EASTWICK AND GILSTON PARISH COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN
MARK ORSON
89 PYE CORNER
GILSTON
NR HARLOW
HERTS CM20 2RD
TELEPHONE 01279 453257
Email: marko@btinternet.com
PARISH CLERK
CHRISTINE LAW
9 CHURCH COTTAGES
GILSTON
NR HARLOW
HERTS CM20 2RH
TELEPHONE 01279 411646
Email: christine.law2@btinternet.com
DRAFT
Minutes of the Eastwick and Gilston Parish Council meeting held on Monday 16th May 2011,
Village Hall, Pye Corner.
At the cessation of the Annual Meeting this section of the meeting started at 8.05pm.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
a) District Councillor Mike Newman thanked all residents for the votes that he received for his
re-election.
Business meeting started at 8.06pm
1
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE:
a) None received.
2
TO RECEIVE COUNCILLOR’S DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
a) None received.
3
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
a) The minutes of 11th April 2011. These were proposed by Cllr Geddes and seconded by Cllr
Orson. Cllr Orson then signed them as a true record.
4
CO-OPTION OF PARISH COUNCILLOR FOR EASTWICK AND GILSTON
a) Cllr Orson explained that at the recent election only two candidates came forward for the
parish of Gilston and one for the parish of Eastwick. This means that we need to co-opt one
councillor for Gilston and two for Eastwick to achieve a full council
5
ACCOUNTS
a) The Clerk presented to the Council a summary of the accounts to date. These were
proposed and seconded and agreed by full council
b) The Clerk presented the annual accounts report to the Council, which were agreed by full
council.
c) A set of accounts to be presented to the external Auditor were signed by Chairman Cllr
Orson and Clerk Christine Law.
6
PLANNING AND ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS
a) At the 11 April meeting it was agreed that given the timing and volume of information
submitted with the applications for Terlings Park and Pole Hole Quarry that the Council
would explore options for professional assistance to complete their responses. The Council
appointed Clive Hollyman to review both applications in detail and develop draft responses
to the planning authorities’
b) Terlings Park - Clive presented his findings and draft letter to the meeting and took
questions. The parish council final response to the Terlings Park outline planning
application is attached in Appendix 1.
c) Pole Hole Quarry – restoration over a 5 year period. A response is now required by mid
June and Clive agreed to present his findings in a draft letter for review before the end of
May.
d) Anthony Bickmore, Chairman of the Parish Plan Steering Group informed the meeting that
the group had agreed to contribute towards the cost of the consultations.
7
WEB SITE
a) Cllr Orson informed the meeting that the new web site is now ready to start loading content
and to make the site live.
8
STOP HARLOW NORTH CAMPAIGN
a) Cllr Orson agreed to become STOP Harlow North representative until a full council is
achieved and responsibilities could be reviewed..
9
PARISH PATHS
a) Cllr Orson informed the meeting that there were no new activities to report.
b) Memorial Bench – Albert Towse. It was agreed to order a hardwood bench to be sited at the
Eastwick War memorial. The Clerk will investigate installation options and costs to report at
the next meeting.
10 PARISH PLAN
a) Cllr Geddes stated there were no new activities to report
11 HIGHWAYS
a) Cllr Harvey volunteered to deal with Highways matters and will speak to Colin Marston
regarding contacts and current issues to report at the next meeting..
12 CORRESPONDENCE
a) None.
13 ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN FOR
INFORMATION ONLY.
a) None.
14 ITEMS COUNCILLORS WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED TO THE NEXT AGENDA
a) None.
15 DATE OF NEXT MEETING
a) Date of next meeting will be on Monday 11th July 2011.
Meeting closed at 9.15 pm.
