For more information on how to object, and to sign a petition against building on more local meadows, see https://www.change.org/p/save-hitchin-green-belt/u/31227129

The post Last chance to object to application to build on green belt at edge of Hitchin appeared first on North Herts & Stevenage Green Party.

We support this proposal as one of the measures needed to combat the climate emergency and the UK’s aim to reach net zero by 2050. Without such developments this legal target will not be met and it is clear that the government is already falling behind the necessary trajectory to reach that target. Many more such developments are urgently needed and a rapid step change in our approach to decarbonising our energy provision is called for to avoid a catastrophe for our future generations.

Whilst we campaign and wait for national policy to change and make it more feasible for rooftop solar panels to be installed on as many roofs as possible, the scale of electricity production required by the national grid for industry, heating of legacy housing stock and the increased use of electric vehicles means that large scale solar and wind farms are also essential to meet predicted local demand as we abandon fossil fuels.

One element which is missing from the proposal is any tangible benefit to the community to offset the concerns raised both during the consultation and now noted in the objections. There is no benefit in terms of cheaper electricity, nor has any consideration been given to other ways of letting those living close to the development benefit from measures such as offering shares in the company or rewarding the local community by future-proofing the least energy inefficient homes by retro-fitting super insulation.

As for our recommended conditions these are primarily centred on screening and biodiversity net gain. With respect to screening a wider buffer zone should be established around the site allowing low level scrub to develop with tree planting around the periphery to form more substantial areas of woodland. This latter would go some way to add additional screening to that already proposed by the developers. It is our view that the screening scheme currently proposed by the developers is inadequate especially since many of the objections raised relate to disruption of views of the undulating landscape.

The developers claim the change from arable land to a solar farm will produce habitats that increase biodiversity.  This can only be achieved over a significant time scale once trees have grown and grasslands and hedgerows have become established.  For this to be successful, careful and long-term management of the site is essential including initial irrigation of new plantings and should be undertaken without the use of pesticides or herbicides.  As others have noted, a long-term management plan for site is a required component of the application. The proposed regulations for Biodiversity Net Gain require a management plan to extend for a minimum of 30 years and include monitoring, reporting and enforcement.

In addition, we regard it essential that the status of the land as agricultural land should be retained through the lifetime of the project so that when the site is decommissioned, the land is still available for agricultural use. For this to be ensured there should be an extremely robust condition securing complete reinstatement of the site. This should include the removal of all components of the project both if the site is upgraded with more efficient solar panels at some time in the future and when the site is decommissioned. Given the anticipated 40-year Iifetime of the project, changes of ownership and in commercial viability may affect the ability of the parties to execute proper rehabilitation and removal of waste from the site. It is therefore recommended that developers/landowners are required to put up security against the costs of default on this obligation. In the event of changes of ownership this liability should move with title.

The post NH&S GP statement on PACE Tophams Solar Planning Application for land off Ashwell Road, North of Bygrave, 22/00741/FP appeared first on North Herts & Stevenage Green Party.

Wrights Farm Working Group and Wild About Pirton have started an online petition to Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) to work with them in order to restore the chalk and spring meadows at the former farm.

In 2019, HCC submitted plans for four dwellings on the land of Wright Farm in Pirton, which were rejected by North Herts Council’s (NHC) planning committee. HCC appealed which again was rejected by the Planning Inspector. A Freedom of Information request by Pirton residents has revealed that HCC have already spent more than £100K on planning this undertaking and are still set to start again with a new planning consultant, spending even more of taxpayers money to go ahead with building on the chalk stream meadow on the site. Wrights Farm used to be a working farm, latterly for equestrian use, and is owned by HCC. After the demolition of existing farm buildings the site has been left derelict for 5 years now, earning the council no rent. 

