,
provides opportunities for healthy exercise, the importance of which is now increasingly
recognised. In this context, it is also noted that a substantial part of the land in question is
now used as playing fields. Even if it is intended that new sporting facilities would eventually
be created elsewhere in the District, there would be a real and significant loss of amenity to
the western part of Hitchin, where it could be argued there is a need for preserving and
enhancing the existing level of recreational provision.
3. Topographical considerations
The preferred policy describes the proposed development as “not breaching the ridge line
west of Lucas Lane and Crow Furlong” as if there were a distinct ridge which would in some
way hide the development as seen from the open countryside beyond. The reality on the
ground is that the area west of Lucas Lane and Crow Furlong is essentially a level plateau
which then drops sharply away to the west. Any housing development would inevitably be
highly visible from the west, even if restricted to single-storey dwellings. The concept of a
ridge line is highly misleading in the context of the impact of the proposed development, and
should not form any part in the argument for development at this location.
4. Unnecessary due to further windfall brownfield sites
The relatively small housing gain from the proposed extension needs to be seen in the
context of the continuing availability of unexpected or ‘windfall’ development sites in Hitchin.
Just one such site, the former DIY store in Nightingale Road, will probably provide more
dwellings than the proposed greenbelt extension of Hitchin. This emphasises that a small
scale, but highly damaging, greenbelt development beyond the boundaries of Hitchin is not
required to meet housing targets.
Overall
The disproportionate damage that would be caused by the relatively small edge-of-town
housing development, coupled with the already exceptionally high contribution being made by
Hitchin towards meeting the District’s housing targets, shows that the proposed development
is both inappropriate and unnecessary. The extensions proposed for other towns in North
Hertfordshire are not relevant to this scheme, and should not be used to justify this
development on the basis of equality of treatment between the four towns.
Your Committee will seek to oppose the proposed development to the west of Hitchin
with all means at its disposal, considering it unnecessary, the cause of
disproportionate loss of amenity, and out of touch with the reality of the landforms.
--o—
New Members
A hearty welcome to our new members for 2007-8.
Ms H Macmillan
Mrs J Houghton
Mr & Mrs V Evans
Mrs J. Parry
Mr R Turnburville
Ms L Lea
Mr M Beaumont
Mr & Mrs I Woodbridge
Mr Mrs Robertson
Mr & Mrs B Cox
8
Miss M Gunn
Miss N Underwood
Mr & Mrs A Collen
Mrs. D. Wild
Mrs. R. Read
Annual General Meeting
th
The Society’s Annual General Meeting will take place on Monday, March 10 , 2008, as
usual in the Catholic Church Hall, Grove Road.
Quiz Answers
Bridge Street
It is perhaps time to celebrate the removal of one of Hitchin’s major carbuncles – Crown
House in Bridge Street. The street’s major feature – at least, until the arrival of Crown House
– was of course the Lucas Brewery, which occupied the greater part of the north side of the
street. The Lucas family had been brewers and
maltsters since the sixteenth century, but in the
nineteenth the business was to reach its apogee. In
August 1842 the family sold off several properties in
the town, probably to finance the construction of a
new bank in the High Street, Sharples, Exton &
Lucas’ bank, ultimately to become Barclays. This
was a sudden shift sideways for the family, who
under the beneficent eye of Samuel Lucas (18051870) now had charge of much of the town’s money
as well as its beer, and it was Samuel who, on the
management committee of almost every new
project, could make or break it. Mostly he made it:
the old Town Hall and the Infirmary (Thomas
Bellamy House) were both developed in his care.
Bridge Street around 1900.
The family brewery, however, finally succumbed to
pressures for modernisation in 1920, and brewery –
the walls clearly visible in the photograph at right – was demolished. The shops on the corner
of Sun Street and Bridge Street were built shortly thereafter. Over the 1920s and 1930s the
small transport-based businesses in the street, farriers, wheelwrights and furniture stores,
also changed, moving towards the internal combustion engine, and become mechanics and
petrol vendors. Some sites remained vacant until the 1980s, such as John Ray’s offices at the
north-eastern end of the street.
Bridge Street, as other streets in the town centre, is a delightful mixture of building styles,
from the former Priory gatehouse of No.32 to more elegant late Georgian and Regency
houses. Hopefully the flats to be built on the Crown House site will blend in too.
AF.
Photo courtesy of Hitchin Museum.
9