EASTWICK AND GILSTON PARISH COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN
MARK ORSON
89 PYE CORNER
GILSTON
NR HARLOW
HERTS CM20 2RD
TELEPHONE 01279 453257
Email: marko@btinternet.com
PARISH CLERK
CHRISTINE LAW
9 CHURCH COTTAGES
GILSTON
NR HARLOW
HERTS CM20 2RH
TELEPHONE 01279 411646
Email: christine.law2@btinternet.com
Francesca Hill
Principal Planning Officer
East Herts. Council
Wallfields
Pegs Lane
Hertford
SG13 8EQ
19 May 2011
Dear Ms Hill
Outline Planning application 3/11/0554/
Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Terlings Park, Gilston, Hertfordshire
Thank you for inviting the Parish Council to comment on this application. This represents the largest
planning application for this community since the wholesale reorganisation of the village in the 1850’s
when Gilston Park and the ‘model farms’ were built. It will double the size of our community and if
properly planned might be a positive change. Reflecting its size and importance we have had some prior
‘Community Engagement’ with the applicants advisors, while this we thought was a positive step many
of the issues discussed, and we thought were agreed, are not represented within the details they are now
seeking East Herts consent to.
We have three principal areas of concern. These are:

The scheme design and access arrangements

Affordable housing provision

Section 106 agreement
The scheme design and access arrangements: The application is made in outline with all matters,
except for access, reserved for later determination. We are concerned that the structure of the application
containing a mixture of plans for formal approval and other purely illustrative material will make it
almost impossible for the Council to negotiate and agree a high quality layout and design at the reserved
matters stage. The application we believe is incomplete and defective since it does not meet with the
requirements of both Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 – Green Belts [PPG2] and Local Plan [LP] policy
because it is not accompanied by a Planning Brief of Landscape Scheme.
PPG2 explains how the redevelopment of redundant major development sites may offer the opportunity
for environmental improvement without adding to their impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the
purposes of including land within it. Where this is the case, local planning authorities may in their
development plans, as the Council has done, identify the site, and set out a policy for its future
redevelopment. Importantly PPG2 then goes on to say that a Council “should consider preparing a site
development brief”.
Development should satisfy four criteria specified in PPG2 including the “footprint” test. The parameter
plans submitted as part of the application seek to demonstrate how this test would be satisfied. However
the supporting illustrative material submitted with the application completely fails to consider and
interpret the flexibility that then follows in PPG2 which explains how the production of a layout and
design for such a site should be approached. The requirements are quite clear and are set out below for
clarity:
“The character and dispersal of proposed redevelopment will need to be considered as well as its
footprint”. The illustrative master plan slavishly follows the footprint analysis and totally fails to
consider the wider issues. PPG2 then goes on to say, “for example many houses may together have a
much smaller footprint than a few large buildings, but may be unacceptable because of their dispersal
over a large part of the site and enclosed gardens may have an adverse impact on the character of the
Green Belt compared with the current development. The location of the new buildings should be decided
having regard to the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, the objectives
for the use of land in Green Belts, the main features of the landscape, and the need to integrate the new
development with its surroundings. For instance it may be more appropriate to site new development
closer to existing buildings.”
The statutory development plan follows this guidance whereby the application site is identified on the
Proposals Map as a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt. In addition, LP policy GBC4 echoes PPG2
guidance and goes on to state that:
“Redevelopment or partial redevelopment of a Major Developed site should be accompanied by a
planning brief and landscape scheme”.
The application does not include a Planning Brief or a Landscape Scheme contrary to the guidance in
PPG2 and the requirement of LP policy GBC4. Instead it includes a Design and Access Statement, a
statement of Design Principles and, an illustrative master plan. Whilst the statement of Design Principles
is superficial and lacks any meaningful utility, the Design and Access Statement contains a thorough and
rigorous analysis of the site’s context and characteristics and the opportunities and constraints that should
be considered. Unfortunately the illustrative master plan and the layout proposed does not build on this
contextual and site analysis and thereby totally fails to deliver a high quality scheme layout and design
that respects and builds upon the intrinsic qualities of the site and its relationship to the village and the
Stort Valley.
The Council should suspend consideration of the application and work with the applicant, the Parish
Council, other consultees and the local community to prepare a Planning and Design Brief and a
Landscape Scheme which, following full public consultation, should be adopted as Supplementary
Guidance by the Council for use in guiding and controlling the detailed design and layout of the site at the
reserved matters stage. This action would also ensure compliance with the requirements of PPG2 and LP
policy GBC4.
