Your name

Your email

First Line of Address

Your Postcode

Subject

Message (Edit just as you wish)
Objection 23/0223/FUL – relaying of the Cowley Hill Track I am writing to oppose this application for the following reasons: 1. No agricultural need a. large farm vehicles have accessed the Cowley Hill fields via the London Road entrance for decades. b. There has never been a primary access route for large machinery through Cowley Hill Stables into the Cowley Hill fields; this was impossible with the paddocks in the way. c. With the Cowley Hill Stables development in place, farm machinery continues to use the London Road entrance. d. This work is not being done for agricultural need. 2. If there ever were horses in the paddocks, they could be serviced by the old track or by a new mains water pipe – there have never been any horses in the paddocks since they were put up in Spring 2021. If there were, horses could be ridden to the access gate in London Road to be loaded into a horse box and water could be transported via small farm vehicles or mains water put in whilst the Cowley Hill Stables development is in build. 3. Environmental damage – the track has been widened from the width of one vehicle to the width of two. It has been contaminated with plastics, metals and rubbish which are harmful to the environment. The track has also been turned to the left and extended into the paddocks field and a blue drainage pipe put underneath. The track never went this far before. The many complaints and objections from residents and Hertsmere Borough Councillors show the strength of feeling against this destruction of the countryside and a local beauty spot. 4. Common Land work approval is required by the Planning Inspectorate / Secretary of State – all the land along London Road to access Cowley Hill is Common Land. There is an access point across the Common Land into the fields where the metal bar gate is in London Road. If the applicant wants to relay the track across Common Land, then they should have got consent from the Planning Inspectorate. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/carrying-out-works-on-common-land#works-you-need-consent-for You can see from the following link that resurfacing of land on registered common land will require the consent of the Secretary of State under section 38 of the Commons Act 2006. https://www.oss.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Defra-guidance-on-vehicular-access.pdf "However, where the grant of an easement relates to the construction of a new access way (or where it is proposed to improve any existing access way), any works which involve the resurfacing of land on registered common land will require the consent of the Secretary of State under section 38 of the Commons Act 2006. Works involve the resurfacing of land “if they consist of the laying of concrete, tarmacadam, coated roadstone or similar material on the land (but not if they consist only of the repair of an existing surface of the land made of such material)”9. You can find out more about consent under section 38 on the Defra website” Additional points • The works performed and proposed may result in significant damage to many mature oak trees. Why has a tree survey not been performed or requested? • Part of the development is within ~30 metres of an ideal habitat for great crested newts, yet the applicant has responded 'no' to the question about protected and priority species, and no survey has been carried out. I find this concerning. • D&A Statement: o Para 1.4 / 4.4: Houses were only built after guarantees that there was no need for paddocks or grazing land. Has it turned out that these guarantees were erroneous? o 3.3: What evidence has been supplied that the track had fallen into disrepair and (3.15, 4.1) almost completely grown over? This path is used frequently and this is not a description that residents recognise. o Since this planning application has been submitted post-development, what is the council doing to investigate prohibited clearing activities taken to support the application and match this description? o 4.5: More than 25m squared of land has been disturbed where the track has been extended and a turning circle created. As a result, 7.38, 7.40 and 8.40 seem to be inaccurate. In line with the government’s consultation response. Why has a biodiversity gain metric not been submitted with this application? o 7.1: How does the applicant define 'significantly'. Given the proximity to mature trees and biodiverse scrub, this seems to be unsatisfactorily vague. It seems that material damage to biodiversity has been committed by widening of the route. o 7.34: What enforcement actions are the council taking to hold the applicant account for the impact to the Green Belt, and to dissuade the applicant (and others) from committing further damage to valued green spaces? Other What enforcement action is being taken against the applicant performing this work without first obtaining planning permission? o Points 8.2 and 8.4 of the conclusions are simply not true Yours sincerely,

I agree to the Privacy Policy