Category: Planning Responses

Following the refusal of planning permission for 4x new homes at Ware Park by East Herts Council, the applicant has lodged an appeal with The Planning Inspectorate.

We have submitted the following comments on the appeal:

On the 03/08/25, the Love Bengeo Community Group (formerly the Community Steering Group for the Bengeo Neighbourhood Area Plan) submitted an objection to planning application 3/25/1052/PIP, considering it inconsistent with the Neighbourhood Plan, specifically Neighbourhood Plan Policy HBN2: Important Views – View 4.

The East Herts District Council’s Delegated Officer’s Report (Landscape impacts section) states that the Council’s Landscape Officer has ‘raised concerns regarding the visibility of the site from across the valley to the west, particularly during winter months when leaf cover is absent. This has direct implications for Important Views 3 and 4 identified in the  Neighbourhood Plan’. The report goes on to say that the Landscape Officer ‘concluded that the site is in fact subject to long distance glimpses from both Viewpoints 3 and 4. This confirms that some degree of visual impact is likely’.

The Delegated Officer’s Report acknowledges that supporting information is limited at Permission in Principle Stage 1 and says, ‘without details of the precise number, scale, design and landscaping of the proposed development, it is not possible to fully assess the level of the visual impact on the identified views or on the wider landscape character’.

Paragraph 5.3 of the Appeal Statement says that that none of the Neighbourhood Plan policies are referred to in the reasons for refusal. We contend that Neighbourhood Plan Policy HBN2: Important Views could not be included in the reasons for refusal because of insufficient information on number, scale, design, and landscaping of the proposed development, not because our objection lacks relevance or validity.

More than 3,000 residents participated in the May 2021 Neighbourhood Plan referendum, with the Plan receiving a 94.8% ‘YES’ vote on its 18 planning policies. The value to the Hertford Bengeo community of the Important Views Policy has since been reinforced by the inclusion of all 8 views in a number of walking trails across the Neighbourhood Plan Area. View 3 is included in Bengeo Trails 3 and 6 and View 4 is included in Bengeo Trails 2 and 6. These trails are publicly available on the Love Bengeo Community Group website – Bengeo Trails – Love Bengeo Community Group, and are regularly promoted through Parish Magazines, Residents’ Association newsletters, and social media. A negative impact on any of the Important Views in the Neighbourhood Plan would represent a loss to the Hertford Bengeo community.

We have recently responded to a planning application to convert the former doctors’ surgery in St.Andrew Street to 4 no. residential dwellings including internal and external alterations to the listed building, parking, EV charging point, bin and cycle storage and associated works.

The proposed development site falls within the boundary of the Bengeo Neighbourhood Area Plan.

We note that relevant Neighbourhood Plan policies are referenced in paragraphs 4.33-4.38 of the Design and Access Statement.

The proposals, as described in both the Design and Access Statement and Heritage Statement, appear to be sympathetic to the heritage and significance of this Grade II Listed building and its surroundings. As such, they are compliant with Neighbourhood Plan Policy HBC2: Listed Buildings and Structures.

We note that GP services were transferred from Wallace House to Lea Wharf in February 2024. Returning this building to four individual domestic dwellings, will, if internal and external alterations are conducted in accordance with Historic England’s guidelines, meet the requirements of Neighbourhood Plan Policy HBC2.

We support the comments made in response to this planning application by the Hertford Swift Group, specifically that maintaining existing Swift nest access, during and after renovation work, is referenced and conditioned in planning and Listed Building approvals. We note that the Hertford Swift Group describe Wallace House as ‘the single most important building for nesting Swifts in Hertford’. We recommend that appropriate advice and support is sought from the Hertford Swift Group throughout renovation works.

This response from the Love Bengeo Community Group (formerly the  Community Steering Group for the Bengeo Neighbourhood Area Plan), is confined to proposals impacting the Hertford Castle Gardens Island, the St. Andrew Street car park, and Listed buildings in St. Andrew Street. These areas fall entirely within the boundary of the Bengeo Neighbourhood Area Plan.

The relevant Neighbourhood Plan Policies are –
• HBN3: Nature Conservation
• HBN4: Improving Air Quality
• HBC1: Enhanced Community Facilities
• HBC2: Listed Buildings and Structures
• HBC4: Cultural Facilities
• HBT2: Encouraging More Walking
• HBT3: Encouraging More Cycling

We welcome the proposal to relocate the children’s play area around 30 metres further from the A414. Criterion III, Policy HBN4 says: –
‘Proposals to relocate the Hertford Castle Gardens children’s play area to an alternative location within Hertford Castle Gardens will be supported. Relocation away from the A414 boundary will help to reduce
the negative impact of poor air quality on play area users’

During the consultative process for the Hertford Castle Greenspace Renewal, we expressed support for the relocation of the play area, highlighting Policy HBN4.

