Updated  21-May-07...............                      in alphabetical order of street name

ญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

1135/2004.  8 Bell Lane, Bell Bar.  Retain garage and garden store.  This was refused in 2004 and an appeal was made.  The Inspector visited the site in April 2005 and the decision is imminent.  The appeal was dismissed.

 

1790/2004.    9 Bluebridge Road, Brookmans Park.  Demolish and erect a block of 4 flats.  In December 2005 an appeal has been upheld and permission granted for a block of 4 flats.  The Inspector said the site was not overdeveloped, but he did make a condition that upstairs windows overlooking 7 Bluebridge Rd should be obscure glass to allow privacy.

 

1696/2004.  land off Booths Close.  Erect bungalow (re-submission of S6/2002/686/.OP).  The appeal was dismissed on 10 January 2005

 

2005/618.  6 Bluebridge Road, Brookmans Park.  Change use to a children’s nursery.  Not in the Green Belt, but our objectives include protecting the amenities of the area.  This new use would most likely cause traffic congestion at this very busy section of the main road through the village, particularly at rush hour.  This application has been withdrawn in July 2005.

 

295/2005.  Raybrook Farm, Bluebridge Rd  Brookmans Park.  Demolish dwelling, erect extension to new dwelling.  We objected and it was refused by WHDC on Green Belt grounds.  An appeal has been dismissed on Green Belt grounds.

 

1790/2004.  9 Bluebridge Rd.  Demolish and erect 4 flats.  We objected as out of character and the dominant roof.   Permission was refused on 28 January 2005.  An appeal has been lodged.

 

1705/2004.  White Lodge Farm, Bulls Lane.  Convert building into residential annex. Permission was refused on 13 January 2005.

 

1741/2003. land at rear 2,2a,& 4 Dellsome Lane.  Erect new dwelling.  The appeal was dismissed on 11 January 2005.

 

1803/2004.  2 Georges Wood Road.  Demolish and erect 6 flats.  We objected, and permission was refused on 17 February 2005. An appeal was upheld and permission granted in July 2006.

 

1888/2004.  1-3 Georges Wood Rd.  Demolish & erect 2 blocks totalling 10 flats.  We objected, and permission was refused on 17 February 2005. An appeal had been made regarding the previous refusal.  The appeal has been withdrawn presumably because of the approval on 29 Sept 2005 to build 12 flats.

 

959/2005   1-3 Georges Wood Rd.  Demolish & erect 2 blocks totalling 12 flats.  We objected but permission was granted on 29 September 2005.  We have now obtained legal advice which said that we had no prospect of succeeding in bringing an action for a judicial review of that decision.  The barrister suggested that we try to get Welwyn Hatfield to carry out a character assessment of the village.  However at our December meeting we agreed that the village was too diverse for a whole village assessment.  However we have heard of a similar assessment carried out by Hertsmere Council on a few streets in Potters Bar.  We are investigating and will keep you posted.

 

1018/2005   Dhanshiree restaurant, 3 Great North Road, Brookmans Park.  Convert first floor to staff living accommodation.  We have objected as a change to residential use ion the Green Belt.  Permission has been refused on green belt grounds.

915/2005  High Dene, Great North rd, Welham Green.  Erect a 19m phone mast.  We objected as being in the Green Belt and the recent approval to increase the height of a nearby mast on Marshmoor Lane.  Permission has been refused by the council.  An appeal has been upheld in 2006 and permission granted..

 

1192/2004.  Rookery Caf้, Gt N Rd.  Car wash in car park.  Permission was refused on 29 Sept 2004. Enforcement action is being taken but it has been delayed by a change of ownership. 

 

120/2004.  Rookery Cafe, Great North Rd.  15m mobile phone mast.  On 10 December 2004 an appeal was dismissed.  However the mast has been erected so we have alerted WHDC.  We have chased up the Council about this.

 

1701/2003   Friday Grove, Hawkshead Road,  Brookmans Park  Erect a Country House.  Permission was refused and an appeal has been lodged.  This appeal has now been withdrawn.  See below regarding a new planning application.

