In road name order. Updated 21 May 2007
Folly Arch, Hawkshead Road, Little Heath - Update 1 Nov 2001 - The Parish Council have been advised by the owner of the Arch that the cracking has not got worse, and work will commence next Spring. This is the first definite date to be given by the owner.
'English Heritage offered a substantial grant to the owners in November 2000. This was accepted in February 2001, and we were expecting a start to be made in Spring or Summer; Winter not being an appropriate time for such repairs.
As there appeared to be no further developments, we wrote to the owners in June, and I followed this with a personal approach to them. I am advised that negotiations have just been concluded with Welwyn Hatfield District Council in connection with the eff ect of the adjoining trees on the stability of the structure. There have also been negotiations with the building contractors over the additional scope of the works. The contractors had been formally engaged in September 1999 to carry out a more limited scheme of work, but as they began to set up their site equipment, further displacement of the structure took place, indicating a need for more extensive repairs, and greater expenditure.
As their contract could not be cancelled without incurring a financial penalty, the professional advisors have been engaged in agreeing a price with them for the additional work. Should this exercise prove unsuccessful, the work will be competitively tendered again. Nevertheless, the intention is to commence and complete t he work before this Winter. The appointment of the contractors in 1999 shows commitment and I am hopeful that the current intention will be realised. I shall remain in contact with the owners and their advisors. '
Background information re Folly Arch
In November 1998 a crack appeared in the Arch and we notified Welwyn Hatfield Council and English Heritage. A meeting was held on 14 July (1999?) between English Heritage's architect and engineer, the owner's engineer and a representative of Welwyn Hatfield Council to agree the course of action now that costs of the new scheme of repairs had been received. These had been drawn up in conjunction with the Building Research Establishment. In August 1999 the crack got bigger and a large iron beam and 4 jacks were put in place to give temporary support to the curved part of the arch. In 2000 a second major crack appeared. We were told that should work not start soon, the Arch would be monitored to ensure that the supports remained adequate pending the start of work.
Early in October 1999 we heard from EH and WHC, and the owner has written to North Mymms Parish Council. They said approval of the EH grant was imminent, which would enable the owner to carry out the necessary work, costing more than £100,000. In October 2000 another major crack appeared in the central span, and the right hand tower was visibly leaning back i.e. to the north. We wrote several times to Welwyn Hatfield Council and English Heritage, urging that remedial work be done a.s.a.p.
In December 2000 we wrote yet again to English Heritage to find out what was happening. We half expected the Arch to blow down in the recent high winds. In June 2001 we heard that English Heritage had approved the grant and repairs would take place when the recent wet weather allows. In October 2001 the cracks appear to be getting bigger, a possible indication of further movement of the right-hand tower.
gypsy owner of Swan Yard,
appeal was dismissed against refusal of a planning application for a house on
the site. The current appeal was also rejected on the same grounds, that
it would be out of keeping with the generally more spacious pattern of
In considering the second appeal, for a gypsy site, the Inspector considered that the appellant - Mr Johnson - fell within the statutory definition of a gypsy at the time of the Inquiry i.e. 'persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin' (Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960). Various Court judgements have interpreted this to mean that a gypsy may have a permanent place of residence yet travel for the purpose of making or seeking a livelihood.
804/2000 - Charcoal Meadows, Dixons Hill Close, North Mymms - application for a pet cemetery - a curious one since cemeteries are a permitted use of Green Belt land. However we consider that a pet cemetery is a commercial venture, and have objected to this application on those grounds (no pun intended!). UPDATE 28 August - planning application turned down by the Council
513/2000 - land at rear 45 Dixons Hill Close - erect livery stables - Green Belt land so we have objected to this commercial use. Application approved by the Council 25 August 2000
28/2000- Moat Farm. Dixons Hill Close, North Mymms - cert of lawfulness for existing use of agricultural barn for breeding and housing exotic birds - we have objected to this change of use from agricultural use, which is permitted in the Green Belt, to a commercial use.
