Consultation
The following slides were displayed at our public consultation event in October:
FEEDBACK SUMMARY
PUBLIC CONSULTATION – MONDAY 21 OCTOBER 2019
- 29 Feedback forms were completed, all of which indicated they were local residents

Additional comments in response to this question:
- Maybe, if they are opened up for community use
- Clubs will have priority, leaving little time for individuals/couples etc

Additional comments in response to this question:
- As long as they are affordable
- Only if there is the infrastructure to support it such as roads, footfall and new access to the station

Additional comments in response to this question:
- Not flats, just houses, otherwise too many dwellings. Too many extra cars
- Cars and increased population
- Too many apartments planned
- The feedback forms are skewed in favour of the development
- In order to obtain meaningful feedback a revised set of balanced questions needs to be issued
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK
Traffic, transport and access
- Serious concerns about traffic and the only access route into the residential development from St Michael’s road. (9 similar comments)
- Refuse lorries, buses and emergency services already have big problems on St Michael’s road with the current parking situation
- Could you move the crossing lights by the Millstream in line with the right turn lane on Cambridge Rd to better control access areas
- Good idea about left hand turn lane on Cambridge Road roundabout
- Station access needs to be improved particularly pedestrian access. (7 similar comments)
- Herts County Council should open up a pedestrian route at foot bridge to the station.
- Work with Herts County Council on opening access on the London-bound side. Pathway to be restored, lit well and maintained neatly
- Concerns over pedestrian safety crossing the road – St Michael’s Rd and Walsworth Rd
- Pedestrian access not thought about
- Concern about access to pathway behind property
- More attention needs to be paid to the cycle path on St Michael’s road and ensuring its safe use.
- Car club idea is good but specifics need thinking through. Might need to cut through from existing footpath to make attractive to residents of the poets estate to subscribe. It’s quite a long walk via the existing college entrance
- No road or pedestrian access from Gibson Close. Concerns about possible increase in crime and anti-social behaviour. (9 similar comments)
- Don’t want walking access through Browning Drive and Campbell close
- Concern about access via Campbell Close. At present there is pedestrian access to the footpath along the boundary from Campbell Close. Foresee a severe parking problem in the road if there is permitted access via this route for pedestrians using the sports facilities or gaining access to the residential development proposed.
- Please do not open up existing quiet closes to new development
- Who will maintain existing footpaths? NHC or the council?
- Show all the footpaths that currently exist on your plans. These are 80, 81 to 88 from Campbell Close. These provide good access to the site
- Do not want new residents having access to the alleyway (2 similar comments)
Light, noise and proximity
- Think more about two and a half storey buildings’ position relative to existing properties that look onto the development
- Any development should be limited to a maximum of two storeys in order to fit in with existing properties on all four sides of the site
- Serious concern about the block of flats facing existing houses. (3 similar comments)
- Look at road position. It pushes the properties closer to those facing the development
- Word ‘consultation’ widely misinterpreted by CALA Homes. No feedback taken into account, houses against Chaucer Way are far too close to the boundaryHome density and affordabilitySports facilities
- Really don’t want the houses, will obstruct views.
- Streetlighting off 12 to 5:00 AM
- Will there be restrictions on the times the 3G pitch will be floodlit during autumn and winter? Light pollution from facilities and development is a major concern
- Do not agree with the later hours on the football pitches
- Improved acoustic mitigation measures need to be included in the design of the relocated all-weather pitch (existing measures are insufficient). Its hours of use must be limited to those detailed in the planning inspectorates decision dated 19/05/14.(2 similar comments)
Infrastructure including schools
- Not enough schools, concern about provision given current pressure on places. (6 similar comments)
- Infrastructure is not in place for this development although can see why the land is proposed for housing development
- No information about impact to neighbours from utilities installation
- Condition of approval to include street lighting off between 12am and 5am
Environmental issues
- Disappointed that minimum compliance with environmental requirements. No solar, no heat pumps, not passive housing, greywater harvesting
- The current view over the college field and onto Letchworth northwards needs to be maintained
- Condition of approval to include less dwellings, more single family homes planting of lots of native trees
- Concerned that the view of the development from Purwell Meadows will be too visible. Additional landscaping should be deployed
- Health concerns about substation’s location and proximity to housing (2 similar comments)
- Concerns regarding drainage of the site towards the river
- Will obstruct views
- Important to have as much permanent vegetation (trees and hedges) as possible between new road and existing footpath to mitigate traffic fumes and noise
- The proposed tree coverage will take a lot of years to mature before it provides a barrier between the existing residential areas and the new sports facilities
Additional responses
- Definitely need a new sports hall
- The football pitches are fine just need a new sports hall
- Would like a children’s play area (4 similar comments)
- No play area
- What is the provision for additional police presence?
- Strongly disagree with the need for 40% social housing. Should be decreased by half
- 40% social housing is very high
- 120 houses is a lot higher than needs to be.
- Not taken into account residents’ views or feedback during the process (4 similar comments)
- Would like higher building standards rather than just being in line with building standards. Could a proportion be top quality /leading edge?
- No to homes
- Please communicate the detail with affected households and compensate for installation process
- Losing the playing field Exhibition was very well set out and informative