Updates August and September 2014

September Update 
The Environment Agency has written to a resident of Bourne End confirming that the reduction in quantity of imported material does not alter the view of the operation ...'it is a disposal operation'. View the full letter here.

August update
There are two aspects to this update:

• A new round of consultation.  The applicant has seemingly addressed a number of issues raised by those opposing the plan. 
• Other developments since the blog was first produced.

The new Round of Consultation

If you had already objected to the proposals you would have received a letter.  If you have not, you can view it here.

The new documents are considerable.  All are available on the HCC website.  Take care if you sort by date to pick up the most recent documents.  Some of the very recent ones, those detailing the widening of Upper Bourne End Lane, do not appear in order.

What appears below is our interpretation. If you get the chance, do read the originals. The Addendum to the Design and Access Statement serves as a summary.

The changes involve a slight reduction in the volume of material to be imported and the permanent widening of Upper Bourne End Lane.  The reduction in the volume appears to be cosmetic and intended to reduce the sense of this as landfill.  (295,000 cubic metres to 247,000 cubic metres.) The widening of Upper Bourne End Lane is proposed as permanent.  It would, without doubt, destroy its rural character.

In summary, it is clear that our council, whose officers have battled against the creeping urbanisation of the area surrounding Bourne End, are now considering proposals which would at a stroke destroy the rural nature of a large area of green belt together with a typical Chilterns country lane.

What of the detail of the new proposals?

1.    You will note that the reference to the ‘historic’ access from Upper Bourne End Lane has been removed from the HCC summary.  You may remember that the existence of such an access was disputed by members of the village, Dacorum Borough Council planners, and even Woodland Environmental’s architect agreed that the evidence from the ‘remains of a gate’ does not exist.  Yet, Woodland Environmental is steadfast in its use of the expression!  We raise this issue partly because of the significance in itself, partly because it is indicative of a number of erroneous statements in the application.

2.     HCC Highways has approved the proposals for Upper Bourne End Lane.  These involve widening the lane at various points to allow two-way traffic together with traffic lights.

The proposals are deeply disconcerting on a number of levels. 

2.1.  We do not accept that they will work in practice.  We have throughout argued that the proposals only just work by assuming that vehicles arrive at regular intervals for movements to take place every 4 minutes.  That the traffic signalling, together with the movement of the road sweeper and bunching of lorries should result in an orderly movement seems highly unlikely.

2.2.   The above will inevitably lead to, at least inconvenience and at worse, danger for other road users.

2.3.   No notice has been taken of the inadequate access on and off the A41.

2.4.   The urbanisation of the country lane seems totally ignored.  As CPRE points out, ‘In our opinion the original proposals would have caused unacceptable harm to the character of the tree and hedge lined Upper Bourne End Lane. Our concern was clearly justified as the applicant now proposes widening of two sections of the Lane that will in our view harm the character of the Lane to an even greater extent’. The full text of CPRE's second response can be found here.

A description of the proposals appear in Section 7 of the Addendum to Design and AccessStatement, with more details in the Upper Bourne End Lane Access Statement and a range of diagrams etc can be found on HCC website.  The response on Highways can be found here.

3.     The applicant has reduced the total importation of construction waste from 295,000 cubic metres to 247,000 cubic metres.  At the same time, the period of operation of importing the material has been reduced from 18 months to 16 months, and no movement will take place over the weekends or bank holidays.

We do not believe that this significantly alters the position.  In fact the reduction in quantity does not match the reduction in time available and as a result, the frequency of vehicle movement will be slightly increased above the original proposals.  (You will remember that this would be 150 movements per day.) We believe the purpose is purely to ensure that the Environment Agency removes the ‘landfill’ label from the operation.   This initially appeared to be the case, but in a recent e-mail to the planning officer, Robert Devonshire of the Environment Agency states ’ we do not agree that this is a recovery operation and believe it to be the disposal of waste’. (i.e. landfill)

In a telephone conversation Robert Devonshire raised a number of other issues.

·         He confirmed burying ‘London Clays’ and this type of waste on high ground would greatly increase the likelihood of flooding.  (It should be noted that the drainage from the slip road is already inadequate, with flooding occurring on the road outside Premier Inn with even the slightest of rain.)

·         He further estimated that the income generated would be in the region of £15,000,000.  (This leaves us yet more confused about the financial aspects, having already received highly contradictory statements.)

4.     A number of highly selective quotes are taken from the Liz Lakes Associate’s report.  Naturally, Woodland Environmental has attempted to minimise the impact or negate any of the negative aspects of this report.  We have already commented on the inadequacy of the report in relation to the impact on Bourne End.  The emphasis on long distance views appears in the ‘defence’ from Woodland Environmental.  Clearly the minimal impact envisaged applies largely to the views from the AONB at Potten End.  The argument that the golf course will be viewed from a distance so the detail will not be apparent or that we will be looking into the sun do not carry much weight for us in Bourne End.

The following statement perhaps sums up the issue.  ‘The proposed grading is extensive and may be considered incongruous to non-golfers but it is part of the design of a golf course and an inevitable feature.’ The area is now a golf course which blends in with the landscape.  Not only is it incongruous to non golfers, but it conflicts with our council’s planned intentions as expressed in its Landscape Character Assessment which is to ‘promote the retention and restoration of the historic parkland at Westbrook Hay’. What is proposed here is an urban style of golf course.

The references to Dr Liz Lake’s report appear in Section 4 of the Addendum to Design and Access Statement.  You will remember that landscape issues are also of concern to DBC planners in their objection.

5.     Section 8 of the Addendum attempts to refute the arguments put forward by Dacorum Planners to oppose the scheme.  It is beyond the scope of this summary to itemise the issues.  Suffice to say that Dacorum Borough Councillors elected to protect our environment by ‘saving’ policy 78.  ‘Every course must be sensitively designed in relation to the landscape, natural environment and archaeological features. Proposals involving significant alterations to levels, either by the extraction or importation of large quantities of material, will not be permitted’.  This project clearly fails the test of sensitive design, and flagrantly ignores the significant alteration of levels.
 

It is patently clear that the amendments do not alter the thrust of our arguments opposing the thinly veiled landfill and destruction of a pleasant country lane.  

Other developments

1.     A meeting took place between members of Bourne End, Bovingdon and Box Lane and the Chief Executive of Sportspace, Dave Cove.  Gbola Adeleke and Jack Organ (two of our DBC Councillors) and Richard Roberts (our HCC Councillor) were in attendance. 

It became clear that Dave Cove was not fully conversant with the enormity of the operation, the potential impact on the local community or the apparent mismatch between the income generated and the cost of redevelopment of the golf course.

2.     Following the above meeting, Cllr Gbola Adeleke has submitted an objection to HCC.  Cllr Organ intends to object and to speak at the Planning meeting.

3.     The date that the Development Control Committee of HCC has allocated to consider the application has been moved to October 21^st. It still appears to be the view of DBC that the consideration of Landlord’s Consent will take place only after the determination of the planning application.

4.     A number of matters have not been addressed.  For example, the Noise Assessment still relates to the Letchworth Golf Course, and the Archaeological survey has not been updated to include the more extensive modifications which seem originally to have been planned.

If you have not yet let your views be known please ensure that you do so.