Churchgate Proposals by Simons: Consultation Response by Hitchin Forum
This response has been collated following a meeting of Hitchin Forum members on 14 June 2010 and forwarded to North Hertfordshire District Council.
Do you agree with the plan to improve Hitchin’s Churchgate area?
No
What do you like about Simons’ vision?
In principle we welcome investment in Hitchin town centre.
The indicative artist’s impression of the new pedestrian street between Market Place and Biggin Lane is acceptable and the mix of shop units here looks good.
Opening up the river is good in principle.
What else would you like to see included in the development plans?
It is essential that the developer goes back to the Churchgate Planning Brief and begins again, producing plans that broadly conform to the CPB and are therefore more appropriate in scale, character and impact for Hitchin. Our detailed comments are below.
1. Scale of development & design
Our members felt that Simons’ proposal is a plan for a developer rather than for the people or for Hitchin and in large part is contrary to the CPB.
The CPB endorses the redevelopment of the Churchgate shopping centre itself, with the enhancement of the car parks at St Mary’s Square and Portmill Lane to provide an appropriate setting for the church and possibly undercroft car parking. It does not envisage the development proposed by Simons along Queen Street and on Portmill Lane, and we object to this in terms of its physical volume and impact. Hitchin has grown incrementally over time, which gives the town its character and charm. The large blocks on Queen Street complement nothing. The volume of these buildings and the monotony of design would be overpowering and would dwarf the Biggin. The urban design principles in the CPB are quite clear about what is expected in terms of domestic scale, moderating massing and heights, and paying careful attention to local characteristics such as variety of design and undulating rooflines.
Our members are also concerned that such a large scale scheme will age all at the same time. This could result in an even larger part of the town than the present Churchgate centre looking shabby in 20-30 years’ time.
We also object to the loss of views of the church and the extent of additional retail floorspace (these are expanded below).
2. The Market
Hitchin is a market town, and the market is pivotal to the entire development and should not be sidelined. If this scheme is to work for Hitchin, the market must be paramount in terms of its location and functionality. We object to it being moved to Market Place because the area is too small, its present community use would be lost, and the market could not function properly here, not least because of lack of trader parking and necessary infrastructure. Markets will thrive where they are adjacent to public transport interchanges and close to high pedestrian flows. We are pleased that Simons are in discussions with Hitchin Markets Ltd to find a satisfactory alternative solution.
3. Retail provision
We are not convinced that building an additional 90,000 sq ft retail floorspace all at once will benefit the town. This scale is disproportionate for a town the size of Hitchin and could well result in other areas, particularly the High Street, losing retailers to the new development. We question the viability of a ‘quality’ department store being attracted to the so-called ‘anchor’ store in a town the size of Hitchin. Indeed, two of our biggest shop units are currently empty. We are very sceptical of the claim that Hitchin needs more chain stores or that this will add to the town’s attractiveness. Hitchin’s retail charm lies in its distinctiveness and will not be enhanced by simply becoming more like other towns.
It is inappropriate that Churchyard Walk should change from retail to residential at ground level; this is an important part of established shopping circulation patterns.
4. Views of the Church
Hitchin’s church is the largest parish church in Hertfordshire and is a building of magnificence. It should continue to be visible from all around. These proposals do not give it the precedence which is its due, in terms of its environs or views of it, and are totally at variance with the CPB in this regard.
St Mary’s stands on low ground and is itself not a high building so any development around the church has to be on a scale with that already existing. Four-storey townhouses along Churchyard Walk is totally inappropriate; the scale of development here should reflect that on the west and north sides of Churchyard. We also object to the large retail and residential block on Portmill Lane West car park as it would block views of the church.
We strongly object to the tunnel view of the church from Hollow Lane which would result. The CPB is quite clear that the area along Queen Street is a ‘key enhancement’ area, not a ‘key development’ area as indicated in the Simons proposals.
5. Car Parking & Servicing
An additional 40-60 spaces would be wholly inadequate if the scale of retail proposed here was ever built. Our members are also concerned that the only provision is in a large multi-storey and that this would be privately managed rather than publicly provided. Surface parking with some undercroft parking at St Mary’s Square and Portmill Lane and quality landscaping would be far more suitable and would help create an appropriate setting for the church.
