IMPORTANT! This page is archived!
This information on this page relates to the consultation in 2017 and is now OUT OF DATE. We are currently updating this website to include information about the current 2018 consultation. To view the current information, click the button below.
Hertsmere Local Plan 2017 - Things to Consider When Responding
For Hertsmere to pay attention we suggest that your comments focus on the planning issues likely to occur as a result of their options.
Here is a guide to some constructive feedback you can provide. Details on the various ways you can respond to the consultation are on our introduction page.
Our rural roads are already struggling with the amount of traffic particularly at peak times in the morning, school drop off and pick up times and in late afternoon with the after-work traffic.
How can our rural roads cope with the extra traffic? There will be gridlock.
If you experience this problem yourself now give examples.
Shenley has a poor, irregular and unreliable Bus Service; so poor that Commuters cannot use it.
If you or your family experience problems due to the poor service give examples.
It is a struggle to get appointments now. How will the Surgery cope with the extra residents?
If this a problem you are experiencing give examples.
There is none to speak of in Shenley. New residents will have to join current residents in commuting to work, which means more traffic environmental damage.
Well being will suffer as residents struggle to use the congested roads, cannot get Doctor’s appointments and have less Green Belt to enjoy.
The Hospital provided local employment (very little car movements required), a minor A&E facility, a Doctors surgery, Social Club, Swimming pool, 3 tennis courts and a Cricket pitch. The Porters Park development meant we that and residents now have to drive to stations to commute and go to work outside Shenley, so local traffic increased dramatically.
500 homes in the centre of Shenley will put at least 1,000 additional cars on our local roads. 4,000 homes in a new Garden Village will mean 8,000 extra cars, many driving through Shenley!
If development creeps down London Road at the Pursley Farm end and all the way down Radlett Lane, the lovely rural entrances to our village will be ruined. It will affect the rural village character which we all treasure and the wider community admire. Once lost they can never be regained.
Elstree is a better place to be having the majority of the 1,000 homes required rather than Shenley owing to better employment opportunities; Centennial Park and other Business parks nearby, and better road links with nearby Borehamwood & Elstree is effectively joined to Borehamwood as it is. Environmentally it makes more sense: Lower car movements, better services and it is close to major amenities.
New Garden Village – Only One Option?
Why is there only one option and why are they searching in the Willows Farm/Salisbury Hall area when there are more suitable alternatives?
For example the land adjacent to South Mimms Services which if developed would give easy access to both the M25 and A1M. This, together with a wider choice of railway stations eg. The Potters Bar line to Kings Cross and the Borehamwood Thameslink line to St Pancras, the Northern Line at Barnet and the Piccadilly line at Cockfosters and the Hadley wood Great Northern to Moorgate or Welwyn.
Bus services are also much better.
New Garden Village – Railway Links?
The proposed area of search is not near any railway station. The new residents would have to drive to St Albans/Radlett or Borehamwood Stations. This would undoubtedly mean much more traffic going through Shenley. 10,000 car movements through Shenley daily at the moment.
New Garden Village – Employment?
Where will new residents work?
9,000 Extra Homes In Hertsmere
What is the justification for this figure? Why has central government given us such large numbers when you have put forward a plan that uses up the existing brown field sites in the borough?
Green Belt Policy
Green Belt is protected in the current Local Plan why do you propose to take areas of actively used farm land, rather than odd areas that have become 'orphaned' due to previous development and are now not viable?