The rejected plan would destroy the chalk spring meadow by draining it. It would also see housing built in an area outside of the village boundary. The Wrights Farm Working Group and Wild About Pirton are campaigning to restore the meadow to its former state and for the chalk stream to be protected.  They have started a petition on the HCC website asking for the council to stop ignoring the legitimate concerns of the village’s residents and work with them to safeguard the future of this unique environment. In their latest sustainability strategy HCC has identified to goal to improve biodiversity on their land by 20 per cent by 2030 and improve wildlife in our land and water by 20 per cent by 2050. Restoring the unique meadows of Wright Farm to their true potential would be a crucial step in the right direction.

I and North Herts & Stevenage Green Party support the petition and ask you to please do the same: https://democracy.hertfordshire.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=1117&fbclid=IwAR3iTf2viIp-VRD-hx2PFlmEs_A6bEP7UtOyYjdLazxUNrT-uyKg0D6cvEA

Anni Sander

Green Campaigner Hitchin & Rural

Please note:

This petition is hosted on the Hertfordshire County Council website. There’s a known issue that this site is blocked for users from time to time. If you find it is blocked when trying to access please contact their Democratic Services officer viaTheresa.Baker@hertfordshire.gov.uk

The post Petition to restore a chalk stream meadow appeared first on North Herts & Stevenage Green Party.

22/00516/FP | Erection of nine detached dwellings (2 x 3-bed, 1 x 4-bed and 6 x 5-bed) including garaging, parking, landscaping and creation of vehicular access off Gray’s Lane. | Land To The West Of Lucas Lane And East Of Headlands Grays Lane Hitchin Hertfordshire SG5 2HR (UPRN: 010023328769)

North Herts & Stevenage Green Party, object to this planning application (Planning Ref: 22/00516/FP) on the following grounds:

1. Lack of ‘exceptional’ grounds to warrant destruction of Green Belt land – Hitchin Green Belt is only to be breached in “exceptional circumstances” – no such circumstances exist!

2. Destruction of established hedgerows and trees which provide valuable habitats, food and cover for wildlife.

3. Destruction of wildlife corridor habitat for a wide variety of wildlife including bats, birds, insects, and large mammals.

4. Vandalizing the woodland area by making a pathway plus isolating animal populations into smaller less viable pockets. This is in contravention of the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) reference number: 00199 (2020) and the site’s identification as a preserved wildlife habitat.

5. Destruction of established uncultivated meadow and the fungal ecosystem within the undisturbed soil layers.  The meadowland is a haven for insects, like grasshoppers which cannot live in cultivated fields.
6. There is no requirement nor provision to ensure that all local top soil, the “arisings”, is re-used in the same area and fields, even though it was reported that “the natural soils on this site are considered to be suitable to be re-used on site for landscaping purposes” in the Grounds Investigation report.
7. The nine large homes and adjacent garages proposed appear to be designed to meet dated building standards that do nothing for Climate Change mitigation demanded locally, nationally and globally. There is no suggestion that they would be net zero dwellings built to Passivhaus or equivalent standards. UK properties are the least efficient in Europe, and with ever rising prices of gas, electricity, water, transport, these homes offer nothing to solve those problems. Thus, adding to all the homes that will need to be retro-fitted by 2050. For example: no roof design and orientation to maximise solar energy harvesting.
8. These expensive houses are not needed in Hitchin, they are not affordable to build and live-in housing to meet the needs of local young people, to continue to live in the town they were born in and also hopefully work in.
9. This application appears to be a means to facilitate a subsequent application for a larger development on the adjacent field. The current application involves creating a tarmac access point to that adjacent field, despite there being no obvious purpose of this in the application 22/00516/FP. Consequently, it is feared that this development would be the first of others nearby on adjacent fields of up to 58 dwellings. Permitting this development would set precedent for further development within the Hitchin Green Belt, leading to the loss of the entire Green Belt along Hitchin’s western periphery. Such an outcome would represent a severe loss of habitat and biodiversity as well as increasing pollution and congestion in Gray’s Lane and completely transforming the area.
10. Safety of the right of way access for the Bridle Way and Crow Furlong – used by many families and people for leisure. This development and road junction would cause a serious hazard and danger to walkers, runners, cyclists and horse riders who use it constantly, and the Byway open to all traffic (BOAT) which allows access to the farmland, Ducklands Cottage, and Oughtonhead Farm where the Garden Gate cafe is.
11. Increase in traffic and therefore pollution from the extra residents. There has already been an increase in traffic to the cricket / hockey club and adjacent new estate. There is also concern for those living in the area due to the disruption and damaging impact of the lorries servicing the sites during their construction period.