We are concerned at likely conflict between pedestrians and delivery vehicles at the entrances to both service areas. The pedestrian street entrance from Market Place appears to double as the entrance to the service area which does not seem sensible, either in terms of pedestrian safety or large vehicles trundling down High Street, Market Place and Sun Street. Likewise the so-called ‘piazza’ seems to double as an access from Biggin Lane to both the service area on the south side of Churchgate and the town houses proposed on the present Biggin Lane car park. This would be impossible, given its proposed width but would also degrade a river ‘enhancement’.
6. The River
Our members support opening up the river through the present market area, the creation of a riverside walk to link through to Bridge Street, and a the creation of a pleasant riverside ambience for stalls, kiosks, cafes etc. We are not convinced, however, of the advisability of opening up such a width of river because of low flow levels.
7. Community benefit
There is too much emphasis in this development proposal on shops and retail and no ‘community’ benefit. Community life is not just about shopping, and there should be something else for young people other than just shops, restaurants and cafes. We see no provision of clubs, entertainment venues and the like, for example.
Other Comments
We would like to see plans and drawings that give a more realistic perception of what a proposed development would be like in terms of the pedestrian experience. The above ground perspective in the current artist’s drawings is deceptive.
Concluding Comments
This is an “off the shelf” response from a developer that does not recognise or relate to Hitchin’s particular characteristics. The question needs to be asked: what is it about Hitchin that attracts people? Hitchin has evolved showly and incrementally; the difficulty here is that it is one big development all at once.
Much of what is argued above is contained in the Churchgate Planning Brief. We find it very disturbing that a developer, having signed a development agreement with the Council, has now produced proposals so totally at variance with the planning brief adopted by that same Council.
TOP
Structured feedback from our members used to generate our response to NHDC concerning the Simons Churchgate proposals
THE POSITIVES
General comments
- The Churchgate area is in need of regeneration
- Basic space planning is fine
- The new walkways open up areas of interest and new viewpoints
- The riverside area could create some very nice spaces - and provide a better setting for the church as well as the new department store. The kiosk units, and perhaps the market spilling out into the space could create a vibrant and interesting new urban space.
- The framed view of the church works well
- Opening up of the river bank and new bridges improves the area
- The scheme works well in plan. it makes effective use of the space available.
- The entrance from the marketplace - between the Rose & Crown and Nationwide - will create quite an interesting Gateway, and means the new development should not over-dominate the square.
Department store
- The Department store and car park: while these appear large in plan, they are unlikely be over-dominating when viewed from ground level, as long as the buildings are suitable detailed in order to break down the scale. They are only two storeys high at the roadside - which seems reasonable. The potential to create a framed view of the church works well.
- The department store could draw people from the town centre through Churchgate and the New Piazza area.
- The proposed Queen Street elevation is an improvement on acres of tarmac
- Residential building on the Biggin and Portmill car parks is fine in concept although there are no detailed designs shown, only 'concepts'.
- Opening up the River Hiz and making more use of the river frontage is welcome.
Car park
- Riverside walk, piazza and underground car parks all good ideas
- Multi-storey parking is proposed. The proposed building appears to be quite expensive, with high quality materials promised.
- Removing all the cars and tidying them away in a multi-storey car park is attractive provided that the design is tasteful, not 'barrack like' and that access is maintained 24/7, including Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Churchgate
- Realigning Churchgate with Biggin Lane could create a strong elevation to define the east side of Market Place, creates a good mix of shallow units on the north side of Church Gate and deep units on the south, and could create a strong route through the site to the department store. The Market Place elevation and the entrance between Nationwide and the Rose & Crown will need carefully design to be successful.
The market
- A Hitchin success story. If moved to the Market Place it would need more space which could be provided by a covered section of market under the present entrance to Churchgate. Also provision should be made for modern vehicle-mounted market stalls as found in most Italian and French markets.
- Also space to expand along High Street to Moss’s Corner.
- The advantage of a street market for the traders is that once established they will have long term security without the danger of being moved on yet again
- Spreading the Market out along high street and other areas could create a vibrant atmosphere on Market days.
NEGATIVES
The market
- Market vs marketplace as an urban space: the solution to the problem of the market has been to remove it from the scheme altogether. While re-locating to marketplace seems logical, this will severely compromise the town's primary public space - particularly on Saturdays when it is currently at its most vibrant.
