BISHOP S STORTFORD NORTH REPORT ON FEEDBACK EVENT SEPTEMBER 2012

Transcription

1 BISHOP S STORTFORD NORTH REPORT ON FEEDBACK EVENT SEPTEMBER 2012 Prepared by: Property Solutions 19a Charles Street, Bath BA1 1HX October 2012

2 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Approach 3. Attendance 4. Comments and Suggestions 5. Next Steps APPENDIX A Event Flyer distributed to around 18,000 homes, offices and shops Poster (A4) Site Notices Press Promotion and Advertisements APPENDIX B Exhibition Boards APPENDIX C Masterplan Changes Board Event Leaflet Focus Boards APPENDIX D Photos of Event APPENDIX E Record of Written Feedback. Postcard Comments submitted at Exhibition. Comments submitted via website

3 1. INTRODUCTION The Bishop s Stortford North Consortium (comprising Bovis Homes, Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon Homes, The Fairfield Partnership and Kier Homes) is seeking to bring forward land within the Bishop s Stortford A120 northern bypass for development, this generally comprising the Areas of Special Restraint ( ASRs ) 1-4 and the Special Countryside Area and associated land. The site has been safeguarded for longer term development since the mid 1980s in successive reviews and alterations of the East Hertfordshire Local Plan and the Hertfordshire Structure Plan. In December 2008, after recognising that there was insufficient land to meet housing requirements, East Hertfordshire District Council resolved to bring forward the land for development. In accordance with best practice and the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework, the Consortium organised two Community Consultation Open Days in June 2012 with the specific purpose of encouraging local participation in the planning and design of the development at an early stage in the process, so that such views could be properly considered and, where possible, taken on board as the Consortium looks to bring forward its proposals. Over 500 people attended the June Open Days. Comments were also received by post, telephone and as well as through face-to-face meetings with a number of groups and individuals. A report on the Open Days and the comments received has been produced and is available on the Consortium s website. In September 2012, the Consortium invited the local community to a further event at the Charis Centre to explain how the scheme has evolved since June, taking on board the local feedback, and in the light of the consultation with technical and statutory consultees and other local community groups which had been running in tandem with the public engagement activity. This report explains the process that was adopted in publicising and running the feedback event and the further responses received. The Consortium continues to carry out consultation over its emerging proposals with a number of groups representing the local community. 1 P a g e

4 2. APPROACH Format The Feedback Event was held at the Charis Centre in central Bishop Stortford on Friday 21 st September (2.00pm to 7.30pm) and Saturday 22 nd September (10.00am until 4.30pm). The event took the form of an exhibition comprising 10 A1 display panels and a larger masterplan summarising the key changes (all repeated on either side of the hall) together with 3 supporting Focus Areas arranged around the hall looking at specific aspects of the development known to be of particular interest/concern to local people:. Traffic and Transportation. Masterplanning. Local Issues and Opportunities (covering matters such as affordable housing, education and health provision and employment) and Architectural Design After signing in, people attending the event were given a 4-sided A4 leaflet summarising the principal issues raised at the June Community Consultation Open Days. A copy of the leaflet is included in Appendix C. Attendees were encouraged to commence their visit by viewing the exhibition which explained the principal issues that had been raised through the previous public consultation and the steps that the Consortium was taking, where possible, to address concerns and take up suggestions. Copies of the exhibition boards are included as Appendix B. After studying the exhibition boards attendees were encouraged to visit the 3 Focus Areas arranged within the hall that were led by senior consultants responsible for overseeing the development of proposals within their subject areas. Each Focus Area included a large-scale version of the up-dated masterplan, a copy of a board highlighting the changes that had been made, a town map together with boards or other materials specifically relating to the Focus Area including:. 3 A1 boards providing detailed plans of the accesses, bus, cycle and pedestrian routes, the initial findings of the traffic modelling and potential off-site improvements to nearby roundabouts;. Aerial photos of key parts of the site along with drawings and impressions of the green buffer area;. Architects drawings showing studies and details for Phase 1 of the development in the Eastern Neighbourhood. The Focus Area boards are included in Appendix C. In addition, the Traffic and Transportation Focus Area included a computer simulation of the existing local traffic flows derived from the traffic modelling work. 2 P a g e

