The Trust will be submitting its objections to both applications in the form below. Templates which residents can use for sending objections to the planning department can be found below too.

Please now make your objections directly to Hertsmere planning department – a suggested form of letters is set out below. You can use these as drafted or adapt/add to it as you wish. To object either:

1. Log in to  https://www.hertsmere.gov.uk/Planning–Building-Control/Planning-Applications/Search-and-comment-on-planning-applications.aspx
   Click on “search and comment on planning applications” then type the relevant reference 25/0124/FUL or 25/0138/FUL in the search bar, click “Comments” and follow the instructions
    or   
2. Email each objection to  consult.planning@hertsmere.gov.uk quoting the application numbers 25/0124/FUL or 25/0138/FUL  
    
              REMEMBER EVERYONE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD CAN OBJECT SEPARATELY 

The Trust has now submitted its objections and these are available below.Also below is a template residents can use for sending objections to the planning department.

Please now make your objections direct to Hertsmere planning department- a suggested form of letter is set out below. You can use this as drafted or adapt/add to it as you wish. To object either:

1. log in to  https://www.hertsmere.gov.uk/Planning–Building-Control/Planning-Applications/Search-and-comment-on-planning-applications.aspx
   Click on “search and comment on planning applications” then type the reference 23/1508/OUT in the search bar, click “Comments” and follow the instructions
    or   
2. email your objection to  consult.planning@hertsmere.gov.uk  quoting the application number 23/1508/OUT 
    
              REMEMBER EVERYONE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD CAN OBJECT SEPARATELY 

30 ACRE SITE IN YELLOW WITH 10 ACRE BATTERY STORAGE EDGED RED

FURTHER INFORMATION

LIVERPOOL FIRE – INCIDENT INVESTIGATION TEAM REPORT

LIVERPOOL FIRE -SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT REPORT

BESS FAILURE DATABASE

ATKINS REPORT ON HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM

PROPOSED LETCHMORE HEATH BESS-SHOWING AREAS WITHIN A 3 MILE RADIUS FROM BESS SITE

GEELONG, MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA BESS FIRE- TOXIC PLUME SPREAD BETWEEN 3 ½ AND 5 ½ MILES FROM BESS

PLEASE

• Leave your contact details at the entrance to the Hall
• Consider what you’ve heard -for more info see the websites overleaf
• Register with save-hertsmere.com to receive email notification of when the application has been made and complete a one click objection
• Bespoke objections are very helpful. Get ideas from Letchmore Heath Village Trust. It will post its objection document around week after the application is made and will be available to view on Hertsmere’s planning portal and also at letchmoreheath.com
• Further info from Janet Engels 07740 945815/Alison Rubinson 07775 631217

BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSYTEM-THE PLAN ABOVE SHOWS THE 30 ACRE DEVELOPMENT SITE COLOURED YELLOW WITH 10 ACRE BATTERY STORAGE EDGED RED

PLEASE
·      Consider what you’ve heard tonight and find out more by visiting the websites below.
·      Attend the Developer’s presentation in the Hall on Tuesday 5 September at 7.30 pm. Have your questions and concerns ready.
·      Give your concerns on the developer’s website – deadline currently 15 September but may be extended.
·      Watch out for notification this autumn that a planning application has been made and read the guidance the Trust will produce on objection letters.
·      Feel free to contact the Trust for further information.

FURTHER INFORMATION
DEVELOPER’S FLYER – POSTED ON THE TRUST’S WEBSITE
 www.letchmoreheath.com
DEVELOPER’S WEBSITE
www.ElstreeBESS.co.uk
PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-09-07/debates/FB0D6FE6-CF3E-4D2B-AA92-FCAE0A5B0B17/Lithium-IonBatteryStorage(FireSafetyAndEnvironmentalPermits)
UPDATE ON THE ABOVE
https://www.thefpa.co.uk/news/mp-calls-for-fire-service-input-to-li-ion-battery-storage-sites
LIVERPOOL FIRE – INCIDENT INVESTIGATION TEAM REPORT 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/876227/response/2075510/attach/4/IIT%20Report%20Final%20redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
LIVERPOOL FIRE -SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT REPORT
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/876227/response/2075510/attach/5/Significant%20Incident%20Report%20Final%20redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Application for new internal Access Road connecting permitted highway access off of Aldenham Road, Elstree Aerodrome- 22/2127/FUL

