KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORTknebworthoptionsreport.org/documents/Knebworth Sites... · 2015-01-26 · KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT Page 4 of 19 resolving the future of the

KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT

Page 2 of 19

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 PLANNING ISSUES 3.0 OPPORTUNITIES 4.0 FUNDING SOLUTIONS 5.0 SITES 6.0 OPTIONS APPENDIX 1 COST ESTIMATE: LOWES NEW BUILDING APPENDIX 2 COMMUNITY BUILDING (ILLUSTRATIVE) APPENDIX 3 DEVELOPMENT APPRAISAL: LOWES SITE APPENDIX 4 LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY STUDY DIAGRAMS APPENDIX 5 LDF BACKGROUND PAPER SITES PLAN APPENDIX 6 – OPTION SITES AND ANALYSIS PLANS


Page 3 of 19

1.0 INTRODUCTION Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to investigate the advantages, disadvantages and feasibility of

various possible sites for development within and around Knebworth village. It has been

commissioned by Knebworth Parish Council to aid public discussion about the future

development of the village.

1.2 This report arises from work undertaken in respect of the Knebworth Parish Plan (First Edition

April 2007) which has identified a number of priorities and ideas to improve the social,

economic and environmental wellbeing of the Parish of Knebworth in line with the wishes of

the parish community. In addition, recent work in support of the North Hertfordshire District

Council Local Development Framework has suggested that Knebworth is one of the most

sustainable villages in the area - yet its future development is constrained by infrastructure

capacity. Taken together these two factors have stimulated the Parish to investigate whether

there is scope for an appropriate level of development to take place within and around the

village in order to overcome the infrastructure constraints and deliver community benefits.

Village Context

1.3 The village of Knebworth sits within a part of the county that is both highly attractive yet

subject to considerable development pressures. The village has a high standard of

accessibility, with a centrally located railway station and close proximity to the A1(M)

motorway. It is contained by the Metropolitan Green Belt. This has a presumption against

new development on Greenfield sites other than in very special circumstances.

1.4 Housing and infrastructure pressures in the area however continue to increase. Not only is

there an underlying high level of demand for new housing, particularly for affordable housing,

but the area is also subject to change as a result of central Government policy. For example,

nearby Stevenage is identified as a Key Growth Centre.

Relationship to the Parish Plan

1.5 At the instigation of Knebworth Parish Council, a Knebworth Parish Plan has been produced.

This is defined as being a statement of how the community sees itself in its future. Based

upon extensive local community involvement, the plan sought to identify local problems and

opportunities and thus prepare a plan of action for tackling the issues raised. The Parish Plan

has identified a number of priorities, including tackling traffic congestion in the village,


Page 4 of 19

resolving the future of the Chas Lowe builders yard, maintaining and supporting a high

standard of primary school provision within the Parish etc. In terms of housing development,

the Plan seeks to preserve Knebworth’s essence as a rural parish. However, it also

acknowledges that there is a need to achieve a balance between local and national housing

needs. Taken together, this suggests that an appropriate level of development may be

acceptable if it were to meet local needs and help overcome identified problems to the benefit

of the community as a whole.

The Local Development Framework

1.6 North Hertfordshire District Council, as local planning authority, have responsibility for

development land allocations and control within the Knebworth area. Their policies are

regularly reviewed. The latest update is via the emerging Local Development Framework for

the area.

1.7 The new Local Development Framework (LDF) will set out the Council’s planning policies and

spatial vision for the District as a whole. It will also allocate land for housing and other land

uses and provide detailed guidance on other planning related matters. It will replace the

previous system of Local Plans. Some parts of the Local Plan will continue to be used until

replaced by the Local Development Framework. The LDF has to find room for 6200 new

dwellings within the District over the period 2001 – 2021. The provision and distribution of

new housing is a very delicate issue, as it has to reconcile the growth proposed with

maintaining the character of the district. The proposed housing will need to be carefully

planned to ensure that it becomes well integrated into the existing communities. Around

some settlements this will require the release of Greenfield land. Green Belt reviews will be

carried out where necessary to enable this to take place. National policy requires though that

Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances to maintain the

degree of permanence that Green Belts should have, so if altered under this LDF it is not

expected that a review should take place again for a significant length of time – perhaps

another ten years or so.