- If the market is going to be retained in anything like its current scale, an alternative location needs to be found. Portmill Lane has been suggested and seems to be a good fit. The alternative is a smaller market, spread about the town. This would probably be more akin in character to the French and Italian markets that visit. (a significant change!)
- The scheme results in a significant reduction in market stalls.
- There will be serious access and parking problems for market traders, and reverting to demountable stalls is a retrograde and expensive step backwards.
- Rather than building a flagship store it may be better to use the space for the market instead which would provide a space at least equal to the existing market site. The adjacent piazza could then be more closely integrated with market activities either hosting specialist markets or as additional space should the market expand. It would mean that the 'openness' of the market and the St Mary's area would be retained as would the view of St Mary's for those entering the town along Queen Street or down Hollow Lane, which would not be the case with the proposed scheme.
- Locating the market on St Mary's Square would also allow the town square to be retained for use by the community. It would continue to act as an attractive open space drawing visitors from the Market through Churchgate to the shops in Sun Street, Bucklesbury and the High Street.
The Department Store
- A “flagship” store goes against the current grain of the abundance of smaller, specialist and craft shops in the town. It is unlikely that one new store will stop many people shopping in Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Milton Keynes or Cambridge.
- The Biggin is likely to be overwhelmed by the new buildings, and the view of the back of the Sun hotel will be lost to all except the town house dwellers.
- The waterfall on the corner will not work as a successful space and will only emphasize the disconnection between the Department Store and the town. This wing of the "L" shaped plan would be more appropriately two tall storeys high, more in keeping with the scale of the Biggin, with access to the Department Store at river level.
- It would appear that the Department Store and the Car-Park are raised on a podium which is higher than the existing terrace and this may obscure car driver level views of St Mary's from Queen Street.
- Construction needs to be a single phase. The anchor store does not want to open by itself without neighbours.
Parking
- No cars appear on any of the illustrations. This is completely unrealistic. No cars, no business.
- Is there sufficient car parking for the expected (and essential) increase in business needed to cover the huge cost of this proposal?
- Of the car parks illustrated, that on the corner of Queen Street and Portimill Lane has an unreadable caption. Is it over or below ground?
- Dressing the car-park up as a neo-classical building would be a mistake and the blank elevation facing the river will only further emphasize its disconnection with the town. Birds Porchmouth Rossom Architects designed a multi-storey car-park in Chichester which demonstrates that car-parks can contribute to the townscape.
- How is access to the rear of the retail units to be provided ? Delivery trucks are big and getting bigger.
- The sole entry to the multi-storey car park in Portmill Lane is likely to cause serious congestion in busy periods.
The Biggin
- Not clear is the vehicle access to the Biggin residential development, parking for Sun Hotel guests and service vehicles to the Churchgate shops on the Sun Street side. The plans show an articulated lorry but it is not clear how it got there. If it came from the town square then I'm not sure it is wise to have 44 ton articulated lorries traversing the high street and round the town square, especially on market days. It may have come down Jill Grey Place and across the river and again, I'm sure the residents would have something to say about that. Some of the sketches I've seen show pedestrians strolling through the Sun Hotel courtyard and across to the new Biggin residential development with not a car in sight, either guest parking for the Sun Hotel or residents of the new houses.There appears to be a critical shortage of manoeuvering space for large commercial vehicles without which a modern retail centre cannot operate.
- The Biggin looks rather forlorn in some of the sketches with its grounds removed and surrounded by paths on all four sides in an area of grass that is merged with the existing seating area that fronts onto Queen Street. The screening between the Biggin and Jill Grey Place has also disappeared and the residents will not be pleased at being exposed to the new piazza and the residential development on the Biggin car park.
The church and the piazza area
- Many people do not like the restricted view of the church, and feel that it will be overshadowed by larger buildings.
- The New Piazza Area is only around 11 m wide, and this will not be wide enough for the three rows of market stalls described in one of the images. It would be more appropriate to widen the piazza at the expense of the uncovered River Hiz and Church Gate if necessary to provide more space for the market.
- St Mary's Terrace: It will be essential that kiosks are provided under the podium facing St Mary's Terrace to connect this with the river.
- The designs and sketches shown are rather vague in detail so it is difficult to determine how the scheme will look in real life. Some of the buildings appear to be only two or three stories high, which is good in a low rise town like Hitchin, but in relation to the adjacent pedestrians each of the stories is tall making them in reality much bigger than you would imagine. As some of the buildings are shown as being four stories high then the overall result could well be oppressive and dominate the existing buildings. Certainly the view down Hollow Lane towards St. Mary's is like looking through a canyon. It is difficult for lay people to visualise from the drawings exactly what the scale will be.