12. An increased number of homes will also increase the numbers of local children needing to attend local schools, and they are already oversubscribed, thus resident children will need to rely on private transport out of the area causing extra pollution and congestion just to have access to education.

13. There is no public transport provision on offer to reduce the need for private transport to the existing homes in the area, and all the homes proposed (initially 9 but 58 eventually) would make the congestions and air pollution problems on A505 past the end of Gray’s Lane so much worse, to exacerbate the existing health damaging present situation.

14. It has been proven that walking in the countryside is good for our physical and mental wellbeing; councils need to provide and value those green spaces close to and for the local population.

15. Local amenities are already oversubscribed including schools, doctors’ surgeries, dentists, nurseries and children’s clubs – these nine homes growing to 58 would increase the burden on services.
16. The needs of the local community would be better served if the councils focused on promoting the restoration of all empty and derelict properties and promoting the in-fill of brownfield sites.

In the year of Her Majesty’s 70^th anniversary, when the country is being asked to celebrate her long service with planting trees to create a “Green canopy” this undisturbed land adjacent to hedgerows and other small woodlands nearby offer just the right sort of opportunity and location to invite tree planting to join-up the woodland areas into a real clean-air lung for the town and local area This land should be purchased for the town, and become a focal point of pride, and a local area where Hitchin’s citizens can be invited to “plant trees for the future”, and encourage the natural corridor connection to Oughtonhead Lane and Oughtonhead Common.  In the long term these areas could become a valuable natural carbon capture resource for us all and move us towards the national Net Zero target.   If so far this land has not been developed, that is indeed a valuable reason for not contaminating it now with human material, and damaging it forever.

We feel strongly that this application for planning permission should be declined. Slowly the open spaces to which Hitchin residents have access are disappearing.  Nearly all the land is either intensively farmed or managed as a nature reserves/amenity areas/parkland providing access but as such limit the quantity and diversity of undisturbed land available to living creatures.

We need to preserve and protect Hitchin’s Green Spaces. Once that Green Belt Site is built upon it is lost forever.

Deolinda Eltringham – membership officer for NH&SGP

The post Green Party objects to another development on Hitchin’s Green Belt appeared first on North Herts & Stevenage Green Party.

The North Herts and Stevenage Green Party objects to this proposal primarily on the grounds that it represents urban sprawl, unjustified encroachment into the Green Belt, does not appear to make use of renewable energy sources and lacks credible biodiversity gain.

Urban Sprawl – A super conurbation

This outline planning proposal is for 700 residential units to be built on 37ha of Green Belt and represents the penultimate step in the enlargement of Hitchin to the point where it joins Letchworth, combining Baldock, Letchworth and Hitchin to form a super conurbation: Just one more field to go. No boundary and no distinction between where one town ends and the other starts. Preventing urban sprawl was supposed to be the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt.

The developers, Shanners Ltd, formerly Bellcross Homes, already own the site and allege that the existing Walsworth residential area as 2 km from Letchworth and that the planned development would be no closer. In fact, the red line shown above, adjacent to the A505, measures less than 1 km and the northern end of the proposed development would be just 700 metres from the outskirts of Letchworth: Just one field away.

