HARTHAM ART PROJECT

Seven local artists are competing to have their work placed at the western entrance to Hartham using up to £10,000 from the Section 106 money received from Sainsbury’s under the terms of their planning permission. 

 

The brief devised by East Herts Council was to design an artwork that showed innovation and originality, while also having reference to Hertford’s local environment and history. 

 

The seven contenders are: 

 

Angela Godfrey – four stainless steel screens 150cm high mounted on a brick plinth and depicting the four rivers, the brewery and Hartham with its wildlife, walks and sports. 

 

Lee Simmons – a sculptural bench consisting of one horizontal and two vertical interlocking discs cut to suggest the annual growth rings of a tree, made of Cor-ten steel which would weather to shades of brown and orange.

 

Sarah Bracey – a 3m high four-sided arched brick structure with moulded concrete panels depicting urban and rural aspects of Hertford. 

 

Sarah Dilley – a sculpture resembling parts of a mill wheel, made of steel which will weather to shades of brown resembling wood.

 

Leiselle Bristow and Karen Murphy – a cut-metal and kiln-fired glass see-through screen in the form of an ammonite spiral, rising to 2m at the centre and depicting the work of Alfred Russel Wallace on evolution and details of the history of Hertford. The installation would include a rill and a seat and be paved with the bottoms of McMullen’s beer bottles.

 

Maxine King – a 5m high steel rabbit weathered to brown, the title ‘Hops’ being a reference to the brewery, the historic function of the Warren and the installation’s proximity to the children’s play area.

 

C. Parfitt – a ‘woodhenge’ in the form of a circle of wooden posts up to 24m across with information on astronomical observations and calculation of time and geographical direction. 

 

The artists’ submissions were on display in Hertford Theatre during the last week in July and members of the public were invited to comment and to vote for their favourite designs. The final decision will be made by the local arts forum the East Herts Centre for Excellence and Innovation in the Arts and will be announced in the autumn

Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA)

East Herts District Council has been assessing the suitability of sites suggested by developers. The SLAA takes into consideration factors such as access, industrial contamination and flood risk, but inclusion of a site within the SLAA does not mean that EHC is recommending development, only that they believe development there is possible. 

 

The chief sites (with maximum numbers in brackets) are:  

 

National Grid Site/Norbury Woodyard, Mead Lane (300)

 Dicker Mill (50)

Land west of Marshgate Drive (182)

Land south of Mead Lane (100)

Former Police Station, Ware Road (126)

Caxton Hill industrial estate (256)

Hertford Fire Station & HQ (40)

Bentley House, Pegs Lane (24)

Royal Mail Delivery Office, Greencoats (18)

Braziers Field (18)

Former Dolphin car park, Mill Road (14)

Chambers Street (18)

Waters Garage, North Road (14)

Bluecoats Avenue (12)

Elburt Wurlings, Pegs Lane (10)

West Street allotments (10)

 

These, along with some other smaller sites, have all been previously developed, with the exception of Braziers Field and West Street allotments.

PLANNING MATTERS - 64 Bullocks Lane

The proposal was to add a side extension and a front porch. We endorsed the representations about the porch made to the Council by Richard Henderson, a long-standing member of the Society, who carried out research some years ago into the work of the architect Louis Moore. Moore was responsible for this and a number of other houses in Hertford. The Council’s conservation officer agreed with Richard that the building is a fine example of Moore’s style combining Arts and Crafts with Scandinavian influences, and that the proposed porch would have been too large; indeed the officer was highly critical of the design of the proposed extension too.

 

The application was refused.

PLANNING MATTERS - Madford Retail Park

An application was made for some minor physical changes to the building now occupied by Wickes. As is usual on retail parks, there are conditions on the original permission for the building which restrict the types of goods that can be sold, in the interests of protecting the town centre. There have been recent examples in other parts of the country where developers have obtained permission for minor alterations to an existing building and then claimed that, as the new permission makes no mention of the pre-existing conditions, they no longer apply and the building may be used to sell any type of goods. 

 

We urged the Council to guard against this by reimposing the previous conditions when granting the new permission. 

 

They did not take our advice.

PLANNING MATTERS - Panshanger Quarry

Lafarge have applied to amend the details and phasing of the remaining work at Panshanger. They no longer intend to excavate any land to the south of the A414, which will enable quarrying and restoration of the site to be completed by 2020 instead of 2031 as provided for in the existing permission. But not working land to the south of the road apparently means that material will have to be imported from elsewhere to help with the restoration of the areas already worked.

We made a number of points to the County Council, who are responsible for deciding this application. We welcomed both the earlier completion date and the reduction in area though we urged that, in return for being allowed to import material, the terms of Lafarge’s overall permission should be changed to ensure that they cannot change their minds in future and revert to the original date and area. We did not object to the principle of importing inert fill material, but the history of bringing in such material to quarries around Hertford is not encouraging. All sorts of rubbish including asbestos, clay and huge lumps of hardcore have been dumped, sometimes in excessive quantities. We therefore urged the County to tighten up the wording of the relevant condition and insist on compliance with details of finished levels and landform.

The application also seeks approval of a plan showing public paths following restoration of the land. There is a need for a clear east-west route from Hertford and Hertingfordbury to Welwyn Garden City that could be used as an alternative to the B1000 by walkers and cyclists, but the proposed pattern of routes fails to achieve this because one section would be a footpath only. We asked for a clear route available to both walkers and cyclists. We also questioned why the proposed new paths are to be permissive, rather than dedicated as public rights of way in perpetuity, since the right to use a permissive path can be withdrawn at any time by the landowner.

At the time of writing the application had not been decided.