Churchyard walk
- All the existing buildings surrounding the church are 2 storeys tall. 2 storeys with attic, or a set back third storey, would be more appropriate than the proposed 4 storey residential unit.
Portmill Lane
- The artists impression is unattractive and does not suggest a building suitable for a site close to the Church and Churchyard shops.
- The isolated retail unit is unlikely to attract any retailer.
Architectural Design and 'Character'
- The buildings in Hitchin have a wide variety of architectural styles from the last four hundred years and the proposed uniform stripped neo-classical style for the development does not adequately reflect this.
- While it should be accepted that these are early days in design terms, the architectural treatment of the buildings is not sympathetic to the town. The neo-classical style adopted looks too authoritarian and severe. There is also a homogeneity which contrasts with the variety generally found in Hitchin. The classical buildings in Hitchin are scattered about as isolated examples, while this presents an entire classical quarter. Also, this solution, to be done well, requires an awful lot of expensive finishing materials - mainly stone. An alternative and wider palette of materials could save money.
- Character: the scheme as it stands has none. A distinctly 21st century solution would be preferable. Hitchin’s urban quality comes from the variety that has come from each era creating buildings that are 'of their time' - not mimicking what was done 150 years ago. Marketplace and Tilehouse Street being the prime examples. This has been done very successfully in towns of equal and indeed greater historic merit than Hitchin. York and Cambridge come to mind.
- Possibly look at the Wynd extension in Letchworth as a possible model – C20 design, light, airy and an intimate space.
- Whatever the 'style' adopted - there should be more variety - treating the scheme as a collection of buildings, rather than a shopping centre. Lip service was given to this objective in the presentation, but the images presented told a different story.
- The overall design is not very exciting. You could argue that anything is better than the existing Churchgate but just bolting carriage lamps to neo-Georgian buildings and sprinkling with Poundbury dust doesn't detract from the fact that this is a massive sprawling development that will change the nature and character of Hitchin for ever. If the original objective of the Churchgate redevelopment scheme was to cure the eyesore of the 1960's looking buildings in the centre of an historic town centre then this scheme has been allowed to balloon unchecked and is definitely overkill. Once the car parks are built on there will be no open spaces left in the centre of Hitchin, St. Mary's will be surrounded and hidden and the market will be corralled in the town square.
- 100 years ago there were slums on Queen Street. Could some of the existing car parks be replaced by residential development?
OTHER COMMENTS
- Is the increase in on-line shopping a threat to the whole scheme?
- Community spaces like church house need enhancement if this scheme goes ahead.
- With the scheme proposed there are a number of issues which will damage valued features of the town centre. The loss of these needs to be balanced against the benefits the proposals provide, for example:
- Department store or full size Market.
- Marketplace as an urban space is likely to be compromised by its use as a Market.
- In order for the scheme to remain viable, the proposed retail and residential units Simons have proposed in Portmill Lane will need to be accommodated elsewhere.
TOP
SAFETY OF CHILDREN’S PLAYGROUNDS
We have written to the Council to express our concern that the low fencing has been removed from playgrounds in Hitchin. For many years young children’s play areas have been protected from incursion and fouling by dogs and from older children’s games, and toddlers have been prevented from running off in the direction of busy roads while the parent or carer has been attending to another child. The King George V play area is the only one which is now really safe for children.
In both Ransom’s Recreation Ground and Brook View there is now little to prevent a small child from falling into the nearby streams or getting onto a busy road some 100 yards away, and a further hazard in Ransom’s is the cycleway which runs very close to the play area.
In the Smithson Recreation Ground, although the fence round the play area has been replaced, the wire netting fence between the grassed area and Upper Tilehouse Street has not, with the likelihood that footballs and their owners could end up in the traffic. The railings bordering the path into town have also gone, which if not replaced will result in falls on the sloping path in icy weather.
NHDC appear to be following advice given by the Play Inspection Company, who give the following reasons, taken from a “Play England” publication, for not having fences:
· Children learn to regulate their exploratory play for themselves.
· Parents who come with their children pay more attention to where their children
are, rather than assuming they cannot escape.