1.9 The District Council have recently held a consultation about two parts of the Local

Development Framework namely the Core Strategy and Development Policies. This is the

second stage in preparing these documents following an initial “Issues and Options” stage in

2005/6. The most recent stage, which expresses “Preferred Options”, acknowledges that

Knebworth is North Hertfordshire’s largest village and the only one with a station actually

within it. Knebworth has the best range of shops amongst the North Hertfordshire villages

and it is probably “the most sustainable village in the district therefore should be allowed to

grow a modest amount to take advantage of the existing facilities”.


Page 5 of 19

1.10 The District Council will now prepare another draft of their strategy. This will be submitted to

the Secretary of State, who arranges an independent examination of the document to assess

if it is “sound”. Any changes that are made by the Inspector at this stage must be carried out

prior to the plan being finally adopted. Based on their view about Knebworth as expressed

above, the District Council officers have indicated informally that in respect of Knebworth they

may consider further changes to the plan before it is submitted to the Secretary of State if a

strong case can be made to this effect. The current debate, of which this report forms part,

therefore is an important part of this process. If the District Council can be convinced of the

merits of an appropriate scale of enabling development in and around the village, then they

will give very careful consideration to the inclusion of this within the next stage of the Local

Development Framework. If this happens, then not only does this set a mechanism for

controlling any new development but it will also significantly enhance the prospect of it being

delivered.


Page 6 of 19

2.0 LOCAL ISSUES Issues arising from Parish Plan – the Chas Lowe site

2.1 The Chas Lowe site is at the centre of the village on London Road close to the junction with

Station Road. It has an area of approximately 0.4 hectare (1 acre). The site only has

frontage to London Road. This is used for both deliveries and customers. Given its limited

size and the difficulty of safely turning vehicles within the site and restricted storage areas etc,

this leads to congestion on London Road itself. Lowes have publicly acknowledged that they

have outgrown the site and are keen to find more suitable premises within the local area.

Given that Lowes occupies a strategically important location in the centre of the village, and

that it faces difficulties in its operation and impacts, the Parish Plan supports the relocation of

Chas Lowes as a high priority objective.

Community Provision

2.2 The Parish Plan identifies a number of other high priority issues within the village in addition

to the relocation of Lowes yard. These included maintaining and improving local services -

such as the GP surgery, dealing with concerns about traffic and parking and the limited

capacity of the primary school. The Parish Plan raises the possibility of building a new mixed

use community centre. This would act as a village focal meeting point and potentially provide

accommodation for local amenities, such as a GP surgery etc.

Parking

2.3 Knebworth is a vibrant village with many of its facilities concentrated in its central area which

results in a traditional bustling “high street”. This though leads to significant congestion and

high demand for car parking. Particular hot spots include Lowes yard and the primary school.

The Parish Plan has thus supported the promotion of initiatives to reduce congestion and

provide an appropriate level of additional car parking where it helps relieve existing problems.

Sewerage

2.4 As already described, the District Council are in the process of preparing the new Local

Development Framework for North Hertfordshire. As part of this process a series of

background papers has been produced. These provide an evidence base for the proposed

LDF policies. Although the Local Development Framework acknowledges that Knebworth

could be allowed to grow by a modest amount, such growth is constrained by available

infrastructure capacity. In general, Thames Water has concerns about waste water services


Page 7 of 19

in and around Knebworth village. Following discussions with Thames Water, the advice

reflected in the Transport and Utilities Constraints Background Paper (August 2007) concerns

the strategic trunk sewer capacity for the area. The surrounding area is one within which

considerable growth is already taking place, eg at West Stevenage. Sewerage is dealt with at

Rye Meads Sewerage Treatment Works near Hoddesdon. The works and the trunk sewers

leading into it are close to capacity. Therefore, the Water Companies have expressed

concern about their ability to cope with further major development until further capacity is

provided or alternative strategies for dealing with the sewerage are worked out.

Consequently in the meanwhile Thames Water have expressed concerns about further major

development in certain locations, such as Knebworth, until such a strategy is established.