A far better use of the land would be to plant trees so that it became part NHDC Queen’s Green Canopy marking the Platinum Jubilee. It would form a green lung for the towns, a natural recreation area and a green woodland corridor between Hitchin and Letchworth.

Loss of Green Belt

Described as ‘a discrete piece of land’ by the developers, the block of land in question is marked in white above. At first sight, it might seem logical to fill in the gap between the railway, Stotfold Road and the existing residential area of Walworth. In fact, this proposal represents further urban encroachment into the invaluable Green Belt.

The National Planning Policy Framework guidance on Green Belt provides comprehensive guidance

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/13-protecting-green-belt-land

The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

Green Belt serves 5 purposes:

(a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

(b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

(c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

(d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

(e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

The Government website  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt offers the following guidance on factors to be taken in to account when considering development on the Green Belt

• openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects – in other words, the visual impact of the proposal may be relevant, as could its volume;
• the duration of the development, and its remediability – taking into account any provisions to return land to its original state or to an equivalent (or improved) state of openness; and
• the degree of activity likely to be generated, such as traffic generation.

This proposal fails on each count; it would remove the openness, there is no prospect of ever returning the land to its original state and additional housing is inevitably associated with additional traffic. 

 Building Standards  – Net Zero

The NHDC Climate Change Strategy Appendix A Proposed Actions 2021 – 2026 talks of inspiring the community and promoting zero carbon construction. For land sold by the Council, all developments should be required to be built to Passivhaus, BREEAM or similar standards. There seems no reason for the planning authority not to insist that developers build to the same standard on their own land. The developers claim to be working towards Zero Carbon as set out in the paragraph below:-

2.1.6 Facilitating a move towards zero carbon through a reduction in trips made by car, the use of site wide and building specific renewable energy technologies, energy efficient buildings, sustainable management of water and waste, measures to address overheating, use of EV charging infrastructure and innovative approaches to reducing carbon emissions through the planning, design and construction of the development.

However, the design of the houses described in the so-called Master plan is predicated on the precedent of Hitchin housing stock, primarily red brick and white render. In other words, it seems to be more of the same low efficiency housing stock, typical of too many UK homes.  Given the timescale anticipated for the development, gas boilers are unlikely to meet new building standards expected to be in force after 2025. No PV cells are evident in any of the artist’s impressions for each neighbourhood, and while most houses are depicted without chimney stacks, this is not universal. Chimneys should be not feature in any of the new builds to avoid PM2.5 emissions from open fires and wood burners potentially adding to levels in Hitchin already exceeding WHO guidelines. No mention is made of ground source or air source heat pumps.  Overall, the statement above (2.1.6) lacks credibility.

Biodiversity Gain

Of the 37ha of the site 19.5ha are proposed for residential buildings and 12.5ha for blue/green infrastructure as shown in the table below.

This in turn is used to evidence biodiversity gain of 15.4% and 63% respectively for habitats and trees and hedgerows. Based on the figures offered by the developers, this equates to 24% gain overall. The 2021 Environment Act requires a minimum 10% biodiversity gain for new developments although there is a two-year grace period until these provisions are applied in full. Nevertheless, it is understood that some planning authorities are already making use of them. There is also a government consultation currently underway https://consult.defra.gov.uk/defra-net-gain-consultation-team/consultation-on-biodiversity-net-gain-regulations/ so it is very likely that these regulations will be subject to review. For example, one area to be considered is whether under the current regulations, small areas of habitat such as gardens of new houses can be added together to generate an apparent increase in biodiversity units. Clearly gardens should not be equated to open fields. In any event, it is extremely difficult to believe that open countryside replaced by housing, interspersed with manicured areas of greenery, will provide the levels of biodiversity gain claimed. In particular, the openness, which supports migratory birds, and the connectivity between the various green spaces is certain to be compromised, especially for large mammals.

In conclusion this proposal represents further erosion of the Green Belt for which no evidence of the exceptional circumstances required to permit such development has been offered.