· Children can spread out in their play rather than having to remain in a confined
space.
· In some locations, fencing can make dog problems worse: some dog-owners actively
seek out fenced spaces to train and manage their dogs.
· Gates do not always close completely, making them ineffective at excluding dogs.
· Removes a potential hazard (children trying to climb fences, or simply using gates,
can injure themselves).
· Reduces the risk of fostering bullying, harassment, victimisation or territorial
behaviour.
This document also concedes that the absence of fencing could cause:
· Risk of harm from children leaving the area and encountering hazards beyond it,
such as roads or open water.
· Potential for children to wander off and get lost.
· Some children with specific learning difficulties or behavioural problems may be
more difficult to supervise in unfenced provision.
It goes on to acknowledge that “It may be beneficial to provide some fencing around the toddler’s equipment where the children using the equipment will not have developed the ability to assess risk in the same way, but this should be restricted only to the equipment provision installed specifically for this age group.”
It appears that NHDC have taken this guidance on board without giving any thought to the age range of the children who actually use the playgrounds – generally from 6 months upwards!
We are pleased to note that new fencing has been ordered for Ransom’s Rec, and we will continue to monitor the situation.
TOP
Keeping Hitchin Town Hall as a Community Facility: The history, and why Hitchin Forum and other groups are campaigning for it - September 2009
1. General background: in September 2007 a meeting was held at the request of representatives of Hitchin community groups - The Hitchin Society (HS), Hitchin Historical Society (HHS), Keep Hitchin Special (KHS) and Hitchin Forum (HF) - with Cabinet members including the then CEO, at which serious disquiet was expressed about the lack of community involvement and representation in NHDC’s decisions which concerned the town. The aim of the meeting had been to offer assistance rather than to criticise. It is perhaps symptomatic of the problems we now experience that the Chair of Hitchin Area Committee was only allowed to attend the meeting on sufferance, and was not allowed to speak.
2. Separately, the Arts, Museum and Heritage Forum (AMHF) had been discussing the options for local museums since at least 2004, during which time various ideas had been put forward for relocation/refurbishment of Hitchin museum. At their meeting in February this year, the proposal to relocate the museum to Hitchin Town Hall was put on the table by NHDC as the only solution to a large hole in the budget, leaving very little opportunity for comment from community groups and with no prior warning at all.
3. In May this year HF convened an informal meeting between community group representatives and the relevant councillors and officers to discuss the Museum/Town Hall plans, hoping that a friendly approach might work better than a confrontational stance. We were listened to and assured that there would be plenty of opportunity to put forward our views at the Facilities Working Group (FWG) meetings.
4. At subsequent Scrutiny and Area Committee meetings, recommendations were made to Cabinet to consider other options for Hitchin museum, and that serious discussion should be held with Letchworth Heritage Foundation and Hertfordshire County Council. As far as we can tell, these recommendations have been totally disregarded.
5. There have been several alternative ideas put forward for the museum, both during the AMHF meetings and in recent weeks, including outline plans to extend on the museum and library site.
6. It has been made abundantly clear from all the FWG meetings that “consultation” really means “you WILL agree with our one idea”. Any other comments, questions or alternative proposals are rebuffed. The result is that it has become crystal clear that NHDC has no intention of really listening to and considering the views of Hitchin people on a what is a very significant issue for the town and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we strongly suspect that any investigations that led up to this proposal were cursory to say the least.
7. Keith Hoskins has renewed Hitchin Town Centre Initiative’s (HTCI) offer to discuss asset transfer and Tricia Gibbs has said at meetings that such discussion would be welcomed. It is unclear whether there has been any positive response to HTCI’s offer.
8. The community groups met again on 12 August 2009. The majority concluded that a campaign should be mounted to preserve the Town Hall as a large-scale community venue. The HHS explained that it could not support such a campaign. Its first priority had to be the survival of an effective museum and local history study centre in Hitchin: at present, because of the way the district council had limited discussion throughout, the Town Hall conversion was the only option on offer. It was also felt that a campaign with two objectives would only confuse people.
9. By campaigning for retention of the Town Hall as a community facility we are not losing sight of the museum. We understand that there are financial constraints. We feel strongly, however, that our input to resolve the problems is not wanted and our elected representatives are disregarded.
10. We want the Council to accept that there should be other options considered for the museum – after all, there is £3.5million somewhere to do it!
