Crescent Road Redevelopment Application

Revised Letter from BSCF Vice Chairman

Head of Development Control
East Herts Council
Walfields
Pegs Lane
Hertford
SG13 8EQ
28 March 2008

Your Ref: 3/08/0350/FP
9 CRESCENT ROAD, BISHOP'S STORTFORD
FAO: Nicola Beyer

Since writing to you on 20 March, it has been drawn to my attention that the environmental zone policies in the Local Plan, on which my objection partly relied, were removed from the adopted version on the direction of the Inspector. I would therefore be grateful if you could withdraw my objection letter dated 20 March 2008 and in its place substitute this letter, which relies on the environmental policies in the adopted version of the Local Plan – in particular ENV 3.

ENV 3 requires all development proposals inter alia to

(a) Demonstrate compatibility with the structure and layout of the surrounding area, as well as effective connection with existing routes and spaces.

(b) Complement the existing pattern of street blocks, plots and buildings (the grain of development).

(c) Relate well to the massing (volume and shape) and height of adjacent buildings and to the surrounding townscape.

(d) Respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings and those of future occupants and ensure that their environments are not harmed by noise and disturbance or by inadequate daylight, sunlight or privacy or by overshadowing.

Crescent Road is in an area of town consisting almost exclusively of individual one or two storey houses on large plots of which No 9 is one. It appears to be a serviceable house and is currently occupied. This is one of the areas of town which has fortunately avoided so far the plague of flats which has invaded much of Bishop's Stortford and, to preserve its special character, needs to remain an area of single dwellings on large plots. This proposal is clearly not consistent with policies (a), (b) and (c) listed above and, by over intensification of the use of the site, will fail to respect the amenity of current and future occupants of adjacent buildings, contrary to policy (d). To concede that this site is suitable for flats would leave no part of the town immune to such development. It is essential therefore that this site remains as one for a single dwelling. Any redevelopment in the form of flats would constitute over development and should be turned down.

JOHN RHODES
CHAIRMAN