361/2000 - land at rear
land to rear of 148-150 Dixons Hill Rd, Welham Green Hatfield - site for residential development - S6/2000/381/OP - this is Green Belt land so we have objected.UPDATE 27 May 2000 - application refused by the Council.
This application is in accordance with the approved Master Plan for the site, we have no grounds for objection. See 753/99 on Objections and comments- 1999 for details of the last application. Local residents were to have met on Thursday 13 July, but did not, but we had supplied information. We have asked for confirmation that these dishes will not exceed the National Radiological Protection Board licence - we expect they will be within the limit, but we will feel happier with confirmation. UPDATE 13.8.200 - this reply has been received from the applicant, Castle Communications via Welwyn Hatfield Council. A copy of it is available for public inspection at the Council - reference S6/2000/904/FP
Introduction. There have been objections from local residents with particular reference to the current planning application for 4 new satellite dishes , 2 of 9.3m, 1 of 6.3m and 1 of 3.8m diameter. These objections are, I believe, based on fears of perceived unproven health risks and fears of increased interference to domestic electronic equipment and telephones. This explanation seeks to show that the satellite dish installations should not be adding to these fears.
The nature of the transmissions from satellite dishes is that the frequencies used are very much higher, and thus well removed from the medium wave band. On that score they would be unlikely to interfere with domestic equipment. However, the satellite dish emits and receives on a very narrow beam, rather like a very narrow searchlight beam, to pin-point the satellite many thousands of miles away. The transmitter power is a fraction of the broadcast transmitters. Also the dishes are elevated upwards and thus the beam is way above people and houses.
There will be no increase in interference to domestic equipment due to the installation of satellite dishes.
Health. The guidelines of the National Radiological Protection Board are followed at all times. i.e. levels of radio frequency energy are well below NRPB recommended levels in areas to which people have access.
What is worth emphasising is as stated above under "Interference", i.e. the very narrow beam used by the satellite dish ensures that any radio energy is directed well away from people and buildings.
How Many Dishes on the Site? The "commercial" answer is as many as possible but only within the area defined below (see 'Master Strategy'). A submitted planning application is the result of an enquiry from a potential operator and does not necessarily mean more dishes. Before any agreement can be catered into that operator needs to know if planning permission would be granted. If it is, then the operator has a 5 year option to build those dishes. This may or may not happen. Additionally, there are physical limitations in that a dish must not obstruct the beam of another dish.
Master Strategy. In 1993 a "Master Strategy for future development of the site was drawn up and agreed with the Planning Authority (Welwyn Hatfield Council). Briefly, this will restrict the installation of satellite (or any other aerials) to a north - south strip some 110 metres wide, at the rear (east) of the site. This leaves the whole of the front of the site, from the A1000 road and inw ards to a depth of about 200 metres, clear of any future development. The area of the site for future satellite dish installation is restricted to a strip of land at the rear of the site.
Landscaping A landscaping scheme has also been agreed with the Local Authority. This involves the planting of several strips of trees and bushes right across the site between the "dish area" and the public roads, together with re-enforcing existing and the planting o f new hedgerows. Extensive planting scheme is ongoing in consultation with the Planning Authority.
of Wildlife and Grazing. The woodland area in the north
field by the public footpath is preserved under the agreed Master Strategy.
Thus the wildlife therein is flourishing. All other unused areas of grassland
are fenced and used for grazing animals. Existing
Written by George Bath, Castle Communications International.
western end of
late February residents of
Hawkshead Lane from the junction with
Warrengate Road from 5m. east of the
Warrengate Road from 10m. north of
Bradmore Lane from the junction with
etc. at Welwyn Hatfield Council, Council Offices, WGC, and
39/2000 - Royal Vet College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms - new learning
resource centre, reception, admin offices, new vehicular access and car parking
- this proposal is within the area designated as a major development site
in the Council District Plan, so we have no objections as such. However we are
concerned at the likely increase in traffic particularly when viewed in
conjunction with the proposed large animal clinical centre. The Council have
advised of traffic calming proposals for
771/2000 - land at
& 1046/99 - build new house on land at
rear of 2 &