Encouraging News!
At their meeting on 3 December 2009, and largely as a result of the presentation given by community representatives and behind-the-scenes lobbying by the Town Centre Manager, NHDC voted to defer the decision on whether or not to proceed with their plans for the conversion of the main town hall (the “Mountford” hall) into a District museum.
At a high-level meeting on 17 December 2009 between NHDC portfolio holders, officers and community representatives, alternative plans drawn up by members of Hitchin Initiative, were put forward that would:
- retain the Mountford Hall, managed by Hitchin Initiative, for community use;
- provide a museum in the existing gymnasium with a new first floor, and a new entrance created by purchasing and demolishing an adjacent shop.
Grant and loan funding would be sought from Community Builders, supplemented by a public appeal. It was agreed that a full feasibility study on the proposal be carried out and this was put to the full council on 11 February 2010. NHDC officers and their consultant architects co-operated fully with Hitchin Initiative in order to make a meaningful presentation at that meeting, where it was agreed almost unanimously that business plans should be worked up for both the council’s and the community’s schemes, and councillors will choose between the two at their June 2010 meeting.
At a well-attended meeting in the Ballroom of the Sun Hotel on 28 April, both sets of proposals for the town hall were explained by Neal Charlton, the architect for NHDC’s consultants.
The main difference between the two plans is that in the original NHDC plan the main hall was given over to museum use and the gymnasium saved for community use. In the new Hitchin Initiative plan, the hall is kept for the community and the gymnasium with a new first floor added, will be the museum. This will be a smaller but more practical and flexible space for the exhibits. In the HI plan the new entrance is larger and more welcoming.
The reaction from the public was far more positive than at previous Arts, Museums and Heritage Forum meetings when the town hall’s future had been under discussion. Keith Hoskins, speaking for the community groups, acknowledged the unprecedented level of support that had been received from NHDC officers in preparation of these plans.
The main uncertainty about the entire project is whether English Heritage will decide to list all or part of the building, following an application made shortly before the December 2009 Full Council meeting by Keep Hitchin Special. Should the building be listed, any alterations on the site will have to be sanctioned by English Heritage, making the conversion process much longer and more complicated, and potentially very much more expensive.
The plans for both schemes can be seen here http://www.north-herts.gov.uk/annex_b__-_hitchin_town_hall_museum_feasibility.pdf.
TOP
Protecting Benslow Field - December 2009
An application for registration as a Town Green was submitted in September, supported by around 100 submissions from Hitchin residents, and has been acknowledged. We now await further developments, but it is likely that the application will be challenged by Hertfordshire County Council and will go to appeal, at which point the number and quality of representations from Hitchin people will really count.
(The text below is an extract of a letter sent to members of Hitchin Forum and residents of the Benslow area.)
Dear Resident
Help us protect Benslow Field
Hitchin Forum is working with Derrick Ashley, our County Councillor, and our District Councillors to try to ensure that Benslow Field is preserved from development by getting it registered as a “town green” under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006.
In order to register the land as a green, we need to provide evidence that it has been used by local people for recreation ‘as of right’ (i.e. without permission, force or secrecy) for at least 20 years. Such recreation might include organised or ad-hoc games, picnics, fetes and similar activities.
If you or your family have used the field within the last 20 or more years for a purpose that would qualify as recreational, we would be most grateful for your help in providing a written statement explaining how and when the field has been so used. For example:
“I lived in Chiltern Road from 1978 until 1984 and during that time I used to: let my children play games/walk my dog/ go jogging … etc. on the field”. The more detail you can give, the better!
Please sign and date the statement, and give your full name and address.
You should be aware that any statement collected for this purpose will be made public when the application is submitted.
Please send your statement to Derrick Ashley, 12 Nuns Close, Hitchin SG5 1EP, or email derrick.ashley@hertscc.gov.uk as soon as possible.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Yours sincerely
Rosemary Read -Secretary, Hitchin Forum
P.S. The Field is now on NHDC’s July 2009 list of suggested new building sites*. This makes the need for Town Green status even more important.
*”Local Development Framework—Land Allocations additional Suggested Sites”, which can be viewed in the Library and on NHDC’s website.
We would also like to know your opinions as to how NHDC and HCC are managing the consultation process for the people of Hitchin. Visit our Discussion Forum now to have your say and see what others are saying.
TOP |