The post Green Party objects to Highover housing development appeared first on North Herts & Stevenage Green Party.

The North Herts and Stevenage Green Party supports this proposal in principle but believes it needs both significant revision and the application of binding conditions if the application is to be approved.

We support this proposal as one of the measures needed to combat the climate emergency and the UK’s aim to reach net zero by 2050.  Without such developments this legal target will not be met and it is clear that the government is already falling behind the necessary trajectory to reach that target.  Many more such developments are urgently needed and a rapid step change to our approach to decarbonising our energy provision is called for.  Any step change to the socio-economic system is by its very nature disruptive and uncomfortable but to avoid a catastrophe for our future generations, a certain amount of discomfort must be endured now.  While rooftop Photovoltaic (PV) arrays may seem attractive and may be feasible for many large new builds, the long periods required for return on investment and potential changes in ownership within that time scale means that commercial exploitation of such approaches may not be viable.  In addition, while rooftop systems may meet the electricity demands of individual buildings, the scale of electricity production required by the national grid for industry, heating of legacy housing stock and the increased use of electric vehicles means that large scale solar and wind farms are also essential to meet predicted demand as we abandon fossil fuels.

Solar farms provide electricity to the grid where there is spare capacity and this is directly linked to the demand from centres of population.  The site location has the benefit of proximity to the Great Wymondley substation to access the grid and minimise transmission losses.  Its siting adjacent to the A1(M) could also be advantageous for future technological developments.  Although not yet widely developed, technology exists to charge ‘on the go’ with cabling below the road surface which could be of particular value as heavy goods vehicles go electric.

As for our recommended conditions these are primarily centred on environmental net gain.  As proposed, we consider the development is far too dense to allow the necessary benefits to the environment and biodiversity to be achieved.  Plants under the arrays will not receive sufficient sunlight to flourish and so, to achieve the desired level of net gain, blocks of the solar arrays need to be broken by open passages to allow the establishment of a wild-flower meadowland to develop in between the arrays supporting natural flora and fauna.  Similarly, a wider buffer zone should be established around the site allowing low level scrub to develop with tree planting around the periphery to form more substantial areas of woodland.  This latter would go some way to add additional screening to that proposed by the developers.  It is our view that the scheme currently proposed by the developers is inadequate and should be significantly improved.

The developers claim the change from arable land to a solar farm will produce habitats that massively increase biodiversity; 203% net gain for the site and 90% for new hedgerows.  This can only be achieved over a significant time scale and not until the newly planted trees have grown and the proposed grasslands and hedgerows have become established.  For this to be successful, irrigation of new plantings (especially in drought periods) will be required initially and should be followed by careful and long-term management of the site, undertaken without the use of pesticides or herbicides. Details of the plant management plan for the site should be a required component of the application.

Existing public Rights of Way pass adjacent to the proposed site and it is noted that screening has been proposed to minimise visibility of the site from the Hertfordshire Way, a long distance footpath.  The cycle way from Letchworth to Graveley, part of NCN Route 12 (Route 12 – Sustrans.org.uk) runs along the north-east perimeter of the site and is in a poor state of repair.  The developer should be asked to upgrade this cycle path to a reasonable standard.

In addition, we regard it essential that the status of the land as agricultural land should be retained through the lifetime of the project so that when the site is decommissioned, the land remains available for agricultural use.  For this to be ensured there should be an extremely robust condition securing complete reinstatement of the site, including the removal of all elements of the project when the site is decommissioned.  Given the anticipated 40 year lifetime of the project, changes of ownership and commercial viability may affect the ability of the parties to execute proper rehabilitation and removal of waste from the site.  In the event of changes of ownership this liability should move with title.   It is therefore recommended that developers/landowners are required to put up security against the costs of default on this obligation.

Overall, the North Herts & Stevenage Green Party welcomes projects like this into our community but insists they should be well designed for optimised local community benefits in all inter-related aspects.

