Attachments May Be Confidential

From: [mailto: On Behalf Of Sent: 18 February 2018 18:34 To: Chay Dempster; Spatial Planning; Ian Reay; Michael Muir; David Andrews; David Barnard; Stephen Boulton; Steve Drury; Dreda Gordon; John Hale; Seamus Quilty; Andrew Williams; Sara Bedford; Jeff Jones; Adam Mitchell Subject: Objection to Planning Application PL\0866\17 (5/2733-17)

I can see no justification in the officers reports as to how selection of this site meets "very special circumstances".

In fact SADC Planning made the following statement:

Hertfordshire County Council as the decision maker should satisfy themselves that the case for very special circumstances overcomes the in principle and any actual harm, namely:- ▪ The site has been identified as containing matters of potentially nationally significant archaeological interests. Whilst the majority of the site has areas of archaeological interest that can be dealt with by condition there is a section of the site which contains burials which may be of national significance and a suitable methodology for protecting these remains needs to be established, either through protecting the remains by burying them, or excavating the site prior to granting permission. ▪ The applicant has not used appropriate methodology to demonstrate that the impact upon the ecology of the site is acceptable, and further information should be sought in this respect. ▪ Consideration as to whether all of the sports facilities are essential to the provision of the school and whether a portion of the site could be retained for agricultural purposes thereby minimising the amount of land that is lost from agricultural purposes. ▪ To assess whether the proposed technical details of the access are acceptable and will result in a safe and functional highway network. It is requested that the provision of the access, visibility splays and road improvements are secured by condition.

Further I would say that visibility of the site is far more extensive that the reports states and the huge amount of terraforming of the site required to male flat areas causes considerable harm to the Green Belt.

Plus with the Former Wheathampstead Secondary school never assessed then no claim about there being no other sites can possibly be true.

Further I see on the HCC website that all school sites are evaluated by 4 points;

 Q) Is it in the right location?  A) No because this site is close to three other secondary schools and far away from the area of need in Harpenden namely Southdown.  Q) Will it make the school more effective?  A) No see above. Plus poor car, cycle and pedestrian access will mean significant safety issues for pupils and school staff.  Q) Is it affordable?  A) Of all the sites selected this is demonstrably the most expensive to build on (so much so that HCC are paying EFSA the difference) at a time when HCC are under sever budgetary constraint from central government. Certainly lack of parking and poor travel connections will add to the running cost.  Q) What are the effects on the area?  A) The school will add to the already congested B653 and add significant traffic to the single track lanes that access the site from the north.This blighting Batford for ever. I also see that the school site evaluation for Buntingford used these criteria;

Site size (ha)

Adjoining land

Detached playing field within 400m

Highways impact

Vehicular

Pedestrian

Archaeological site (known)

Buildings or uses to be relocated

Conservation area

Ecology

Floodplain

Landscape impact

Listed buildings

RABGB

Noise

Protected open space Trees

Rights of way

Topography

Whereas the Harpenden School site selection criteria were;

Green Belt Policies Landscape Impact Conservation Area/Listed Buildings Archaeology Agricultural land Impact Education Policies Flood Ground Conditions Right of Way Safe and Suitable Access Sustainable Transport Modes Nature Conservation Policies Noise Air Quality

Each of the above items were evaluated by consultants but it is not possible to see how the final scores were obtained from the underlying reports in an objective way so the final score seems to be more a matter of prejudice than a transparent objective assessment.

In all I see no evidence that the "Very Special Circumstance Criteria" have been met.

Rgds

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 17 February 2018 12:32 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17 Dear Sirs

This has been dragging on for too long - we need a fourth secondary school!

 There are not enough school places in Harpenden. Over 100 children from Harpenden were allocated a St Albans school in 2017 (and more than 80 children in each of the previous two years).  The demand for places within St Albans is also increasing - Harpenden children cannot rely on this provision for the future, as the St Albans schools will be full.  The demand for places from Harpenden significantly increases over the next few years and is then sustained at a higher level than previously.  Since the current year 6 pupils started reception, 105 permanent primary places have been created in Harpenden (and more in the villages). All these children need secondary places and the existing secondary schools are already full.  Hundreds of houses are likely to be planned for Harpenden in the next few years as St Albans District needs to increase its housing targets. It is inevitable that even more school places will be needed.Whathere we like it or not, h  All these data and facts, demonstrate that additional places are urgently required (i.e. now, in 2018) and on a sustained and permanent basis after this, confirming the need for a new school in Harpenden.

