Consultation Responses

Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that it is a core principle of planning that it ‘be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings’. Paragraph 157 states that ‘critically…Local Plans should… be based on co-operation with neighbouring authorities’. However, neither local residents nor those who enjoy recreational use of the HAT15 site were consulted. Nor were a number of adjacent councils, such as St Albans City & District Council. The Local Plan has been inadequately publicised.

The NPPF states in paragraph 79: ‘The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl’. It opposes development which would lead to the ‘coalescence’ of existing settlements. The Local Plan says that such coalescence ‘can be avoided’ but gives no reasoning for that perverse assertion. In fact, the opposite is true: coalescence is highly likely as there will remain only a narrow strip of Green Belt land (1 km once SDS5 HAT1 is developed, which can only be a matter of time) and it will no doubt be argued that the intervening strip of green belt is ‘degraded’ and hence appropriate for development. By such stealth is urban sprawl created. This proposal is therefore in breach of national policy and is a blueprint for guaranteed urban sprawl which is one of the last steps towards the coalescence of Hatfield and St Albans.

The area is a greenbelt area, full of natural beauty. Myself my husband and our 2 young sons love visiting and walking through this beautiful area. It deeply saddens me that this space may not be available to them and many of the other local families in near future. Green belts were set up for a reason; to protect the encroachment of the urban into countryside, so that it is there for future generations.  The government in June 2016 stated “We have been repeatedly clear that demand for housing alone will not change Green Belt boundaries”.  I cannot see any “exceptional circumstances” to justify this proposal, and even Welwyn Hatfield’s own review found this with SKM consultants saying ” Symondshyde makes a “ significant contribution towards safeguarding the countryside and maintaining the existing settlement pattern … and contributed significantly towards two of the five purposes of the Green Belt” . I do not see how this can be ignored.