The post North Herts Green Party comments on Solar Farm Proposal appeared first on North Herts & Stevenage Green Party.

Article submitted by Kruna Vukmirovic

North Herts District District Council (NHDC) wants to permit building on selected sites within the Green Belt because of the ever increasing need for new housing. As outlined in its Local Plan 2011 -2031, NHDC enables the delivery of 14,560 new homes from 2011 to 2031. This includes building 1065 new homes  on five Green Belt sites in and around Hitchin, including planned developments in St Ippolytes and Ickleford,  and further 2100 new dwellings on the Green Belt around Cockernhoe, called ‘East of Luton’.

The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework  promotes sustainable development and it states that Green Belt boundaries should be altered only where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified. Alarmingly, the low number of new houses in North Hertfordshire is deemed to be such an exceptional circumstance: NHDC refused to grant permission for 160 new houses on Green Belt land outside Codicote, but this decision has now been overruled by a planning inspector, stating that the district’s housing need was so extreme as to justify the ‘moderate-significant harm’ being done to the open countryside.

Building on Green Belt will lead to destruction of the areas of  biodiversity and wildlife habitat in the affected areas and subsequent  increase in noise and air pollution due to the increased traffic. If accepted, these development proposals will lead to further erosion of the Green Belt areas in the future.

North Herts and Stevenage Party opposes the unsustainable development that leads to reduced Green Belt land.

Save our Green Belt campaign: https://save-our-green-belt.org/

Article about the Codicote ruling: https://www.thecomet.net/news/local-council/green-belt-homes-for-codicote-8396576

The post Protect our GReen Belt appeared first on North Herts & Stevenage Green Party.

In 2018 an application to develop a concrete batching plant at Rush Green Farm in Langley, on the
B656 between Hitchin and Codicote was approved. I have been opposed to this development since
the beginning along with a huge number of local citizens, but it seemed to slip through relatively
unnoticed. It started with a vague and poorly publicised ‘consultation’, which many residents
didn’t even receive. Indeed, when I raised this issue again locally in 2019, many residents still
were unaware the concrete batching plant had even been proposed, let alone the fact they had
missed their opportunity to enjoy their democratic right to voice their opinion. In spite of this
consultation reaching fewer people than it should, the application still managed to generate 198
responses on the NHDC planning applications website page; 191 public and 7 private, including our
local MP, and all of them objecting strongly.

Somehow, it still passed – a fact local Councillors still have trouble explaining today.

This is not a NIMBY problem. Clearly there are the very real local issues: adding an additional 50+
HGVs per day to the congested B656, which is already at breaking point at rush hours through
Codicote and near the Three Moorhens roundabout in Hitchin, with its related problem of air
pollution (official air quality monitoring records illegal levels of emissions here on a regular basis).
There is also the dust and particulate hazard to road safety and public health, flood risk and the
very real threat to our precious local chalk aquifer from toxic run off from onsite waste water and
materials (there are only 160 chalk streams worldwide, 120 in England – they must be protected),
not to mention the huge amount of water demanded to run a thirsty concrete batching plant,
drawn from a local water supply already struggling to manage local requirements. The plant will
only employ seven people and will not benefit the local community in any way – it is purely a
money maker for the huge cement giant Breedon Ltd, trying to take advantage of outdated local
building regulations, for future housing developments which are known to have been
overestimated and are currently under review.

However, for many of us it’s more of a NOOP problem – Not On Our Planet! We are currently in a
climate emergency situation and supposed to be preparing for a Net Zero emissions UK by 2050. If
the cement industry were a country, it would be the third highest emitter on the planet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46455844

There is a huge push towards cleaner and more environmentally friendly building methods and
surely, we all have to support this transition, by phasing out the old and welcoming in the new.
There is plenty of local access to concrete for those projects still using the old way, we do not need
to increase availability. If we are to have new construction material plants, they must be using new
technologies and producing environmentally friendly building products, not the outdated Portland
cement which is proposed to come out of this development.