- The Lower Luton Road is appropriate!

 The site was chosen after many detailed studies by professionals. It was deemed the best option available having regard to all considerations and we therefore support this conclusion.  The site is in Green Belt but due to the urgent and sustained need for a new school, the very special circumstances required to justify building on the Green Belt have clearly been fulfilled and this justifies building on a site in the Green Belt.  It is clear from the pupil data that the majority of the increase in demand is from children in Harpenden rather than the villages; this supports the location of the school on a site which is as central in the Harpenden Planning Area as possible, enabling ease of access.  The site also allows for ease of movement of staff and students between the Trust schools creating a true educational partnership.  The site is on existing bus routes supporting opportunities for children to travel.

- The proposed highways improvements are good enough!

 The documents attached to the planning application show that the proposals will not impact highway or pedestrian safety as proposed improvement measures will be put in place. We support these measures and believe that they will enable safe access to and from the school, and will not compromise the free flow of non- school traffic.  The proposals include Toucan crossings for use by pedestrians and bikes.

- Designed with our children at heart!

 The school will be housed in brand new, modern buildings designed for a 21st century education. There will be excellent use of WiFi and other technological facilities.  There is no compromise on sports facilities. 

Kind regards

(Wheathampstead)

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 18 February 2018 23:29 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; David Williams; Teresa Heritage; Annie Brewster; [email protected]; [email protected]; Spatial Planning; Ian Reay; Adam Mitchell; Jeff Jones; Sara Bedford; Andrew Williams; Seamus Quilty; John Hale; Dreda Gordon; Steve Drury; Stephen Boulton; David Barnard; David Andrews Subject: I object to the proposal to build a school in Batford

Please represent my views, this is absolutely the wrong place for a school, this dangerous location is too far from the pupils who may need it. It continues the current allocation system that discriminates against pupils outside Harpenden, putting the biggest burden on village and rural families. In particular, the Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places that reflect real areas of need. The location is a critical gap that prevents coalescence between neighbouring settlements. These two combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances specified in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm. I wish to register that I endorse any submission(s) by RSRP on this planning application. Please circulate this to all councillors, thank-you.

Regards,

From: [mailto: Sent: 14 February 2018 14:46 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866|17

I recently supported this planning application and am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive if the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden. I very much hope that it can now be approved without delay.

Regards,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 14 February 2018 13:42 To: Spatial Planning Subject: FW: Harpenden's proposed new school Importance: High

Dear Spatial Planning Team,

Please accept the material in the emails below in your own deliberations for the proposed new secondary school in Harpenden. I am writing now to ensure you have the same material and arguments that I have submitted yesterday and today to the committee that is sitting next week to consider this proposal. meeting details The two emails below were sent yesterday/today to all the members of that committee, along with local councillors and my local MP.

Any truly impartial view of the original site selection process for the proposed new school will quickly see that too much and too little weight was given to various factors along the way, resulting in potential sites not being included, and then others being eliminated too quickly for relatively trivial reasons. To justify the shortlist, and now the favoured site, numerous objections that would have eliminated any of the others, are now being conveniently overlooked or trivialised.

It seems as if other options have been excluded even if they might now work out to be better, cheaper, faster and safer all round.

In the last section of today’s email to the committee, I have tried to raise some out-of-the-box ideas, such as building the school on a golf course (Harpenden has many of them!), or even buying an existing small school in a great location, with the aim of expanding it.

I am fully aware that these could cause uncertainty and delays, but the aim is to show that there are still better solutions out there, which can make better use of the spaces and assets that we have here in Herts and especially in Harpenden.

Sincerely,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 1:14 PM To: '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' Subject: FW: Harpenden's proposed new school Importance: High

Dear Councillors,

Copy for your info.

Regards,

======

Dear Committee,

This is partly triggered by a response from Mr David Williams last night (13-Feb-2018), to an email I sent to him and other local councillors yesterday, which was very similar to my previous email to you all. I offer the following additional arguments in response to key points he raised.

Firstly, regarding the aim to have half the students not arriving by car:

Mr Williams wrote “The objective of the Travel Plan is to achieve 56% of pupils attending the school by sustainable modes of travel.”

HCC’s school-travel-plans web page says: “Plans are written with teachers, parents, students, governors and the local community. They are regularly reviewed and updated to make sure they meet the school’s travel issues and the opportunities to address them.” The proposed new school already has a management structure in place whose sole purpose (vested interest) is to get the school up and running. It was they who came up with this target.