5 The following members of the Project Team were in attendance for all or part of the event:. Bob Rivers (Bovis). Gary Tucker (Taylor Wimpey). Keith Oliver (Taylor Wimpey). Andrew Dutton (Persimmon). Steve Biart (Fairfield Patnership). James Griffiths (Kier Homes). David Barnes (Project Manager). Phil Rech (FPCR Masterplanning). Ian Dimbylow (WSP Traffic and Transportation). Dominic Duke (WSP Traffic and Transportation). John Baker (Peter Brett Associates - Employment, Housing and Community Facilities). Simon James (DLP Planning). Dominic Eaton (Stride Treglown, Design and Phase 1). John Colvin (Stride Treglown, Design and Phase 1). Iain Vellacott (Community Relations). Althea Taylor Salmon (Community Relations) Promotion The event was promoted in a number of ways:. It was referred to in the promotional material for the Community Consultation Open Days held in June and subsequent press coverage.. Almost 18,000 flyers were delivered to every home and business address in the town by the Royal Mail (see Appendix A).. 10 Site Notices were erected around the site on 2 nd September 2012 (see Appendix A). Posters were displayed in a number of popular local venues, including Tesco, Sainsbury s, the Tourist Office, the Rugby Club, the Bishop s Stortford Sports Trust pavilion and the town library (see Appendix A). 3 P a g e

6 . Newspaper advertisements were placed in the Bishop s Stortford Observer on 13 th and 20 th September (Appendix A). In addition, a press release was issued that resulted in an article being published on page 2 of the 13 th September edition Developers set to unveil revised schemes after Consultation (Appendix A).. A letter of invitation was posted to a total of 188 groups and individuals, including Town, District and County Councillors and officers, surrounding Parish and District Councils, local MPs, local schools and churches and officers of East Hertfordshire District Council, environmental groups, sports clubs, medical practices, local newspapers as well as regional organisations.. The project website was updated to include details of the event and s were sent to everyone that had previously registered for updates (a total of 197 people) 3. ATTENDANCE A total of 374 people attended the consultation event over the two days. Analysis of the 339 legible addresses that were provided at registration shows that 94% of attendees live in Bishop s Stortford, with 59% living in the CM23 2 sector in the immediate vicinity of the site. 4 P a g e

7 4. FEEDBACK The further feedback took the form of. Extensive verbal discussions with members of the Project Team;. Comments left at the reception desk on response forms and on post-it notes;. Letters, s and website feedback provided before, during and after the event. A record of the written feedback is includes in the Appendix D. The main issues raised were: General. There continued to be objection to the principle of development from a number of people based on the question of development need. This appeared to be accentuated by a campaign run nearby during the Saturday by a Save our Stortford group at which people were being encouraged to sign a petition against a development of 3000 homes, 5000 cars and 9000 more people which the group claimed would result in traffic ridden, congested and polluted roads; 120 hectares of beautiful countryside gone; over-stretched health services; limited school places for local children.. There was, however, widespread confirmation that the community had known that the land was identified for longer term housing development for many years.. There was general appreciation that the consultation events were well-presented and effective opportunities for engagement. Masterplanning. It was pointed out that the boundary shown on the draft masterplan in the vicinity of the tennis courts was incorrect.. There was general support for the emphasis on family housing.. The idea of a green landscape buffer to the rear of Rye Street properties was generally favourably received. The Consortium agreed to look at the detailed arrangement of the Rye Street access in the light of comments from residents living in the adjacent properties.. There continued to be debate about the most acceptable approach to masterplanning opposite the large new houses fronting Dane O Coys Road. The Consortium is to continue to try to seek consensus on this and draft sections will be prepared.. Whilst there was general support for the Consortium working with the (adjacent) Sports Trust to secure improved sporting facilities of town-wide benefit, concerns were expressed 5 P a g e