PLANNING MATTERS - Redevelopment Grehan’s Yard

We criticised the orientation of the terraced houses proposed for this site. They will back on to the gardens of the existing houses in Molewood Road, so that vehicle access, and the parking of vehicles, will be on the Beane Marsh side. As the Marsh forms the town end of one of Hertford’s green fingers, and is therefore worthy of special consideration when dealing with planning applications on its boundary, we suggested that it would be beneficial both to the appearance of the green finger and to the occupants of the new houses if the development were turned round so that the gardens faced the Marsh. However the officers took the opposite view, concluding that the proposed orientation would provide for a better frontage and outlook by keeping the residential gardens and their associated domestic paraphernalia contained. The application was approved.

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Notice is hereby given that the Annual General Meeting of the Hertford Civic Society will be held on Wednesday April 11th at 8.00pm in the Hall of the Church of the Immaculate Conception and St Joseph, St John’s Street, Hertford.

AGENDA

1. Minutes of the AGM held on April 6th 2011
2. Report of the Committee for 2011
3. Hon Treasurer’s Report and Accounts
4. Election of Officers
5. Election of Members of the Committee
6. Any Other Business

The current Officers and Committee are listed in the Spring Newsletter. All retire annually. The Constitution provides for there to be up to 16 Committee Members in addition to four Officers.

Nominations for election of Officers and Members of the Committee should be made in writing to the Chairman, Linda Haysey, supported by a seconder and with the written consent of the nominee.

Nominations for election as an Officer must be made at least seven days before the Meeting, but nominations for election of Members of the Committee will be accepted at the Meeting.

Refreshments will be served after the business has been concluded.

PLANNING MATTERS - Former Old Cross Library

An application was made by a firm of interior designers to change the use of the building from D1 (non-residential institutions) to B1 Business (a) Office. The design firm, who plan to re-locate from Enfield, have indicated that they intend to leave the external appearance of the former library unchanged. We felt that the proposal would enable a familiar and valued building to go on contributing to the Hertford townscape, and again no comment was made.

PLANNING MATTERS - Baker Street Car Park

Fourteen bedsits for vulnerable young people are proposed, together with associated offices and training facilities. Although the appearance of the new building could be improved, and some public parking will be lost, the scheme will make good use of a neglected and under-used site near the town centre. No comments were submitted to the Council.

PLANNING MATTERS - Waterford Hamel

This is the name given by the developers, Lafarge, to a proposal for 11 houses on the site of some workshops in Sacombe Road associated with the former gravel workings at Waterford Heath. The architect has incorporated state-of-the-art techniques for meeting The Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6 (Zero carbon), and the houses have associated allotments to provide an element of self sufficiency. It is claimed that this scheme would be a model for development elsewhere, as it would be the first in the country to pull together all the means of meeting the future housing standards necessary to achieve planned CO2 reductions. However, the land is in the Green Belt. The applicant accepts that under current guidance the proposal is inappropriate in such a location, but argues that because of its unique design features, and because the present unattractive old buildings would be removed, the circumstances are so special that approval should be granted.

We submitted an objection on the grounds that a Green Belt location is not necessary for this trial of building techniques, which could be conducted anywhere and would probably be more meaningful in an urban setting. We also suggested that, whilst certain structures have to be accepted in support of mineral extraction in the Green Belt, that is not a good argument for their replacement, once the mineral workings are exhausted, by new permanent buildings. We asked that if the District Council nevertheless decide to grant permission, they should require Lafarge to sign a binding legal agreement precluding residential development on any of their other land at Waterford. We are concerned that permission on this site might otherwise be the 'thin end of the wedge'.

Local Development Framework

This autumn the District Council has started a strategic land availability assessment (SLAA). Its purpose is to identify land that could be developed for either housing, employment or leisure purposes. A list of sites was circulated for comment to interested parties and comprised sites submitted by owners and developers in response to the ‘call for sites’ last year and sites identified in a survey by consultants. This initiative is part of the preparation of the core strategy which will lie at the centre of the Local Development Framework. Next Spring the Council will publish a list for public consultation of those sites selected from the SLAA process. The public’s principal interest will be in those sites where the large amount of housing needed in the District could be accommodated. Throughout the Council has emphasised that these sites will be identified as where development could be undertaken, not should be undertaken. In our submission we supported further redevelopment in the Mead Lane area along Marshgate Drive and bordering the Navigation, development of the surplus land at the Post Office sorting office, redevelopment of Castle Mead Gardens and development on the top half of the former Christ’s Hospital playing field in Mangrove Road. We opposed sites involving expansion of the town’s boundaries into the Green Belt or the Green Fingers, and proposals for using existing employment land for housing.

PLANNING MATTERS - Riverside Garden Centre

The owner is seeking the removal of a condition of planning approval for the new building, requiring timber cladding to be provided. He argues that the planting in front of the building provides ‘natural and attractive screening’. We objected on the grounds that the planting has a highly unnatural appearance and is manifestly trying to hide something. The metal building is still seen for what it is, and as an industrial-style building it does nothing to preserve the rural character of the Green Belt in this location. Even if the planted finish were a satisfactory alternative, it is notoriously difficult for planning authorities to ensure that planting is retained and maintained in a satisfactory condition in perpetuity. To date this application has not yet been determined.

PLANNING MATTERS - Adams Yard:

This site lies between Dolphin Yard, now redeveloped, and the Seed Warehouse. The recent application for residential reuse of this site is just the latest in a long- running sequence from a number of owners or prospective owners. We objected on the grounds that the layout of the units was such that some of them would have windows on only one elevation a mere two metres from the rear wall of adjoining units, leading to sub-standard living conditions. The District Council agreed with this view, which had also been expressed by the Town Council, and refused the application.