While this may seem a robust proposal by us it reflects the reality that issues discussed with the applicants
as important, and we had understood where agreed with them, have now been dropped from the
application. The core survey data seems solid but not fully brought together as we believe it should be.
Affordable housing provision: The level of affordable housing provision offered is less than you
normally seek and not compensated for through other community benefits reflecting a lax drafting of the
s106 agreement. The Council is urged to negotiate a level and type of provision that reflects our
community and not an imposed ‘quota ‘ which does not fit within the nature of this community so as to
ensure that a balanced community is delivered that is able to integrate with the adjoining village. The
Parish Council would prefer that the majority of affordable housing units were provided on an equityshare basis. Furthermore we would also want to see that the s106 agreement is redrafted to ensure that
the affordable housing units remain affordable in perpetuity and that there is no opportunity for the tenure
pattern to change over time as well as local people having opportunities to apply for the new affordable
housing in their community.
The s106 agreement: The draft agreement submitted with the application fails to make adequate
provision to mitigate the impact of the proposed development, especially when considered against the
level of affordable housing proposed. The Parish Council recognises that the quantification of the impact
of the proposed development is difficult because of the construction of the application whereby the
quantum and type of residential development and the scale and nature of any supporting infrastructure
would not be settled until the reserved matters stage. Nevertheless the structure of the Council’s Planning
Obligation SPD [adopted October 2008] and the Hertfordshire County Council Planning Obligations
Guidance and Toolkit [adopted January 2008] both provide clear and unequivocal guidance on the
infrastructure, public services and facilities required to support a new community and to mitigate the
impact on existing provision. The Council should negotiate and agree heads of terms to mitigate all
impacts and deficiencies that might arise as a result of the proposed development. There should be a
mechanism in the agreement to ensure that the Councils can enforce compliance when agreed and
adequate provision is made on-site as part of any future planning approval.
Heads of Terms for the s106 agreement should cover all of the following as required by the respective
Council Supplementary Planning Documents:
 Affordable housing
 Off site highway, access, pedestrian and cycling facilities including new routes and upgrades of
existing facilities.
 Sustainable transport
 Open space provision and on-going maintenance for
 Parks and public gardens (promised to us but not in application)
 Outdoor sports facilities
 Amenity green space
 Children and young people
 Recycling facilities
 Community centres and village halls (new hall offered but not mentioned as now being offered)
 Accessibility contributions
 Primary education (there is a very real need at the High Wych JMI which is the local school which
serves this area since our two schools were closed)
 Secondary education (Leventhorpe School in Sawbridgeworth alongside schools in Bishops
Stortford are the schools that serve this community)
 Nursery education
 Childcare
 Youth facilities
 Library facilities
The Parish Council would wish to be involved with the Council in negotiations for the contribution
towards village halls and community centres provision and we would also wish to be a signatory to that
part of the s106 agreement.
Highways impacts: While we understand the suggestion that the traffic densities might be no greater
than for the former use as a community we live with the daily reality that the C161 through Pye Corner is
being used as the effective northern bypass to Harlow. The road is over wide on its approach to the
entrance to the site and traffic passes at unrealistic speeds. With the different peaks and extended hours of
the access we believe that there is a good case for a roundabout at the site entrance, this is after all a ‘C’
classification road
In conclusion we recognise the complexity of this proposal and the issues that must be addressed. The
above comments are offered as a positive contribution in a spirit of cooperation to assist the Council and
the applicant in refining the application and s106 agreement to produce a high quality scheme that
integrates both with the landscape and with the village and its community.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with Council members, officers and the applicant’s agents to
explain and discuss our concerns in more detail before the Planning Committee meets to consider the
application. We recognise that there is a protocol for such meetings to ensure that anything that is said
would not fetter the discretion of elected members of the Council to determine the application when it
comes before them at the Planning Committee. This is a substantial application which will have a great
impact on this community
I look forward to hearing from you about the above meeting request. I am also available to answer any
questions or queries that you might have concerning the above comments.
Yours sincerely
Mark Orson
Chairman Eastwick and Gilston Parish Council
Cc
Mike Newman - District Councillor
Kevin Steptoe - Head of Planning and Building Control