Last year planning permission was granted to make a crossover on Aldenham Road, across Green Belt open land. This current application concerns a new internal access road linking that crossover to the aerodrome. This is supposedly for a new emergency road but this will also facilitate vast development on the aerodrome where Permitted Development rights exist. The Trust is of the view that the application is unnecessary and should be resisted.
If you agree it is important to ensure that your concerns and objections are submitted to HBC before the deadline of 25th January 2023. A suggested form of objection is set out below and can be made as follows:

• Logging onto the website using this link
  https://www6.hertsmere.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application and typing in 22/2127/FUL
• or going to the Hertsmere web site home page at http://www.hertsmere.gov.uk, clicking on the Planning application link, then clicking on the ‘Search and comment on planning applications’ button and searching for the application number 22/2127/FUL, then clicking on Comments
• or Emailing consult.planning@hertsmere.gov.uk, please quote the application number 22/2127/FUL
• or by posting your comments to The Planning and Economic Development Department, Hertsmere Borough Council, Civic Offices, Elstree Way, Borehamwood, Herts WD6 1WA, please quote the application number 22/2127/FUL

I strongly object to this application for a road across open landscape situated in the Green Belt. This application relates to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Construction should not be permitted unless very special circumstances can be shown to exist.

• There is no justification for this roadway (which follows last year’s permission for a small crossover reference 22/0225) This was said to be needed for emergency vehicle access to service the aerodrome which required direct access to the runway. But Hogg Lane has been satisfactorily used for emergency vehicles for over 70 years and I understand that there has only been a primary fire call out twice in the last 8 years.
• Even if an improved emergency access were needed it could easily be provided within the envelope of the aerodrome itself; there is no evidence that this has been explored and no alternative site assessment has been carried out. But in any event there is already an alternative Emergency Access entrance the purpose of which is to allow quicker access to the airport and particularly to the north side of the runway. This is referred to in the application documents as Emergency Access Gate 1. This access route appears to be little used.
• The application does not link last year’s access to the runway as might have been expected, instead it seems aimed at facilitating development. The plans on the application indicate the internal access will run directly into the aerodrome’s land where permitted development rights exist. The aerodrome will then be able to use these rights to build and develop the part of the aerodrome which is currently open land, leading to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It is far more than would be needed even if an emergency escape road could be justified.
• The applicant also says the new roadway would assist in routine maintenance of the land north of the runway – but this is currently carried out by vehicles driving across the runway which gives no difficulty. The runway is not heavily used. This would continue to be the quickest and easiest access, and therefore the most used, even if the new road is built.
• SADM Policy 6.16 provides “When considering proposals for new development it is important that the Council has regard to their compatibility with the future operation of the aerodrome”. No details of future operational details have been provided so this application cannot be properly considered.
• The proposed access road is in a currently open landscape in the Green Belt and will spoil the openness of the Green Belt. Considerable weight should be given to the impact on visual and spatial amenity. The reduction of openness will materially affect footpath users. Although screening is proposed that in itself will change the outlook to an unacceptable degree.
• The application does not deal with the Highways Authority’s requirement that the applicant overcomes severance to the footpath network and provision for facilities for pedestrians / cyclists to access the site to ensure a form of development that accords with the County Councils Local Transport Plan policies. Furthermore no assessment has been made regarding the safety of footpath users. This is important at it is clear that the roadway will lead to commercial development.
• Aldenham Road is flooded very frequently, and any new road built will exacerbate this.
• I request that the application be called in to full committee. I did not receive notice of either this application nor last year’s application for the crossover, nor did Letchmore Heath Village Trust which looks after these issues on behalf of villagers. The proposal affects the footpaths heavily used by our community and the Aldenham Road which is the main road out of Letchmore Heath. It will also facilitate vast commercial development of the aerodrome and its significance is much greater than may at first appear. It needs proper consideration by Councillors.
• The alleged benefit of the road is significantly outweighed by the harm which would be done to the Green Belt. It is neither needed nor can it be justified. Very special circumstances do not exist so as to permit the development and the application should be refused.