This would mean that any development proposed of any significant scale would have to work

out its own detailed assessment to determine its level of impact on the sewerage system to

establish what, if any, additional works will need to be carried out.

Education Provision

2.5 The Transport and Utilities Constraints Background Paper suggests that the Primary School

cannot absorb additional children. The background paper suggests that given that Knebworth

Primary School is the only school within the village, it faces high demand. The forecast is that

it will be nearly full in the coming years, then this will act as a significant constraint upon

further major development in the village. The Background Paper goes on to conclude that,

unless additional capacity can be found, primary school places for children arising from

significant new development cannot be accommodated.

2.6 These findings should not be treated as absolute. Much depends upon demographic

changes over the years and school rolls. These rise and fall. In addition, the number of

additional school places arising from development can only be accurately calculated once an

actual scheme has been fixed. However, it is acknowledged that this is an ongoing issue and

that there is limited capacity within the primary school. This capacity can only be increased

through the provision of an extension to the school or indeed its eventual relocation.


Page 8 of 19

3.0 OPPORTUNITIES Relocating Lowes

3.1 Supporting the relocation of the Chas Lowe site away from the centre of the village would

bring advantage in itself through a reduction in congestion. It would also, of course, release

an important site for redevelopment.

3.2 The company have indicated that they would do this if they can continue trading, expand and

improve their service. This would mean finding a new site - within the local area - that will

support their customer base and will be convenient for existing employees. The basic

requirements for such a relocation are:

• A site of around 2 acres in size

• Good access to a main road (the B197 ideally)

• An efficient layout

• A viable relocation funding package.

3.3 To maintain continuity of trading the relocation of Chas Lowe would require the new site to be

secured and developed before the existing site could be shut down and released for

redevelopment. This means that additional finance costs would be involved to cover the

costs of the new development whilst still operating the existing site. Importantly, it also

means that there must be certainty of the relocation site being delivered and completed from

the outset.

3.4 Chas Lowe have been actively looking for relocation sites for some time. The currently

preferred site is considered in further detail later in this report. The estimated cost of building

a suitable new facility is around £1.86M, excluding land cost (see Appendix 3).

Regenerating the Lowes site

3.5 The release of the Lowes site for alternative use would be of benefit to the village as a whole.

The current Local Plan (1996) envisages that it could have capacity to be regenerated for

‘mixed use development’ (housing, shopping, employment). The District Council’s latest

Housing Capacity Update (November 2006) suggests capacity for at least 16 dwellings.

Depending on choice of design this capacity could be higher. As a brownfield site within the

existing urban area this would be consistent with existing plan policy. Consequently, this

suggests that a residential land value could be achieved if the site were to be marketed.


Page 9 of 19

Given that such sites are rare then it can reasonably be expected that marketing would attract

a premium land value. The redevelopment of the site is not without issues however. For

example, its historic use means that it is likely to be subject to some degree of land

contamination (from fuel oil etc). Furthermore, if it were to be used for residential purposes it

would also need to satisfy strict planning criteria in respect of its design, contributions towards

local infrastructure, education, affordable housing etc.

3.6 As suggested by the Parish Plan, in the alternative, the Lowes site might be put to beneficial

use to provide a range of community facilities. Preliminary design proposals have been put

forward for this which might include a new community centre, village green etc (see

Appendix 2). Given that a pre-requisite of the relocation of the Chas Lowe business is that it

is able to fund the acquisition and development of a suitable, viable and available new site

then if the site were to be used for community benefit this would only happen if it were

acquired for a sufficient market value. This would be similar to its alternative residential

value. The cost of the new community facilities on the site would then also have to be met. If

some of these were to be in the form of commercial development (e.g. a café/restaurant for

example) this could be appraised as being viable in its own right. However, new community

facilities such as a centre or surgery would have to meet their own capital costs and ongoing

revenue needs.

3.7 Providing new community facilities on the Chas Lowe site is not the only option available. It

could be feasible for new community facilities to form similarly part of regeneration or

redevelopment schemes elsewhere in the village. However, these would face similar issues

in terms of the opportunity cost of redevelopment of existing sites. Despite the clear virtues of

the Chas Lowe site there may also be some logic in not putting “all of the eggs in one basket”.