We also welcome the proposed motte and bailey inspired play equipment, reflecting the historical and cultural context of Hertford Castle and its grounds. Policy HBC1 welcomes proposals to ‘improve or enhance community facilities when they improve the range, quality, suitability, and accessibility of facilities for residents’, and Policy HBC4 supports proposals for the development or expansion of cultural facilities.

We recognise that relocating the play area will give it a more dominant presence in the castle gardens but consider that this is outweighed by the benefits to park users of upgraded and more relevant play facilities, further away from the noise and pollution of a busy road.

We note that Listed buildings in St. Andrew Street are included for impact assessment. Neighbourhood Plan Policy HBC2 includes due reference to assessing negative impacts from development on Listed buildings.

We welcome the proposal to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists from the St. Andrew Street car park to the Island. It’s regrettable that this will result in the loss of 6 standard car parking bays and 1 one blue badge bay from the car park. We understand that, over the entire site, there will be a net reduction of 3 standard bays and a net increase of 1 blue badge bay.

Policies HBT2 and HBT3 support proposals that result in good connectivity between new and existing pedestrian routes, and improved cycle route connectivity. The improved connectivity, via Mill Bridge, as a by-product, will also benefit pedestrians. Locating the new centralised bridge between the play area and the rest of Hertford Castle Gardens will benefit play area
users, particularly pedestrians with pushchairs and toddlers. We note a reference (in the Transport Statement) to ‘cycle parking – black Sheffield parking stands to match existing’. Images appear to show a cycle parking stand at the edge of the play area. Ideally, this would be a covered stand.

The proposed Miyawaki planting, near the boundary with Gascoyne Way will, hopefully, mitigate some of the negative impact from traffic noise and fumes, and the proposed wildflower meadow areas, will contribute to biodiversity net gain, and complement the naturalised design of the play area. Neighbourhood Plan Policy HBN3 supports proposals to create new natural areas and wildlife habitats.

We note that Chapter 3 of the Design and Access Statement expresses an intention for community involvement in the longer term care of the Miyawaki Forest and Wildflower Meadows on the Island. The Love Bengeo Community Group offers to actively support the care and maintenance of both, which is consistent with the Love Bengeo community garden project (which evolved out of the Neighbourhood Plan). The Group also offers to actively support the
installation of a community noticeboard for the promotion of both community projects and Town Council projects and events. The Group can be contacted on info@lovebengeo.org.uk

We endorse these proposals and hope to see them come to fruition.

We have recently responded to a planning application to build a 4-bedroom house on green belt land at the end of Molewood Road next to the former mill stream.

The proposed development site falls within the boundary of the Bengeo Neighbourhood Area Plan and we have submitted an objection to these proposals as we consider them to conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan’s commitment to protecting natural habitats. This is demonstrated in the
Plan, as follows: –

• Vision Statement: ‘natural areas and biodiversity will be enhanced and protected’
• Objective B: `maintain protect and increase natural habitats, wildlife, and local biodiversity’
• Policy HBH4: which supports development on brownfield sites.

It’s recognised that the Planning Inspectorate determined (on appeal for application 3/24/0239/FUL) that the proposed development site met the NPPF criterion for grey belt. We consider, nonetheless, that development on this site would represent further encroachment on the natural areas alongside Footpath 93, with the attendant risk that nearby Green Belt areas could, subsequently, be classified as grey belt, with the consequent negative impact on natural habitats. North Road Meadow (designated as a Local Green Space in the Neighbourhood Plan), and less than 100 metres away, is also adjacent to Footpath 93 (part of the Hertfordshire Way). In the Neighbourhood Plan, the area is described as ‘a wildlife haven’.

We note that one of the reasons given by the Planning Inspector for dismissing the applicant’s appeal on application 3/24/0239/FUL was that the scheme conflicted with District Plan policies seeking to achieve ‘no net loss of existing landscape features of amenity or biodiversity value’, and ‘a net gain in biodiversity’. Having seen the site, in its natural setting, we consider that mitigation measures, during and post development, are unlikely to adequately compensate for disturbances and damage to natural habitats during the process of constructing site access, parking spaces, and a dwelling.

We have submitted the following comments to East Herts Council following a planning application for redevelopment at 2A Church Road.

Paragraph 4.2.1 of the Arboricultural Impacts Assessment says that the proposed development necessitates the removal of the Leyland cypress T4 and T5, and that T3 is to be removed for arboricultural reasons and to allow for new planting. Whilst the trees scheduled for removal are listed as C/U grade, we recommend their replacement as per Neighbourhood Plan Policy HBN3: Nature Conservation, which says: ‘replacement of trees with native trees, in suitable locations, will be encouraged where the development results in the unavoidable loss of trees on the site’.