I continue to object to this project regularly, both at zoom meetings and by email. Work has
started on the preparations and as I cycle past daily on my way to work, it jabs me like a thorn in
my side. There are still many unanswered questions on the environmental assessment and
ecological mitigations; surface water issues; construction methods and management of
construction traffic. The permission was granted with many conditions and I have been assured
through email communications with the officers involved with the project that these conditions
are being monitored. However, there is no information forthcoming as to how or when the
conditions are being assessed, and the qualifications of the person tasked with decision making on
such an important issue. These questions still remain unanswered, but I am determined to be a
voice in the background reminding them that the local community is concerned and expects the best protection from our local council. I still naively hope that one day very soon someone brave
will stand up in the council offices and question this before it goes too far, with the evidence of
increasingly frightening predictions of serious climate breakdown as sufficient reason to halt
projects that do further harm.

The post Concrete Batching appeared first on North Herts & Stevenage Green Party.

Apart from the already suggested DART line – a light railway line, which would link Luton Station with the airport – the plans include a new terminal building, more parking spaces, business facilities, additional access roads, and other additional airport facilities. The airport would nearly double in size, swallowing up land that is currently home to the award winning Wigmore Park.

The much loved park would be partly destroyed and replaced with a new open space in the Green Belt further east. Although the plans mention new conservation measures, like nesting facilities a move like this will of course mean the destruction of a mature nature reserve. Clearly any resettlement will mean great disruption to the wildlife in the area, not to mention the loss of mature trees and shrubs.

Additional passengers would of course mean additional air traffic over Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. The flight path to the east goes straight over the villages of southern rural Hitchin and the town of Stevenage. Air traffic flight paths will need to be spread thus affecting more people more severely. More aircraft using the single runway will put the airport at a greater risk of disruption meaning planes queueing for longer, circling in the air space above us.

The plans presented by LLAL mention an additional 200 households that will be affected significantly by increased noise disruption. With more planes in the air, aircraft will be forced to fly lower than ever before, bringing more disruption to more areas in the Three Counties area.

An 80% increase in flights will also bring a significant increase in air pollution. The fumes from the engines will not only be more concentrated in the areas that are already close to airport and flight paths, but will be spread more widely, due to multiplication of flight paths. With airplanes being forced to fly lower the emissions will remain closer to the ground, thus affecting the inhabitants underneath more intensely.

But more travelers also means more ground traffic. Even if the airport manages to increase the percentage of passengers arriving by public transport (currently not even 16% arrive by train), nearly doubling the ground traffic around the airport will have a significant impact on the streets in Hertfordshire. LLAL’s planners speak of an optimistically low increase in traffic through Hitchin, whilst councilors in Hertfordshire expect much higher numbers – between a 10 and 20% increase in cars travelling through Hitchin. With congestion and air pollution already illegal and at breaking point at peak times this is an additional burden the towns in Hertfordshire simply cannot take. LLAL suggests minor improvements to a handful of junctions along the A505, but does not appreciate that our historic towns can simply not absorb any more car traffic.

The suggested expansion would have catastrophic effects on traffic congestion, air quality and noise in Hertfordshire. And yet LLAL wants to sell these plans as a boost for the economy. Certainly those airlines offering flights from Luton would make more money for shareholders. As would Luton Borough Council, the owner of the airport. But the money the council makes off the airport is bound for re-investment into the airport. A vicious circle of growth, at the expense of people living in the town and those next to it. The estimated 4000 additional jobs, will be created under the same conditions as they currently exist: zero hour contracts, in a toxic environment.

To create jobs that genuinely benefit residents Luton Borough Council could use their influence in airport management to request that Luton Airport finally build the business park, that has held planning permission for years. This is a brilliant opportunity to attract Green Industries, and create sustainable employment and benefits for the whole region.