If community benefit could be provided in an equally good location elsewhere - without being

dependent upon the relocation of the existing business - then this will also be worthy of further

investigation.

Enabling Development

3.8 However applied, the concept has therefore been put forward of establishing some form of

enabling development strategy. Under this, the release of land on the periphery of the village

could be used to generate enough funds to deliver the new community facilities in the centre

of the village and overcome infrastructure constraints etc. Under the alternative scenario the

relocation of the Lowes site would be self funded through its regeneration for housing

purposes and meeting community ambitions and infrastructure requirements would have to

be met elsewhere out of gains achieved from the sites released.


Page 10 of 19

3.9 The cost of acquiring the Chas Lowe site having regard to its current estimated open market

value, would be in the region of £2M. This assumes the planning permission can be gained

for 19, 3-bedroom houses. An appraisal is attached at Appendix 3. The cost of building a

new community facility of the type illustrated in Appendix 2 would add at least a further

£0.75M. This figure has been calculated using the BCJS Quarterly Review of Building Price

(January 2007, issue no. 104). This identified community centres as costing £110.21/sq.ft

giving a total build cost of approximately £610,000. Due to the possible contamination of the

site, this build cost has been increased to £750,000 to allow for the remediation of the site.

Therefore, in addition to any infrastructure costs, the contribution of new development to

enable the regeneration scheme to be achieved would have to be in the order of £2.75M.

Greenfield land values in the Knebworth area with permission for residential use are currently

in the region of £1.8M per acre net of Section 106 costs. Put another way the equivalent of

around 1.5 acres of unconstrained Greenfield land would have to be given over as “planning

gain” to fund the type of community scheme envisaged.

3.10 Two thirds of the land at the edge of Knebworth Village is owned by Knebworth Estates,

which, at a public open meeting in October 2006, offered that, if residential development was

required at Knebworth’s village-edge by the LDF, it would look to donate the proceeds to

Parish Charities as long as the Knebworth House Education and Preservation Trust was a

priority. Other private land is also being promoted for development in and around the village,

which could also contribute towards satisfying community aims.

3.11 In terms of overcoming infrastructure costs, this is harder to estimate without considering an

actual scheme, of course. In circumstances where proposed residential development is

projected to generate an oversupply of pupils to schools within reasonable proximity,

developers will be expected to contribute towards the provision of education facilities,

services and management. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to apply a Section

106 agreement to improve existing facilities where they fall below acceptable standards.

Based on recent experience elsewhere, and using the latest cost multipliers advised by

Government, then a contribution of around £2,500 per unit for primary education would arise.

This excludes land value. In the case of Knebworth, if acquisition of additional land was

required to extend the school, then this would be a further cost at market value.

3.12 Sewerage costs are a complex issue, depending on which route is used for the provision of

services under the Water Acts. Besides direct costs, in this instance a ‘per roof’ tax is

expected to meet indirect costs, i.e. upgrading of the trunk sewer and works etc. This is now

known as a Community Infrastructure Levy.


Page 11 of 19

3.13 The issue is met through the net value paid for sites. Based on recent local transactions,

these are reflected in the net value expressed above.

Footnote:

This advice has been carried out very much on a “desk top” basis and is an expression of opinion. It is not to be

relied upon by any third parties and is not to be construed as a Red Book Valuation. Certain assumptions have been

made with regard to the design, density, cost of remediation, planning and costs in respect to the proposed

residential development, new builders yard and community centre.


Page 12 of 19

4.0 FUNDING SOLUTIONS Local Authority Enabling Funding

4.1 Informal discussions with District and County Council officers suggest that it is unlikely that

early and sufficient funding resources could be made available within Knebworth to achieve

the type of development and infrastructure improvements sought. In general, it is also the

case where there is the opportunity to meet such costs through private sector development

initiatives, then this should be fully explored before seeking to draw on limited public monies.

Brownfield Enabling Development

4.2 Knebworth is surrounded by the statutory Metropolitan Green Belt. As already pointed out,

the presumption made by planning policy is that such land should be protected from

development other than in very exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, Government

policy encourages the regeneration and recycling of brownfield sites in sustainable locations.