8 that the Sports Trust should not be allowed to overdevelop the area in particular indications of potential objection to anything more than improvements to existing facilities plus, possibly, an all-weather pitch.. Strong local feeling that Ash Grove (or Brewery Fields as some people informed that it is correctly called) should be put into a community trust of some form that could guarantee its openness in perpetuity.. Several people living on both Rye Street and Hadham Road asked whether it might be possible to connect their properties onto mains drainage as a result of the development.. Some people felt that there was a need for dedicated community hall facilities. Traffic and Transportation. Traffic impact both locally and on the wider town remains the largest concern. The traffic model simulation was generally considered to be helpful in understanding the thorough approach being taken by the Consortium to traffic matters.. Traffic on Rye Street continues to be a significant concern to local residents, particularly in the light of existing vehicles speeds and a lack of safe crossings. A number of residents expressed strong opposition to any access onto Rye Street.. Several Rye Street residents put forward detailed suggestions, including additional traffic calming, the ironing out of a bump in the road that is used by young drivers to make cars jump, possible changes to the access road that might include drive accesses to existing properties and suggestions for signals at the new junction.. There was concern that the development could create a rat-run from the A120 through to Rye Street.. There was support for improvements to the A120 roundabouts which would reduce holdups on the bypass. Similarly, there was support for any improvements that would reduce delays at Little Hadham.. Although some people question the need and location, there appeared to be majority support for the Park and Ride provided that it was at a price and offered a level of bus service that could make it an attractive alternative to town centre parking particularly for town centre workers (thereby allowing the town centre parking to be freed up for shoppers). Some people queried whether 100 spaces would be sufficient.. There was a general feeling that any bus gate/signals to allow bus access onto a short section of Dane O Coys Road needed to ensure that there was no possibility of private car access. 6 P a g e

9 . Concerns were expressed that the bus service would need to be in place from the occupation of the first properties and then subsidised for a long period in order to build up patronage and reliance on the alternative to the private car.. A number of people expressed concerns that the topography of the area meant that the suggested cycle route would involve a steep hill climb on a return journey from the town/station.. Several people referred to the need to improve pavements both in terms of width and surface. Housing, Services and Facilities. The most frequently raised issues related to how the residents in the new development would access services health, education and retail in particular and in most cases reflected concerns that the envisaged additional demand arising from new residents would adversely affect access to such services for existing residents. The views expressed clearly reflected the uncertainty over the future of health and education provision for the town prompted by the current planning appeals for a new secondary school and for a health centre.. The proposal to provide for primary education in two new schools and for these to be the focus of the two neighbourhoods with local shops and employment was generally supported. The existing County Council-owned (reserve school) site to the south of the proposed development area was suggested by some as a suitable location for additional secondary education, but the development site itself was not suggested as the place to accommodate this requirement.. There was a suggestion that a Day Nursery is needed.. The inclusion of local shopping facilities within the development was generally supported, in part because of a concern that additional customers would increase the pressure on parking in the town centre.. The proposal for employment to be included within the development attracted little comment though mixed views, with doubts that jobs would be created, or if they were, that they would be taken by people living locally. The business incubation centre, when explained, was generally seen as a positive measure.. Suggestions that the development should incorporate a dedicated community centre, rather than merely relying on the shared use of the primary schools. 7 P a g e

10 Design. Concern was expressed that the local centres needed to have sufficient public space and that parking should not be allowed to dominate.. Confirmation was sought that the scheme was going to be of high quality design and construction.. A number of people commented on the layout and thought that it was quite traditional in its linear terraced form.. The draft layout in the corner adjacent to the roundabout came in for comment as being crude and not responding to this location. 5. NEXT STEPS The Consortium is studying the feedback received with a view to making further changes where possible as it looks to develop and refine its proposals for the development in the light of the response to the public and technical consultations. The intention remains to submit a planning application around the end of P a g e