Objections to HEL 152 Lyndhurst Farm in Hertsmere Local Plan
My objections to the development Lyndhurst Farm And Town Council allotments are:
1. The consultation process was inadequate as only 16 people attended the consultation, making the statistics meaningless. I object to the developer using these figures to justify their plans.
2. Although the majority of these homes will be social rent at LHA capped rates and Hertsmere needs decent affordable homes, these homes will not be ‘affordable’ to local people, who are not on London weighting, trying to buy a home in their community. I object to the word ‘affordable’ being used for homes that are not actually affordable to local people or exclusively reserved for local people.
In addition, I am concerned the builder will come back later saying that the development is uneconomic and so reduce the number 'affordable' homes. This happens too often. The developers must he held to account.
3. I object to this site as it is building on Green Belt with no Very Special Circumstances to justify it. In addition, the replacement allotment land has plans for building on Green Belt. Green Belt is important to hold back urban sprawl, act as a soak away for water to avoid local flooding, absorb CO2 thus enhancing the environment. It also provides a green space and openness, which is important for our mental health.
4. I object to the land has been stated as being poor quality Green Belt and in a ‘shocking state’. Green Belt land does not have sub-classifications. Also, according to the NPPF Green Belt land has no requirement to provide any benefit as its purpose is to provide a green band around London and prevent urban sprawl.
It would be much more positive if this land were enhanced rather than lost.
This idea is confirmed by NPPF paragraph 150 “Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.”
5. 54 Borehamwood allotment holders, who were given notice in sept 2023 that their lease may not be renewed from Oct 2024, were not adequately consulted. Moving a plot is a huge upheaval and may be too much for some to cope with, and the location may not be accessible to them. Also new plots have been allocated this year and the plot holders developing the new plots may be unaware that they may only have the plot for a year. I object to this move being enforced on the plot holders, with no support for them to relocate and re-establish their plots.
6. I object on the basis that Lyndhurst Farm is possibly a contaminated site with asbestos. I am very concerned about the deadly consequences of malignant mesothelioma.
7. I object as I am concerned the replacement allotment land could be targeted for future development as it will have hardstanding buildings erected on it.
1. The consultation process was inadequate as only 16 people attended the consultation, making the statistics meaningless. I object to the developer using these figures to justify their plans.
2. Although the majority of these homes will be social rent at LHA capped rates and Hertsmere needs decent affordable homes, these homes will not be ‘affordable’ to local people, who are not on London weighting, trying to buy a home in their community. I object to the word ‘affordable’ being used for homes that are not actually affordable to local people or exclusively reserved for local people.
In addition, I am concerned the builder will come back later saying that the development is uneconomic and so reduce the number 'affordable' homes. This happens too often. The developers must he held to account.
3. I object to this site as it is building on Green Belt with no Very Special Circumstances to justify it. In addition, the replacement allotment land has plans for building on Green Belt. Green Belt is important to hold back urban sprawl, act as a soak away for water to avoid local flooding, absorb CO2 thus enhancing the environment. It also provides a green space and openness, which is important for our mental health.
4. I object to the land has been stated as being poor quality Green Belt and in a ‘shocking state’. Green Belt land does not have sub-classifications. Also, according to the NPPF Green Belt land has no requirement to provide any benefit as its purpose is to provide a green band around London and prevent urban sprawl.
It would be much more positive if this land were enhanced rather than lost.
This idea is confirmed by NPPF paragraph 150 “Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.”
5. 54 Borehamwood allotment holders, who were given notice in sept 2023 that their lease may not be renewed from Oct 2024, were not adequately consulted. Moving a plot is a huge upheaval and may be too much for some to cope with, and the location may not be accessible to them. Also new plots have been allocated this year and the plot holders developing the new plots may be unaware that they may only have the plot for a year. I object to this move being enforced on the plot holders, with no support for them to relocate and re-establish their plots.
6. I object on the basis that Lyndhurst Farm is possibly a contaminated site with asbestos. I am very concerned about the deadly consequences of malignant mesothelioma.
7. I object as I am concerned the replacement allotment land could be targeted for future development as it will have hardstanding buildings erected on it.