Submission Reference:   3172 (D1/03172/OSV/001/O; D1/03172/OSV/003/O; D1/03172/OSV/002/O; D1/03172/PM/004/O)

TEWIN RESIDENTS GROUP

SUBMISSION TO EAST HERTS LOCAL PLAN INQUIRY 

1.    Introduction                                   

1.1       This submission is on behalf of the Tewin Residents Group (TRG) .  The proposal 

to change Tewin from a Category 3 to a Category 1 village has caused 

consternation to the villagers.  They are almost unanimous in their objections and 

although Tewin has a highly active community life, rarely has an issue galvanised 

the residents so completely.   

1.2       Development proposals for Tewin are all focussed on the village.  Tewin Wood, 

located about one mile from the village also forms part of the Parish and 

contributes to the economic, social and cultural success of Tewin as a whole.  

However, the village element comprises less than 300 houses and only its 

features contributed to the award of Conservation Area status.  

1.3       Like other Category 2 and 3 villages, the calm and rural nature of Tewin and its 

surrounding lanes, attracts walkers, cyclists and horseriders simply because it is 

an attractive and relatively safe environment.    Many horses are stabled in the 

village and use the village roads.  A high value should be placed on such villages, 

particularly those like Tewin, which falls within a Landscape Conservation Area.  

This is consistent with section 2.12.1 of the Plan covering quality of life.  Villages 

like this should be conserved and protected for the benefit and enjoyment of future

generations.    

     Our recommendation to the Inspector is that:   

                                             i.            Tewin should continue to be washed over by the Green Belt.

                                      ii.           Tewin should be removed from the list of category 1 Villages and remain as a

                              Category 3 village.

A full list of all the associated changes to the Plan is included in Appendix A 

         2.   Objectives of our submission to the Inspector 

2.1       To show that Tewin is essentially similar to other Category 3 and Category 2

             villages and to recommend that the Green Belt continues to wash over it and

             that Tewin’s status be changed back to Category 3.

2.2       To show that Tewin is substantially different to other designated Category 1

             villages and that EHDC has not made a case for Tewin to be Category 1.

2.3        To show that the assumed boundary is flawed.

2.4        To highlight issues that have arisen since the original plan and which have

             a material influence.

2.5       To show that the site identified for development in OSV5(8) is a very poor fit

             with OSV1 policies.   

3.    Why Tewin should continue to be washed over by Green 

    Belt, retain Category 3 status, and why it is different to 

    other Category 1 villages   

3.1       Topic Paper 5 sets out at length the iterations leading to the assignment of 

            villages to each category.  Much emphasis in the Paper and in the November 

            2004 Plan, is placed on sustainability and the availability of services locally.  

            The TRG have read and reread this paper but still cannot make sense of the logic 

             for Tewin.  

3.2       Para 5 on page 14 of the Topic Paper states “It was acknowledged that although 

            Tewin no longer had a doctor’s surgery, it did still possess a post office/shop and 

            primary school.  With the removal of Bayford, Brickendon and Datchworth from 

            Category 1 status this left Tewin as the only Category 1 Village in the South West 

            of the District.  Its status as a Category 1 Village was therefore reconfirmed.” 

3.3       The natural conclusion to be drawn from this paragraph, is that Tewin was categorised as Category 1 not because of any intrinsic value but merely because of a bureaucratic desire to have a Category 1 village in the South West of the District.  Datchworth actually has 2 shops including a Post Office and a school yet has not been classed as category 1. The TRG believe that inclusion as Category 1 should be based on firm logic and not because there are no other suitable villages in the South West of the district.  

3.4       We sought further clarification from EHDC in October 2005 but were told that they could add no more.  We were advised to include our October request with this paper.  That request is restated in Appendix B.

            3.5       The TRG submit that: 

                   i.         Category 1 status will, over time, change the nature of Tewin irrevocably.  Once lost, villages of this quality can never be replaced.  The Council’s obsession with Site 8 has resulted in an irrational Category 1 designation.

                   ii.        Tewin is a most vibrant community already and it clearly does not need to have more development to sustain it.  We can supply examples of the numerous clubs and organisations that thrive in the village.

 iii.        If, contrary to our recommendations, there is more development in the village, we argue that it cannot meet sustainability criteria.  We expand on the reasons for this throughout the rest of this paper. Paradoxically, the village has no sustainability issues now but more development could put pressure on the natural capacity of existing facilities

 iv.        Like most Category 2 and all Category 3 villages, Tewin is served by unclassified roads but all the other Category 1 villages are served by classified roads.  See appendix C for details.  It is essential to minimise traffic flows through the village. 

  v.          All roads within Tewin are country lanes where walkers, cyclists and horseriders come for quiet leisure.  The proposed development site OSV5(8) and several of the Omission Sites abut Upper Green Road.  The width measurement of this road taken at 3 points near to these sites was between 4.1 metres and 4.9 metres.  All of these are substantially less than the recommended 7.3 metres carriageway width set out in Table IV of the New Metric Handbook Planning and Design data.    