Therefore if enabling development is to be identified the starting point ought to be to look to

see if appropriate brownfield sites can be identified within the village.

4.3 Knebworth is relatively small in comparison to most surrounding urban areas. Consequently,

it is not surprising that few brownfield sites can be identified within it. The District Council’s

Housing Capacity Update of November 2006 only identified a handful of very small sites that

might be released. Excluding the Lowes site itself, these were estimated to only have

capacity for a handful of sites (excluding current planning permissions). It would seem

unlikely that such few sites would generate enough “planning gain” to fund the required

development.

Greenfield Enabling Development

4.4 If the District Council were to advocate and promote a relaxation of the Green Belt in order to

release land for enabling development then not only must it be of sufficient scale to achieve

the required results but it may also be appropriate in its own terms. Consequently, it would

have to satisfy general planning objectives in respect of such matters as landscape impact,

containment, avoiding coalescence etc. So, it is not a case that any site will do. Significant

care will have to be taken to ensure that the most appropriate site is brought forward in the

right manner to achieve the required results.


Page 13 of 19

5.0 DEVELOPMENT SITES 5.1 In considering ‘greenfield’ enabling development three types of site have been defined:

i. Relocation site(s)

ii. Sites identified via the LDF process, and

iii. Other possibilities.

Relocation Site(s)

5.2 These comprise potential sites to accommodate Chas Lowe. As already described, the basic

criteria are that they must fit the needs of the business i.e. in terms of location, scale etc. This

very much restricts the number of suitable sites within the local area. One has been put

forward so far – Woolmer Green Field.

LDF Sites

5.3 As part of the background work to the LDF preparation, the District Council carried out a

Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study. This study considered the landscape’s ability to

accommodate development and impact on nature conservation. It made no distinction

between the Green Belt and non-Green Belt land, examining all peripheral sites regardless of

current use. Extracts from the study are contained at Appendix 4.

5.4 The similar Transport and Utilities Constraints Background Paper took a different approach by

undertaking a site based sieving exercise. This involved the consideration of various housing

options in terms of those sites most likely to be released and possibly released. This is being

used for the basis of consultation with the various utility providers, etc. The results of this

exercise is shown on the plan contained in Appendix 5.

Other Possibilities

5.5 In addition to the work undertaken on the LDF so far, other land around the village could

possibly be considered for development. The suggestion has been made that there may be

cause in Knebworth to examine possible sites beyond those highlighted by the LDF. For

instance, by redrawing field boundaries or contemplating parish/district boundary adjustment,

other possibilities may arise. It has been thought appropriate, whilst core strategy is being

assessed to consider three such sites as examples in this appraisal.


Page 14 of 19

5.6 Each of these different types of site – relocation, LDF and other possibilities – has its own

advantages and disadvantages in terms of delivering appropriate enabling development.

Sites

5.7 The following sites have been identified, and are shown on the plan forming Appendix 6;

a) Lowes relocation

Site 1 – Woolmer Green Field

b) LDF sites

Site 2 – Gypsy Lane Field

Site 3 – Watton Road Field

Site 4 – Swangleys Field

c) Other possibilities

Site 5 – South Knebworth Field

Site 6 – Oakfield Extension

Site 7 – Park Lane Field.

Site 1 – Woolmer Green Field

5.7 Site area ; 1.6 ha (3.96 acres)

Ownership; Knebworth Estates

Capacity ; n/a

Value range; n/a

Advantages ;

- suitable site size for Chas Lowe relocation

- acceptable business location for Lowes

- extension of existing employment area

- self contained, infill site

Disadvantages;

- Green Belt

- Two councils involved

- Perceived Coalescence


Page 15 of 19

Comments;

This is an attractive, suitable and available business location . If coordinated with the release

of the existing Lowes site , it could provide sufficient justification for the release of this Green

Belt site.

Site 2- Gypsy Lane Field

5.8 Site area : 9.79 ha (24.18 acres) gross

Ownership ; Knebworth Estates

Capacity ; 342 dwellings

Value range ; £40-45M

Advantages;

- identified as holding potential in LDF

- low/moderate landscape impact

- contained by existing urban area and motorway

Disadvantages;

- traffic congestion/access

- noise constraint

- sewerage

- school capacity

Comments;

A large ,well contained site of sufficient scale to provide a significant level of ‘planning gain ‘ .