Instead they support the plan of growing an airport, that doesn’t need growing, whilst creating unhealthy employment and catastrophic environmental impacts locally and globally. Aviation is the fastest growing producer of greenhouse gasses. North Hertfordshire District Council, the British Parliament, leading scientists and environmental organisations worldwide agree that we live in a time of a climate emergency. We only have 10 years to put the brakes on the emissions we produce and create a more sustainable future. An expansion of an airport is the very opposite of what we need to do to tackle growing emissions.

The expansion plans for Luton airport need to be scrapped. LLAL need to rethink their growth strategy and be more ambitious in their sustainability goals. Luton Borough Council need to think outside the box and start investing in green infrastructure and industries that will boost the region’s excellent placement to become a hub for sustainable businesses and employment.

LLAL run the consultation till the 16th December, before the plans are going to be sent to the Secretary of State in summer 2020. North Hertfordshire and Stevenage Green Party are in contact with LLAL and the relevant councils clarify our views on the expansion plans.

We are currently collecting signatures to present to the Secretary of State next year, showing how strongly residents of Hertfordshire object to the plans.

To find out more or support our campaign, please get in touch:Anni Sander
Campaign coordinator
North Hertfordshire and Stevenage Green Party Telephone: 07442 762186
Email: anni.sander@gmail.com
Postal address:
NH&S Green Party
5 Bullocks Hill
St Paul’s Walden
Hitchin, Hertfordshire
SG4 8DG

Find us on:Facebook: fb.me/northhertsstevenagegreens
Twitter: https://twitter.com/nhgp

The post Object to Luton Airport Expansion appeared first on North Herts & Stevenage Green Party.

The airport is located on a plateau, (often closed by fog and bad weather) and it has a very constrained footprint due to the densely-packed surrounding settlements. This means many more towns and villages are affected by noise and pollution than Gatwick and Stansted for example, and should the expansion go ahead there is likely to be a huge increase in Hertfordshire’s rural traffic. There is no Polluter Pays* principle in operation and although Luton Borough Council monitors air quality under the flight path this seems to stop and is not monitored in Hertfordshire even though the planes fly straight over us during both arrival and departure. The number of night flights between 11pm and 7am has already increased by 25% to 16,031 flights over the past two years. There is imminent further fracture of trust between Luton Airport and residents of rural Hertfordshire…as it has been put so aptly “Bedfordshire gets the gain, Hertfordshire gets the pain.”

In summary

North Hertfordshire & Stevenage Green Party believe expansion is a damaging backward step both locally and nationally, reducing quality of life and dragging us further into the environmental mess that we’re already in. We accept that some air travel is part of modern life but are totally against any growth and seek reduction. Expanding now seems especially questionable as leaving the EU may result in people being able to take fewer holidays abroad, and demand for air travel may drop. Aircraft cause relentless noise which is known to damage health and well-being; are highly polluting both locally and atmospherically; and are energy-intensive, burning more fossil fuel per passenger or ton-mile than any other form of transport. It is also the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions and runs counter to the government agreement to reduce emissions, from the Paris agreement and its own Climate Change Act 2008.

NH&S Green Party say No to doubling capacity at Luton Airport.

References

• Green Party Policy, Pollution 431: Individuals and organisations concerned with generating pollution will be held responsible for the costs of control and for any damage caused, however remote in time or distance. There will be no Crown immunity.
• https://www.bimafolami.co.uk/luton-airport-expansion/
• Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise www.ladacan.org
• Article in June 2018 Comet by Anne Suslak “Luton Airport’s expansion plans could mean up to 38m passengers a year” http://www.thecomet.net/motoring/38-million-passenger-capacity-proposed-in-luton-airport-expansion-1-5577115
• Green Party Transport Policy https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/tr.html

The post No to doubling capacity at Luton Airport appeared first on North Herts & Stevenage Green Party.