    vi.        The heart of the village is a Conservation Area.  The definition of a Conservation Area is an area of “special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance.”  Planning legislation requires LA’s to give “special attention” to those areas.  All the proposed developments for Tewin are close to the heart of the village and would increase traffic flow through the Conservation Area and detract from this outstanding feature. 

   vii.        A Landscape Conservation Area surrounds the village and any development will impact on this important feature.  The proposed development site (Site 8) is part of this area.  Paragraph 2.12.1.5 (III) of the EHDC Adopted Local Plan December 1999 states “Planning permission will not be granted for development which will have a detrimental effect on the landscape, or detract from the visual quality of landscape conservation areas”. 

 viii.       Tewin is bordered by Welwyn Hatfield District Council.  A Green Belt barrier between the two is essential.  Appendix D shows Tewin’s very close proximity to Welwyn Garden City. 

     ix.       As mentioned in the introduction, Tewin Village is small like Tewin Wood.  As such it has more in common with Category 2 and 3 villages and should not be asked to accept the volume of houses proposed.

The above totally undermines the Council’s arguments for including Tewin in

accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Notes.

  4.     WHY THE ASSUMED BOUNDARY FOR TEWIN IS FLAWED   

4.1.      The proposed boundary can be seen by reference to Inset Map 11.  Also Map 104 

is useful.  The area marked OSV5(8) is the land allocated for development at this 

time.  

4.2        We have tried to avoid quoting at length but the following extract is key to our 

arguments.  

 Paragraph 17.3.2 (page 336) states:  

“In accordance with the Village Development Strategy boundaries have, therefore, 

been defined for all the Category 1 Villages and are shown on the Proposals Map. 

These have been defined by the outer extent of the built up areas of the villages.  

Boundaries have been drawn using, wherever possible, physical features on the 

ground, such as roads and garden boundaries, thus providing a clearly 

identifiable and defensible boundary.  This does not mean, however, that 

development will be permitted right up to the boundary line.  New development 

must respect the built form and character of the settlement, and will be subject to 

the criteria set out in policy OSV1.”    

4.3       In 1983 and 1988 East Herts DC rejected planning applications for the field 

OSV5(8) now included within the claimed boundary and stated one of their 

reasons for doing so as:  

“The proposal, if permitted, would extend the existing ribbon of development along 

Upper Green Road, leading to an elongation of the core of the village and a 

consequent detrimental change to its existing character, as well as spreading 

development further towards Burnham Green and increasing the probability of the 

eventual coalescence of these separate settlements.”  

Clearly the EHDC at that time also agreed the field was outside the core of the 

village.    

4.4       The November 2004 Plan, Page 86 4.1.1 includes objective 1 for the Green Belt 

and Countryside as “To prevent the coalescence of settlements…….”    

Page 330 17.1.8 Objective 1 repeats the same wording within the section for 

Other Settlements – The Villages.  

4.5       The TRG submit that the high Leylandii hedge bordering the field was planted 

after planning permission was refused in 1988 with the sole objective to create 

the impression of a site right for development.  Despite requests to cut the 

Leylandii down they remain.  Adjoining householders are now taking legal advice 

to have these removed/trimmed in accordance with new legislation.  Photographs 

at appendix E show how the position has been distorted since planting.

4.6       Paragraphs e & f of OSVI recognise the importance of significant views, vistas 

and important gaps.  Appendix E also shows how these views have been lost to 

the users of the footpath crossing Site OSV5(8) and to the adjoining householders.  

  5.     ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN SINCE THE ORIGINAL PLAN 

          AND WHICH HAVE A MATERIAL INFLUENCE 

5.1       Speculative development

 Page 16 1.2.8a states “To summarise, for the purposes of development 

 control the Local Plan is intended to fulfil three functions…….as essential 

 information for the benefit of all prospective developers, that leaves the 

 minimum possible area of doubt concerning a proposed scheme….

5.2       Tewin is under attack from speculative development.  Evidence for this 

can be found to the South East of the village where many acres have been 

sold to investors and divided up into acre plots creating an eyesore and 

unmanaged land.  EHDC have incurred costs in issuing enforcement notices.  

See Appendix F for photos.

5.3       Only a clear cut statement that Tewin remains fully in the Green Belt will prevent 

such problems.

5.4       Application for development to rear of 74 upper Green Road

This site is just yards from the field designated in OSV5(8) and was 

rejected on the grounds “……..would introduce an inappropriate change to 

the rural character of the site and its surroundings which would have a 

detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area…….

5.5       Existence of Great Crested Newts

The existence of these newts has been known for some time.  There is a 

confirmed and registered breeding site at 51 Upper Green, some 400 metres 

from site OSV5(8) and sightings in the garden of 43 Upper Green Road which is 

just 50 metres away from site OSV5(8).  Further breeding sites are less than 800 

metres away.  

5.6       Both the European habitats directive and planning Policy Guidance PPG9 afford 

            protection to valuable species like the Great Crested Newt. Appendix G pictures 

            this creature.