 

2005/625.  Friday Grove, Hawkshead Road, between Brookmans Park and Little Heath.  Erect a country house.  The government policy on ‘isolated new housing’ in the countryside was updated in 2004 by the replacement of PPG7 with PPS7.  This new application is made principally under that revised policy guidance.  The re-designed house is still on the same lines as the one refused in 2004 (and subject to an appeal) but is now claimed to be fully self-sufficient in electricity, water and sewerage.  However it is still on Green Belt land and we have discovered several appeals in the last year, two for what appear to be similar designs, which were dismissed on green belt grounds.  Permission was refused by the Council in 2006.

51 Kentish Lane, Brookmans Park – also known as the ‘Footballers wives’ house.

An enforcement order has been issued to stop the house being used as the setting for this TV series.  The reason is a change of use to a dwelling and film set.  An appeal was dismissed on 22 Nov 2005 as being a change of use requiring planning permission, and nuisance to neighbours..

Mymmwood House, Shepherds Way.  A listed building where an application was refused for alterations and an extension.   The appeal was dismissed in November 2005 as out of character with the listed building.

 

466/2005/LU.  Land at Station Rd, Brookmans Park.  Use land as commercial livery stables and existing building as residence, etc.  Not a planning application as such but we have objected on Green belt grounds as inappropriate change of use.  Permission has been granted due to the proven use over 10 years for the stables and house for 4 years.

 

2005/692.  Station Road, Brookmans Park.  Orange Mobile Phone Ltd wants to increase the height of the mast from 25m to 30m in order to improve its coverage.  While we agree with mast sharing, we consider the existing mast is high enough and any increase in height would reduce the openness of the green belt. This has been approved by the council.

 

98/2005/  1 Swanland Rd, North Mymms.  Extension & loft conversion.  We commented that it was very large, and it was refused by WGDC on 23.3.05.

 

2005/21.  Paddock Farm, Warrengate Rd, Certificate of lawfulness to use mobile home and stable as residential dwelling.  We objected as being in the Green Belt and inappropriate.  Approved 10 May 2005.  A new planning application has been made in July 2005 for outline approval for a dwelling house, but has since been withdrawn.

 

1759/2003. land at end of Welham Manor.  Nine 2-bed dwellings and garages.   The appeal was dismissed on 9 February2005.

 

180/2005.  4 Welham Manor, Welham Green. Change use of adjoining land to residential and enclose with a fence.   We objected on Green Belt grounds.  Permission was refused on 13 April on Green Belt grounds and the fence would be out of character with the area.  Refused by WHDC on 13.4.05 on Green Belt grounds

 

338/2005.  Firs Cottage, Woodside Lane, Bell Bar.  Erect 2.8 high gates. In Green Belt, and we objected as too high.  Refused by WHDC in May 2005.  A gate has been erected but below the 2m maximum.

 

1360/2005.  Unit 3 Woodside Lane, Bell Bar.  Parking for up to 15 buses and coaches.   We objected on grounds of reduced amenity for neighbours.  Permission granted 31.7.06 but with restricted hours for starting and running engines, and no repairs etc to be done outside the building.

 

 

Marshmoor Bungalow, Great North Rd, Welham Green.  A new building is being erected in the rear garden.  It is about 35 feet wide, 50 feet deep and 12 feet high.  Welwyn Hatfield’s enforcement officers visited the site and found that the ridge height is over 4m high.  The site is in the Green Belt.   The council informs us that the ridge height must be reduced or a planning application made.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stansted and Luton expansion opposed in Court. 

Essex and Herts County Councils took the government to Court.  They claimed the government was trying to circumvent the planning process to push through its plan for a second runway at Stansted airport.  The councils claimed there should be a proper examination at a planning inquiry.  They also challenged the commercial viability of the ฃ4billion scheme which would increase flights from 180,000 a year to 500,000 by 2030.  The White Paper breached planning law by laying down the exact location of the runway and how many movements should be permitted.  The action also challenged the White Paper’s approval of a scheme to extend the runway at Luton airport even though the option was not included in the earlier consultation paper. 

Update Feb 2005.  The High Court decision was mixed with both sides claiming victory.  The Judge said that residents living around Stansted airport must be allowed a say on the location of the proposed second runway.  There must be further consultation on plans to extend the runway at Luton.  However he did uphold the policy stated in the Air Transport White Paper for two new runways in the region.  He threw out the challenge to the economic viability of Stansted expansion.

ญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญ

East of England Plan

East of England Plan – Public Inquiry

This started on 1st November 2005 and will go on for 3 or 4 months.   We were short-listed to speak but sadly we were not in the final list.  We are sending our written comments to the Panel.