It’s noted that incursion into tree root protection areas, associated with this proposed development, would be below the generally recognised British Standard 20% threshold, and that, as stated in the Arboricultural Impacts Statement, an arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan will be required.

We have recently submitted our response to proposals to build a new 5-bed house on land adjacent to 29 Farquhar Street.

The new house would occupy a triangular plot of land to the southwest of the property that is currently part of the garden . The new house would be accessed through an existing vehicle entrance in the street.

Having evaluated the July 2025 Design and Access Statement, and the Arboricultural Impacts Assessment (AIA) dated 16/05/25, we have submitted an objection to this planning application for the reasons given below.

1. Paragraph 4.2.3 of the AIA states ‘construction activity associated with the proposed building works will be significant and potentially represents the greatest source of harmful impact on trees since RPAs encroach substantially into the site and into areas where building activities may occur. This potentially applies to all the trees identified in the report and is of particular relevance to the belt of sycamore trees along the western boundary that grow on a steep incline. Loss of structural integrity of roots from these trees that are present within the site may lead to instability and possible tree failure’. The Design and Access Statement does not provide detail on how the on-site trees will be protected during construction activity, particularly on how unacceptable levels of incursion into root-protection area will be avoided.
2. Bengeo Neighbourhood Area Plan Policy HBH2: Design and Development requires that residential development proposals should aim to protect the amenity and privacy of existing and future residents. The amenity of residents in Archers Close, living below the line of trees on the steep bank of the proposed development site, could fail to be protected if construction
   activity compromises the belt of sycamore trees on the western boundary.
3. After appropriate review by the committee, it is concluded that this proposed development is not consistent with the Bengeo Neighbourhood Area Plan.

An earlier planning application for a new house on the site was refused by East Herts Council in March for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, due to its bulk, scale and footprint, would appear out of keeping with the grain of development or be sympathetic to the site and would fail to reflect the character and appearance of the locality.
2. In the absence of sufficient information in regard to soft landscaping on the site and the protection of existing trees in line with BS5837 (5.3.4).
3. The Small Sites Biodiversity Metric and a Biodiversity Assessment submitted with the application show that a biodiversity net gain in area-based habitat units has not been achieved. As such, it cannot be demonstrated that ecology and biodiversity would be protected and enhanced.

We have submitted comments to East Herts Council on proposals for a 15m mobile mast on land opposite shops in The Avenue

These proposals are described as “Installation of a 15m monopole tower to support antenna, associated radio-equipment housing and ancillary development. | Land Adj Car Parking The Avenue Hertford Hertfordshire“.

While the land opposite the shops on the Avenue is not specifically mentioned in the neighbourhood plan, we do not consider that the addition of a 15m structure on a tranquil area of green very close to local housing would be appropriate. It would represent an ugly and unwelcome development. The height of the mast would mean that it would dominate the area and its siting only 12.5 metres from the nearest property at 46 The Avenue is far from ideal. We note that the structure would be higher than local trees and would therefore be prominent and be significantly visually intrusive.

You can read our full response here.

We have submitted a formal response to plans for a 15m mobile phone mast on the corner of Beane Road and Millmead Way.

Our comments highlight the fact that a prominent mast of 15m in height would contravene the Neighbourhood Plan policy of non development on Local Green Space.

We also note that the site is sensitive because it is opposite Beane Marsh which is Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trusts newest nature reserve and the siting here could endanger or cause disturbance to migrating wildlife as Millmead park is a wildlife corridor linking areas along the river Beane.

You can read our full response here.

We have submitted our comments on proposals to convert No.7 Cowbridge to residential use.

The proposal is for: “Change of use from Class A1 (retail use) to create one four bedroom dwelling; alterations to openings and fenestration; new roof light to second floor; creation of new side entrance way; car-parking space to side and installation of railings and plinth walls to front and side.”

Although the application involves a change of use from retail to residential, the premises has been empty for many years. So, while it is a pity to lose a town centre commercial space, we judge that it is more important to preserve this beautiful, grade 2 listed building than to attempt to keep it as a commercial property. Furthermore, the conversion of the frontage will fit in well with the rest of the street.

We also welcome the removal unsympathetic changes – the removal of the shop window to be replaced by a smaller one in the original historical position.

We note that this building contains swift nests, a bird on the ‘red’ list of endangered species (BTO/RSPB). Swifts migrate back to the same nest each year and any disturbance is very problematic. We, therefore, strongly urge the developer to include swift bricks in any construction work and to take expert advice on the siting of these.

We do not consider the addition of railings at the front of the property to be necessary or desirable. We do not think that they add to the sense of history of the building as railings would not have been a historic feature, or that they are in keeping with the rest of the street. So, we would prefer to see this element omitted.

Our full response can be read here »