Site 3 – Watton Road Field

5.9 Site Area ; 4.22 ha (10.42 acres) gross

Ownership ; Wallace Family

Capacity ; 147

Value Range ; £18-£21M

Advantages ;

- identified via the LDF

- low/moderate landscape impact

- contained by existing roads/lanes


Page 16 of 19

Disadvantages;

- traffic congestion

- sewerage

- school capacity

Comments;

A significant ,well contained site that could provide an appropriate level of ‘planning gain’.

Site 4 – Swangleys Field

5.10 Site Area ; 5.68 ha (14.04 acres) gross

Ownership ; Wallace Family

Capacity; 198


Advantages;

- identified via the LDF

- moderate landscape impact

- proximity to school

- could provide school expansion land

Disadvantages;

- traffic congestion

- sewerage

- school capacity

- Open countryside beyond

Comment ; A significant site that could provide an appropriate level of ‘planning gain ‘

Site 5 – South Knebworth Field

5.11 Site area; 13.75 ha (33.97 acres) gross


Capacity; 481



Page 17 of 19

Advantages;

- consistent with Lutyens design

- could accommodate other uses , eg secondary school, cemetery extension,

woodland park etc.

Disadvantages;

- coalescence with Woolmer Green

- access would need to cross railway from B197

- straddles District boundaries.

- Sewerage

- School capacity

Comments;

A very large site that has lots of potential yet raises significant strategic planning issues

Site 6 – Oakfield Extension .



Capacity; 121

Value Range; £15-£17M

Advantages ;

- large site

- part of Lutyens design

- direct access to B197

Disadvantages;

- high landscape impact

- development towards Stevenage

- Sewerage

- School capacity

- Traffic through Oakfields

Comments;

This site holds good development potential yet raises significant planning issues.


Page 18 of 19

Site 7 – Park Lane Field



Capacity; 197

Value Range; £25-£28M

Advantages;

- defined site around underused recreation ground

- similar distance to station as other peripheral sites

Disadvantages;

- development west of motorway

- further from facilities , eg shops, school etc

- would raise issues about appropriate scale of development in Old Knebworth

- sewerage

- school capacity

Comments;

A large site that holds development potential yet raises significant planning issues.


Page 19 of 19

6.0 OPTIONS 6.1 The opportunities raised in this brief report arise due to two factors – the potential to relocate

Chas Lowe and address the infrastructure needs of the village.

6.2 The Lowes relocation could be self-funding, i.e. the existing site sold for housing and a new

site bought elsewhere. This though would forego the option of using the site for community

uses.

6.3 In terms of options for the future, it could be decided to accept the current view of the LDF

that, despite its attributes, it is not appropriate to seek further significant development around

the village at present, in effect this is a ‘Do Nothing’ scenario.

6.4 There is a major decision to be made in whether or not to encourage Greenfield land to be

released in order to cross-fund community and infrastructure gains. This raises fundamental

issues about the Green Belt. If the village could play a role in meeting strategic housing

need, and infrastructure constraints overcome, then this would be a good justification. This

would be stronger if it also brought advantage to the community, particular in terms of its long

term sustainability.

6.5 In general terms, the donation of around 2 to 3 acres of Greenfield land would create enough

value to meet the costs of the Lowes site regeneration. The peripheral sites considered

(excluding Site 1, the Lowes relocation site) are all of sufficient scale to accommodate this

scale of donation. Of course, in the alternative new facilities might be located on one of the

sites themselves and not the existing Lowes site. A similar displacement effect occurs in

terms of value. So, if the concept of releasing land is pursued, it is a matter of the

appropriateness of the sites that is the deciding matter – their advantages and disadvantages

– which will be tested via the LDF process.

Documents

KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORTknebworthoptionsreport.org/documents/Knebworth Sites... · 2015-01-26 · KNEBWORTH SITES APPRAISAL REPORT Page 4 of 19 resolving the future of the