RADLETT SOCIETY AND GREEN BELT ASSOCIATION gofundme link

Your support can make a difference.  We’re helping to raise money on behalf of RADLETT SOCIETY AND GREEN BELT ASSOCIATION  and other Groups to fight the APPEAL and every donation will help. Thank you in advance for contributing to this cause, which means so much to all of us.

( Appeal Ref. No. APP/N1920/W/22/3295268 – Planning Ref. No. 21/0050/FULEI )

Land North of Butterfly Lane, Land Surrounding Hilfield Farm and Land West of Hilfield Lane, Aldenham.

Developers have now submitted an appeal to The Planning Inspectorate despite a record number of objections and having been unanimously refused by Hertsmere Planning Committee. Their objective is to destroy 320 acres of Green Belt Land and install over 100,000 3m high solar panels  (the equivalent of over 210 football pitches), behind 2m  high wire fencing surrounding miles of the entire perimeter,  in addition to CCTV cameras every 100m on  2.5m high posts, creating a prison like “big brother” oppressive environment, adjacent to numerous villages and schools right in the middle of our beautiful precious countryside.

As local concerned Groups, we have joined together to fight the appeal on behalf of us all. After presenting our arguments to The Appeal Inspectorate, we have now officially joined in the proceedings as a Main Party. This means we will take part in the Inquiry independently of Hertsmere Council, present our case against the appeal to The Planning Inspector, call upon expert witnesses and challenge the assault on our Green Belt in the best interests of us all.

Hertsmere residents will not directly benefit from this Solar Plant,  as the majority of the energy produced will go directly into the National Grid.

We have instructed a professional team of Planning Consultants and leading Planning Barristers and need your help in contributing towards the appeal, which will require lots of funding.

We need the community to come together to help pursue this action.

• PERMANENT LOSS OF GREEN BELT AND OPEN SPACES

• LOSS OF ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE – FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS

• LOSS OF FOOD-PRODUCING FARMLAND AT A TIME WHEN THE UK NEEDS TO GROW MORE FOOD ITSELF

• LOSS OF VIEWS OF HERITAGE SITES

• CONTINUOUS NOISE – GLINT, GLARE & FLOODING

• FIRE RISKS FROM BATTERY STORAGE, SHIPPING CONTAINERS & PANELS

• CONTAMINATION FROM TOXIC CHEMICALS – LEAKAGE FROM THE EQUIPMENT

Many thanks to those of you who attended the Special Village Meeting in respect of the above. For those unable to attend, further information will be contained in a flyer, to be delivered to you in the next few days.

Donations to this important appeal can be made as set out below.

July 6 2022

As you may be aware a further planning application for a Solar Plant has been resubmitted.

It is as important as ever to ensure that your concerns and objections are submitted to HBC before the deadline of 23rd July 2022.

Please send to: consult.planning@hertsmere.gov.uk
or by portal (www.hertsmere.gov.uk/planningsearch) which has a 5000 character limit
or by post to: Planning Department, Hertsmere Borough Council, Elstree Way, Borehamwood, Herts WD6 1WA

Letchmore Heath Village Trust (LHVT) was established to promote high standards of planning and to secure the preservation and protection of features of historic or public interest in the area. Accordingly LHVT objects to this application for the following reasons:

