Postings made after late February

Posted on 25th February, 2020

Click "Read more" to put your views here

Make A Comment

Characters left: 2000

Comments (4)

Bircherley Green 4
I object to the proposed application for the following reasons Noise (continued)
The proposed development includes the provision for a number of A3 units along the riverfront. Chase Homes have confirmed their intention to apply for licencing until 11.00 p.m.
The noise assessment survey predicts that noise from the outside seating area would comply with the WHO daytime guide levels. There is no assessment for night time levels. Does this omission mean that it will not comply with the night time guidelines?
The Old Barge public house and the Hertford Club do open until 11.00 p.m. however the noise is dampened by the walls and fencing of the surrounding properties. This is not the case for the units opposite Folly Island.
Riverside residents have had experience of a bar/restaurant on the opposite towpath. Sadly the noise levels do not miraculously stop at 11.00 p.m. We suffered many sleep deprived nights through noise continuing to the early hours of the morning and also increased incidents of anti- social behaviour and vandalism. This inevitably had an impact on peoples health and wellbeing. The proposal for several A3 units along the riverfront will exacerbate these problems even further. I trust the Council will look closely at this late night licencing application and take into account the detrimental effect it will have on existing residents lives.
Overshadowing
I believe the proposed height of the buildings along the riverfront will cause significant overshadowing and loss of light not only to the properties on the opposite bank but also to the river itself, especially during Winter months.
The daylight assessment attached to the application for properties 1 – 11 Riverside states for Daylight-NSL results “ rooms have been modelled using assumed room layouts and so NSL results are only indicative and cannot be relied upon” [END]
Bircherley Green 3
I object to the application for the following reasons (continued)
Loss of Privacy/Overlooking
The proposed buildings along the riverfront feature balconies large enough for a seating area on elevated levels enabling direct views towards the bedrooms of residents on Riverside resulting in a loss of privacy that the occupiers ought to reasonably enjoy. Even if mitigating measures were put forward this will not alleviate the perception of being overlooked that the Riverside residents would experience.
The drawings attached to the application for Building B shows no landscaping at all to the area that sits opposite nos 1-6 Riverside. In fact it shows public seating in this area which again will result in direct views into living rooms and a loss of privacy. Residents of Riverside are used to the quite busy footfall along the towpath but it is moving traffic. This static public seating will result in the perception of being overlooked for many hours of the day and night. When questioned on the lack of landscaping and the public seating Chase Homes responded that they will be guided by the Council. I have lived on Folly Island for over 30 years and there has never been any public seating in front of homes on Riverside and trust that the Council will take into account the detrimental impact this will have on residents and the right to peacefully enjoy their homes.
Noise
2 surveys have been used in the Noise Assessment for this application taken in December 2016 and November 2019. I question why no survey was undertaken during Summer months when noise levels are at their highest.
The assessment for the residential units states that “it is recognised that the only realistic means of providing a suitable internal noise climate will be to have windows closed and an alternative means of providing ventilation. Existing residents do not have this facility and it is unacceptable that they should potentially have to keep their windows closed. Continued
Bircherley Green 2
I object to the application for the following reason (continued)Building Heights on Riverfront

The East Herts District Plan states that to ensure that the aims of the Hertford Urban Design Strategy can be met Policy HERT7 will apply to proposed developments in Hertford town centre. This policy states that developments will be expected to take account of and positively contribute to the proposals contained with HUDS. The Design strategy contains the following points:

.3 ■ Reflect the historic scale in terms of building heights and create a varied eaves line, with the exception of Bull Plain and Fore Street where eaves lines are generally more consistent.


4.1 ■ Any development adjacent to Lombard House should be limited to 2 storeys to respect the setting of the listed building and be set back 8m from the water. ■ Development closer to Bull Plain should be restricted to between 3 and 4 storeys to respect the historic context in this area. ■ Development in the centre of the site can be between 4 and 5 storeys in height.

4.1 ■ Restriction of building heights - allowing a maximum of 5 storeys only in the less sensitive central location (Added to framework).

4.1.16 The council will use the framework to guide the future development on this important site.

The proposed buildings along the riverfront are not in the less sensitive central location of the site and therefore, I think that they do not conform with the District Plan. Continued - Bircherley Green 3
The plan does not state the number of car park spaces proposed.
Will the hotel have it's own underground parking ?
Hertford already has a severe shortage of parking. The proposed new shops, flats and offices will generate a large number of vehicles. Is space allowed for trade vans, delivery and rubbish collection ?
deliveries ?
Medical facilities and pharmacy are vital. Three of the towns surgeries have no parking so access is difficult for people of all ages. All new housing developments require more services in medical care, public transport, education and car parking.