Your name

Your email

First Line of Address

Your Postcode

Subject

Message (Edit just as you wish)
Dear Sir/Madam Please find below my objections to planning application 22/1539/OUT. These have been updated to reflect upfront the amendments you publicised in early January 2023. RE: 22/1539/OUT – Erection of up to 195 new homes on Green Belt land South of Shenley Hill Radlett Hertfordshire – between Theobald Street and Shenley Hill Objections to the amended planning application In addition to the concerns detailed below from the original proposal, I am further concerned about the amended proposal which would remove the Theobald Street junction from the proposed development and instead have a single vehicular access route on Shenley Hill. Shenley Hill is a single carriageway, steep and winding country lane. It is the only way to access Radlett Station car park. Just beyond that turning approaching Radlett is the roundabout which is the junction between Watling Street and Shenley Hill. This is in the heart of Radlett village. Even before the addition of 195 houses from this proposal, traffic in this area is already often at a standstill and the Shenley Hill roundabout at the corner of Watling Street frequently clogs up. Funnelling all the additional traffic from these 195 homes down this single road will make a bad situation much worse. The knock-on effects of the amended proposal to local traffic would be highly disruptive and detrimental as a result of increased noise and pollution. At peak times, many drivers currently turn to alternatives when all main routes into Radlett are congested, with very substantial queues being a daily occurrence. These ‘Rat-Runs’ would be residential streets, principally Craigweil Avenue/Williams Way, but also The Drive /The Avenue. Additionally, Craigweil Avenue already suffers as a ‘Rat-Run’ for drivers travelling between Theobald Street to Shenley Hill, causing additional safety hazards for school traffic- pedestrians and parents & children attending Newberries Primary School. Everything in the proposed amended development would exacerbate these pressures. Furthermore, during peak times it would be very difficult for traffic exiting the new proposed development to turn right up the hill towards Shenley. Likewise, any traffic going up the hill from the centre of Radlett wanting to turn right into the new proposed development, would find it difficult to get past the weight of traffic going down the hill. This junction would require traffic lights to allow cars to turn towards Shenley against the weight of traffic going towards Radlett. This junction could easily become jammed in both directions with any new traffic lights themselves causing more traffic on Shenley Hill. The problems with this junction compound our existing concerns for the elderly living in the centre of the village (e.g. Slade Court, High Firs) being able to access the proposed new Red House Medical Centre in the proposed development. Today, they have easy access to the Red House Surgery which would disappear under the proposals. The relocation of the Red House Surgery to the proposed new will substantially increase the journey for all residents of Radlett to the West of Watling Street particularly those who need to travel by car. This, plus the single vehicular access to the proposed development from Shenley Hill, would in my view significantly worsen the Shenley Hill traffic with clear environmental damage increasing air and noise pollution. Both the Shenley Hill and the Theobald Street walking routes to the Watling Street shops are unsatisfactory for proposed new residents due to the narrow pavements alongside roads carrying large vehicles on the Shenley Hill bridge and the Theobald Street footway between Watling Street and the railway bridge. Similarly cycling would be difficult as there is not a cycle path and cyclists are forced to use busy roads with frequent traffic, including buses and HGVs. Recent plans announced for relevant new legislation I also note that on 5 December 2022 the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP wrote to all Conservative MPs about the forthcoming Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. I note the quotes below from the letter and believe they mean that Hertsmere Council should pause any decision on this proposed planning application until new Government legislation is in place. • Page 1: “I share the views of many colleagues about the current system. That it does not provide the right homes in the right places, and at its worst risks imposing ever more stretching housing targets that are out of touch with reality – leading to developers taking advantage through planning by appeal and speculative development.” • Page 2: “I hear from communities that they are not getting a proper say in protecting the landscapes and natural environment they cherish” • Page 2: “It will be up to local authorities, working with their communities, to determine how many homes can actually be built, taking into account what should be protected in each area – be that our precious Green Belt or national parks, the character or an area, or heritage assets.” • Page 2: “My changes will instruct the Planning Inspectorate that they should no longer override sensible local decision making, which is sensitive to and reflects local constraints and concerns.” • Page 2: “Green Belt: further clarifying our approach to date in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Localism Act, we will be clear that local planning authorities are not expected to review the Green Belt to deliver housing. This is in line with commitments made by the Prime Minister in the Summer.” My Objections to the original planning application which remain Any proposed development on this site would cause substantial pressures on the local infrastructure and therefore have a materially detrimental impact on the quality of life to the residents of Radlett. Also, to develop on, and harm the Green Belt could set a dangerous unstoppable precedent for its future protection in Hertsmere. The Green Belt has been and will always remain an important factor in the future protection of the UK and our Planet. To damage nature by its eradication is a direct contradiction of everything Governments of the World are planning for our future survival. Radlett is a village, whose location within the Green Belt has made it a unique 'London' location with the advantages of being within the M25 but a feel that is as if it is deep within separated by open countryside. To erode the buffer between Elstree, Aldenham, Shenley and Bushey would subsume the village into the surrounding conurbations, cause an already stressed and gridlocked local road system to falter even more, require substantial new utilities infrastructure, increase pollution and, most importantly, erode the trust residents have put in the Council to preserve the village and its way of life. This would be contrary to one of the key purposes of the Green Belt legislation in the NPPF. • Therefore the proposed site is exceptionally poorly located, tenuously connected to the outskirts of Radlett, with no attempt to integrate with the existing development. The