 

See item below.  Click here for a response drafted by the Ramblers Association.  As a result of our actions, 391 people sent responses through us, and an unknown number sent their responses direct to the East of England Regional Assembly.  EERA say they received over 26,9000 responses in total. 

Sue Sida-Lockett, Chair of the East of England Regional Assembly said: “We would like to thank all individuals and organisations who took the time to respond to the draft East of England Plan. The level of responses went far beyond our expectations and we are very pleased with the interest people across the region have shown in the draft Plan. All responses will be studied and form a part of the Assembly’s final analysis of the public consultation. We would also like to thank all councils for their help in arranging and promoting the consultation exercise.”  Details are on www.eera.gov.uk.

 

 

East of England Plan (EEP) – Our Public meeting held on 21 February 2005

 

Summary of points

 

Abbreviations

EERA = East of England Regional Assembly

EEP = draft East of England Plan

HCC = Hertfordshire County Council

WH = Welwyn Hatfield

 

Introduction

EEP covers the period 2001 to 2021

EERA withdrew support for its own plan when government money was not forthcoming to fund the necessary infrastructure.

EERA paid consultants to produce a ‘sustainability appraisal report’.  This report concluded that although the great majority of the impacts were positive it would be very difficult to implement the plan.

EEP replaces County Structure Plans and will dictate future for each District.

Region is 3rd most prosperous in England after London and SE, and 28th in Europe.  EERA want to be in the top 20

 

Jobs

On current trends, there will be about 200,000 new jobs in the region.

EEP predict new 421,500 jobs in the whole region, including 55,800 Herts. There are already many job vacancies with regional unemployment at only 1.4%.  

 

Population

People want to move into region from the North & Midlands to fill job vacancies, and from London where housing is too expensive.  Immigrants arrive at airports and seaports and tend to settle near their point of first entry..

 

Housing

On current trends there will be another 420,000 dwellings in the region by 2021.  But is this sustainable?  The EEP target is 478,600. 

Herts – natural growth 66,000 (52,000 on brownfield and 14,000 on green field sites).  EEP requires 79,600 with 52,000 on brown fields and 28,000 on green field sites (25,000 on Green Belt)

EEP target for WH is 5,800 which may be achievable without building on Green Belt, due to more houses than expected on Hatfield Aerodrome.  Most Districts in Herts may meet EEP targets but not East Herts and North Herts.

Government plans to demolish 400,000 houses in the North and Midlands.

 

Transport

Many commute across Herts into London.  Major trunk roads – M1,  M11, M25,  A1(M), A14 to ports, Railways – East Coast Main Line, commuter traffic, Channel Tunnel traffic crosses Herts.  Stansted & Luton generate passenger and goods traffic across region, expansion of Stansted and Luton now set back due to High Court decision.

No money or plans for more junctions on the M11, or A1(M) widening to 3 or 4 lanes.  Railways – no intention to widen the Digswell Viaduct which is a bottleneck preventing any increase in capacity. 

 

Infrastructure

Infrastructure = Roads, public transport, offices, industry, schools, hospitals, doctors, dentists, leisure facilities, fire brigade, police, social services, waste disposal, etc.

Current deficit in funding plus funds needed for future growth.  Ion 2004 EERA bid ฃ1.5 billion for 3 years.  Same figure needed every 3 years but that will not fund the existing deficit.

Three Valleys Water will provide water supply, but at a cost.  The region is the driest in England, and the Environment Agency and water companies say it will be extremely challenging to meet future water demands

Flood plains are causing a problem as to where to develop.  Insurance companies have recently warned government that housing and other developments on flood plains will not be insurable.

 

Green Belt

Green Belt policies are acknowledged as a very successful planning policy.  Metropolitan Green Belt is 50 years old.

Over half of Hertfordshire is Green Belt.  All of WH is Green Belt except for the built-up areas (WGC, Hatfield, and the towns and villages).

Should the EEP concentrate development in Thames Gateway South Essex, north of Harlow, upper Lee Valley and Bishop’s Stortford, and west of Stevenage?  This is all Green Belt.  One alternative is smaller, scattered, development adjoining many towns and villages.  An example would be to expand Welham Green.

 

Website

 

For the latest information, visit their website www.eera.gov.uk