5.7       Traffic issues

 Traffic issues in Tewin have already been the subject of an expert study by David 

 Gregg, a villager.  His paper is entitled  “Some implications of traffic growth on 

 minor rural roads having low traffic flow, with particular reference to the roads at 

Tewin.”  This paper was written in 1992 but given that there has been no 

development in Tewin since then, it is still a highly relevant paper.  The paper 

quotes from:

                                 i.      Development Proposals on Minor roads (Herts CC 1990)

                ii.       Traffic in Towns (HMSO 1963 The Buchanan Report)

               iii.      The English Country lane and its Future (D Brancher 1968)

The TRG will submit this paper with their evidence.  

5.8       The clear conclusion of all the sources to the paper including the County Council, 

is that “Our lanes were never meant for traffic as we mean it” and that “the 

environmental capacity for traffic growth in a tranquil village setting is so low as to 

be virtually zero”.  Appendix H shows several pictures of Tewin’s roads and these 

highlight the varied use to which they are put.  

5.9      The TRG noted from the first day of the public hearing during the Round Table 

           discussion, that there was concern by the Inspector at the lack of a Highways and 

           Transport Plan.  We understand that site specific information has now been 

           submitted to EHDC by HCC East Herts Highway Partnership and we look forward 

           to receiving EHDC’s interpretation of this information.

5.10    In October 2004 the Tewin Society carried out a survey and found: 

                                 i.      Many more cars are now using Orchard Road and Upper Green Road as 

          a cut through

   ii.      40% of cars exceeded the 30mph limit. 

5.11    The Village School

We are surprised that no account has been taken of the comments made in the 

Parish Council’s initial objection.  This was that Tewin School is a church school 

and therefore the Governors are responsible for the upkeep of the buildings.  The 

school is close to full subscription and could not sustain a large influx of pupils.

5.12     The Tewin Society and Parish Council have announced an intention to 

develop a Parish Plan

Page 104  para 4.12a covers the importance of Parish Plans in assessing local 

needs.  Until this plan is done it would be inappropriate to make fundamental 

changes to the status of Tewin.

   6.    WHY THE SITE IDENTIFIED IN OSV5 (LAND OFF UPPER 

          GREEN ROAD) IS A VERY POOR FIT WITH THE LOCAL 

          PLAN POLICIES

6.1       Page 59 para 3.2.2a  mentions that an assessment of Greenfield sites was 

carried out with reference to PPG3 and “a guide to selecting new housing sites”. 

6.2       Similarly page 90 para 4.5.2 mentions an environmental appraisal of the site.  At 

the time of preparing this submission we have not been given the opportunity to 

see the appraisal that the site developer is required to supply.  We reserve 

comment on this and hope that the Inspector will ensure it is prepared.

6.3       In addition to the boundary issues identified earlier there are other reasons why 

the site is a poor fit:  

Page 58 Objective 3.1 ii) and iii) is to locate housing development as near as 

possible to existing or planned employment opportunities and where there is 

existing or realistic potential for access to passenger transport.

Page 111 objective 3 requires development  to be located wherever possible in 

areas that will enable fewer and shorter journeys to be made, and which are well 

served by passenger transport and accessible by walking and cycling.

Policy TR3 on page 116 requires new developments to incorporate measure to 

ensure that alternative options to the motor car are available and could include:  

         i.    The extension and improvement of pedestrian links

     ii.    Cycle paths and facilities

    iii.    Within 400 metres maximum walking distance of passenger transport  

Policy TR18 on pages 127/128 include many proposals for pedestrian 

environments.  

6.4       The reality is that:  

                i.    Tewin is poorly served by the 388 service.  In the mornings one bus leaves 

         the village at about 07.10 and the next not until after 09.30.  In the opposite 

         direction the first bus is at 08.36.  A more frequent service will still not be 

         economically viable with the proposed development.  

                ii.    Pedestrian links can only be achieved if the hedgerow that divides the site 

                      from the lane is removed.  This would contravene Policies ENV5 and 

                      ENV18 and add to coalescence.

               iii.    The site will be more than 400 metres from passenger transport and much 

                       more if pedestrians choose to walk via Godfries Close and Harwood Close 

                       in order to avoid the twisty and narrow lane with narrow footpaths that few 

                       dare to use, particularly those with young children, at times of peak traffic 

                       flow.    

6.5       Policy TR21 on page 131 covers developments generating traffic on rural roads.   

Access to the site lies either on a bend or where the road is poor in terms of width 

and alignment and construction which directly contravenes TR21 (1) (b).  Road 

width is generally less than 5 metres.  

6.6       In 1983 EHDC rejected a planning application for site 8 because of traffic issues.  

The reasons for this are consistent with the 1992 report from David Gregg 

referred to earlier.   

6.7       The policy recognises that developers may mitigate the impact by suitable 

highway improvements but there is a catch 22 here as it would encourage the 

use of Tewin as a Rat Run at peak times and further diminish the attractiveness 

of the village.  This was also a major concern from the 1992 report.