site is not an infill, but an outward extension to the urban area of Radlett, eroding the valuable countryside spaces between Radlett and Borehamwood, Radlett and Shenley, and does not even achieve a continuation or extension of existing development. As such it highlights the real concerns to an overpopulated small rural village that is a popular commuter location. The existing Station Car Park is already inadequate to cope with the number of daily users as is The High Street which currently has limited availability for parking. Road disruption through the continuous laying of new cables and main services highlight the traffic congestion / pollution issues we already face. The issues listed below are a brief summary of the potential harm caused to Radlett that would be created by the proposed development. • Over-development to a small village community • Harm and inappropriate development on the Green Belt. Nowhere in the planning application is there a satisfactory justification of the “exceptional” circumstances that are required to reclassify Green Belt land to land suitable for residential development. • Substantial loss of High Value Grade 2 Agricultural Land Complete loss of 8ha, Grade 3 agricultural land, in regular annual food production:- sheep grazing in Winter/Spring, grass fodder for animals, Summer / Autumn • Infrastructure Issues resulting in additional traffic congestion to the already inadequate road system in, out and through Radlett. Morning rush hour queues on Theobald Street and Shenley Hill typically extend for over a mile in length already at peak times. • Pressures on the existing mains water, sewerage, electricity and gas infrastructure • With no local secondary school, there would be pressure on the availability of places at the nearest secondary schools, both now and in the future. (There are already enough primary school places in Radlett.) • GP surgery changes leading to issues: After the Radlett Red House GP surgery move proposed as part of the Green Belt development plan, the sick and elderly will be faced with a dangerous walk or would need to drive down Theobald Street to get to their GP, missing out on interaction with friends in the High Street. Many live close currently to the GP (e.g. Slade Court, High Firs) and will not welcome this move. The reduction in visitors to the high street businesses on the way to see their doctor would also have significant negative environmental / social impact. • Medical centre proposals: Without guaranteed funding in place, there’s no guarantee that a Medical Centre would materialise. In any event, the proposed location outside and well beyond the boundary of the population to be served, with all the additional vehicle trips that would be entailed, is unsustainable. • A substantial increase in vehicle journeys generated by the additional housing would cause additional Air Pollution resulting from vehicle exhausts. greenhouse gases. resulting in considerable carbon dioxide pollution. The pollution caused by idling traffic is now recognised as one of the major causes of lifelong respiratory illness. A new study has now linked traffic pollution with the increase in cases of Dementia. The traffic caused by this development will be mainly idling during the times of the day that many local residents walk to the schools in the area. • No direct, dedicated, upgraded access for pedestrians and cyclists to Radlett station is proposed. • Increased Noise Pollution • Loss of visual amenity and outlook to neighbouring adjoining properties, many of which have shorter rear gardens • Harm to the local wildlife and protected species. the proposed site is listed on the Hertsmere Policies Map 2021-2027 as a Local Wildlife Site • The development’s proposed access road would impact on a listed Hertsmere Wildlife Site and the bluebell wood which lies alongside Theobald Street. This would affect movement of all land animals, deer, badgers, foxes etc] • Destruction of a Regionally Important Geological Site as listed in the above Policies Map • Continued disruption to local residents over a long development period • The Application states that 40% of the development will constitute affordable housing. However, given the elevated level of property prices in Radlett, offering properties at a 20% discount to market norms will not make it “affordable” in the true sense of the word. • The Government’s position is not to allow development on the Green Belt. • Local MP Oliver Dowden quoted on 27th July 2022 “ I do not think it is appropriate for developments to be approved on sites included in the original draft plan – comprehensively rejected by residents earlier this year. Priority must be given to protecting our green spaces while the council works to put together a more sustainable plan for development in the borough” To confirm, application was site was R3 in the shelved Draft Local Plan. • Opportunities for local employment for new residents would be very limited. Hertsmere’s main employment areas are Borehamwood, Bushey and Potters Bar. Most of these points and more were made in response to the Hertsmere Draft Local Plan which was withdrawn in the face of unprecedented levels of objection from local residents earlier this year. The proposals in respect of this site reiterated above (designated “R3” in the Draft Local Plan) were near-identical. Furthermore, in the “Interim Report of comments made on the draft Hertsmere Local Plan (September 2021) during the Regulation 18 Public Engagement” released by Hertsmere Council in April 2022 the report noted that “The majority of comments received were not supportive of development on the site……..Loss of Green Belt was the focus of many objections…..Residents also highlighted the loss of and impact on the open countryside, wildlife habitats…….”. Many more relevant objections were made (see pages 69-70 of the Report). Objections to the proposals for Site R3 and other sites in the Green Belt development were submitted by Aldenham Parish Council, Elstree and Borehamwood Green Belt Society, Radlett Society and Green Belt Association and Shenley Parish Council. In conclusion it is clear that there is massive local objection to development on this site and permission to do so should be refused. Finally, there are other previously developed locations (Brownfield sites) that could be used first if a small number of local new homes were a necessity. I consider that it is vitally particularly important to maintain the existing separation boundaries to prevent a Radlett – Shenley – Aldenham – Borehamwood urban sprawl! I would consider that if you erroneously in my view decide to approve this application, that under The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England)Direction 2021 this application must then be notified to The Secretary of State. I would them expect and campaign strongly to that effect, that our MP Oliver Dowden would deliver on his commitment ( as stated above ) to oppose Green Belt development by contacting The Secretary of State. Therefore I strongly oppose, in principle to the outline proposals in 22/1539/OUT and urge the Council to refuse the application. Yours sincerely

I agree to the Privacy Policy