• This land has been deliberately protected by the Green Belt designation to prevent urban sprawl. The development would have a substantial visual impact on the land so that instead of views of agricultural land, residents and members of the public will be subjected to endless visual clutter, including a sea of solar panels, destroying the character of the area. The proposal will also add spatial clutter as it would permanently alter the openness of the Green Belt, to the detriment of its character and appearance. Any identified benefits would not amount to very special circumstances outweighing the harm caused, as required by the NPPF.
• The proposals conflict with policies in the Local Plan.
• There would be a significant level of harm to the setting of designated heritage assets which would not be outweighed by public benefit. In addition although only several heritage assets are referred to in the application there are actually 41 Listed buildings within 1 kilometre of the proposed site and not enough attention has been given to the effect on these.
• A “temporary consent “of 35 years does not mitigate the loss of Green Belt. This length of time is to all intents and purposes a permanent use with a significant and detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt for an extended period of time. There is no confidence that these 320 acres, once lost, will ever be recovered as open Green Belt land.
• The proposed development is not the best use of the land. Although solar energy is a public benefit, the proposal would result in the loss of many important existing public benefits. Government policy towards acceleration of carbon reduction should not override these considerations which are particularly inappropriate on Green Belt land in close proximity to London.
• There will be a highly detrimental impact on 12 footpaths and bridleways across the site. The pedestrian routes have been regularly walked by local residents from Radlett, Letchmore Heath and Bushey for many years. They provided a vital resource for ‘lockdown’ people to safely exercise in an outdoor area. The 5 metre stand-off proposed on either side of public rights of way, in such close proximity to solar panels, will result in a tunnelling effect leading to a loss of openness and enjoyment of this much used network. The sheer size of the solar plant and its associated equipment will destroy the benefits that public rights of way offer people.
• LHVT is very concerned that the proposal will lead to an increased risk of flooding elsewhere. On the previous, broadly similar, application (21/0050/FULEI) the Lead Local Flood Authority (Flood Risk & Drainage Team Hertfordshire County Council) actively objected to the application. Despite a revised Flood Risk Assessment submitted to the Local Planning Authority in April 2021, they still maintained their objection and recommended refusal. The NPPF requires that development should not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
• The loss of productive agricultural land diminishes the important ability to maintain and enhance food security at a time when this is a national priority. The best use should be made of agricultural land, particularly adjacent to urban and heavily populated areas. Taking this land out of food production for the purpose of providing energy is wasteful and unnecessary when many other non-productive site opportunities for solar energy operations exist elsewhere.
• The enhancement of biodiversity is insufficient to compensate for the loss of open Green Belt land.
• The application fails to demonstrate that the impact of the proposals can be made acceptable to the residential community, as required by the NPPF. Whilst the NPPF provides that communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections. We have concerns relating to the likelihood of noise generated by inverters, potential fire hazards from the batteries and subsequent leeching of highly toxic gases and also concerns over the safety of flying activities at the Elstree Aerodrome, due to upward reflection of the sun on the solar panels.
• Whilst it is recognised that renewable energy is an important requirement, the impact of these developments and whether they are in the right place is of paramount importance too. The adverse impact on the surrounding area’s landscape character, visual amenity and substantial loss of Green Belt renders the scheme unacceptable. The applicant’s Alternative Site Assessment, filed as a supporting document, is noted. However the applicant’s proposal is for a solar plant of such vast size that it will dwarf most other UK solar plants. It is therefore unsurprising that alternative sites for a proposal of this magnitude may be difficult to find. In addition to all of our submissions above, the proposal is simply too large.

HBC should stand by its previous decision and reject this new application.

LHVT object to the Solar Plant appeal for the following reasons: 

• The degree of impact on the openness of the Green Belt is unacceptable and any identified benefits of the proposed development are insufficient to amount to very special circumstances which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. 
• The impact and level of harm to designated Heritage Assets is significant. Furthermore, although only 7 heritage assets are referred to in the application there are actually 41 Listed buildings within 1 kilometre of the proposed site and insufficient attention has been given to the development’s effect on these. 
• Any identified benefits of the purposed development overall do not outweigh the identified harm.
• The impact of the proposed development on residential amenity and upon visual impact will be severe and is not agreed as being neutral.
• The minimum 5 metre stand-off either side of all public rights of way is insufficient and will adversely impact both the openness and enjoyment of this much used network.
• The proposals conflict with policies in the Local Plan and, being proposed on Green Belt, planning permission should not be granted.
• The enhancement of biodiversity is insufficient to compensate for the loss of open Green belt land.
• Government policy towards acceleration of carbon reduction should not override the above considerations which are particularly inappropriate on Green Belt land with very close proximity to London.
• The proximity of the National Grid Elstree Substation to the site, and the fact that some of its pylons are already sited on the subject land may be a convenient commercial factor for the Appellant but should be entirely disregarded when assessing the merits of the Appeal itself.
• The  Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the impact of its proposals has been made acceptable to the residential community as required by the National Planning Policy Framework and attention is drawn to the 1433 objections against the original application and the fact that no Councillors voted to support the application. 
• Whilst it is recognised that renewable energy is an important requirement, the impact of these developments and whether they are in the right place is of paramount importance too. The adverse impact on the surrounding area’s landscape character, visual amenity and substantial loss of Green Belt renders the scheme unacceptable as is the fact that loss of productive agricultural land diminishes the important ability to maintain and enhance food security.

Valid planning objection link.

Objection Link