There is, therefore, every likelihood that the target of 56% is at best “ambitious”, “aspirational”, or “wishful thinking”, or at worst “hopelessly unachievable”, or something plucked out of thin air for the sole purpose of helping to get the school approved.

If the school never comes close to 56%, who will be accountable? It will be too late to close the school. It is disingenuous (if not misleading, even dishonest) to hold up this target as a fact, to discount arguments and allay fears about traffic.

HCC encourages each school to have its own Travel Plan, but they don’t seem to be accountable or incentivised for achieving any specific targets. Does HCC keep a county-wide database of these targets, and the schools’ reported achievement of them?

Where is the evidence the proposed new school has any hope of coming anywhere near to their aspirational target? What are the corresponding targets for the existing schools in Harpenden, and what levels are they actually achieving? Let’s say they did achieve this one day (it may well happen sooner than later, if parents and buses cannot reliably reach the school due to gridlock, that they are all sent on foot). That still leaves 44% arriving by car, so perhaps 400+ cars in, and 400+ cars out. The car-and- bus-drop-off-spaces plan shows only 8/10 car spaces, and optimistically only shows six cars queued to exit the driveway. Because of the cure of the driveway (and cars and people moving around), only the first six drop-off spaces would be clearly visible as cars entre the driveway, and parents trying to drop off will block the driveway and wait a few seconds for one of those six early spaces to become free, rather than risking not getting a space if they continued around the curve to the other 2/4. They may simply “dump” them out on the driveway, nearer to the exit, if they cannot find a space, and this of course blocks the driveway (never mind the pedestrian safety issues).

Allowing just 10s drop-off time each, assuming all 10 spaces could be occupied for 50% by the drop-off activity (the rest being empty, or blocked by queuing), then those 10 spaces could theoretically handle a maximum of 30 cars every minute (one arriving and departing every 2s - clearly the entry and exit could not safely handle that many, even if there were no traffic on the Lower Luton Road, and no buses manoeuvring on the driveway). On the other hand, there are rarely any gaps on any normal school morning on the B653 at that time. Cars exiting and turning left will find a gap much more quickly that those turning right (who need a gap in both directions of traffic), so the left exit lane (capacity for 3-4 cars) will clear more quickly, but it will then be blocked by those trying to turn right. In the space of one minute, the whole driveway will be blocked, and arriving cars will queue out onto the roadway. Southbound cars (both for, and not for, the school) will quickly be blocked back to the mini-roundabout and beyond. Northbound cars for the school will not be able to leave their turning lane, so that will fill rapidly too, and then start to block the main Northbound traffic lane.

This is the typical situation at STAGS in Wheathampstead every school morning. While I accept that the situation at Luton airport’s drop off point is different (involving luggage and longer farewells), we have all seen that the capacity provided there initially seems ample, until you first experience it queued back to the underpass, when you are already late for your check-in.

Even if the school were to achieve this 56% target, the traffic situation on that stretch of the B653 would be much worse than it is now, with knock-on effects in all directions.

Secondly, regarding Mr Williams’ own eyewitness testimony:

“Travel as I do along Lower Luton Road most mornings and the pupils being driven to SJL and St George’s are evident.”

The location of this proposed new school may well save parents of SJL and St Georges students some travel time compared to their current car journeys, but why aren’t they already using “sustainable transport” which will surely be in the Travel Plans of those existing schools?

What will be sufficiently different to trigger parents like those to send their children by bus, when it would be even closer for them to drive from Wheathampstead to the new school? The location of the proposed new school will only add time to the journeys of students from Southdown, compared to existing schools, and they see to be by far the greatest source of students for the new school (in terms of taking on load from existing schools).

Thirdly, regarding the major roadworks needed outside the proposed school:

Section 6.3 of the Planner’s Report planners-report says: “Works to the highway outside of the site will require separate approval under the Highways Act (section 278) and would be subject to statutory public consultation. The detailed engineering works would require final approval of the Highway Authority.”

Presumably Herts Highways has been involved in planning alterations to that stretch of the B653 from early on (Para 8.3 of HCC’s highways-design-guide says this: “If access to or improvement of a secondary distributor is required as a result of a development proposal, early consultation with the Highway Authority will be necessary to determine design requirements.”).

If the proposal for construction of the new school were approved, can HCC guaranty that funds and priority will be allocated immediately to have those road works completed before the school opened?

Fourth, looking at the map in Appendix 11 of school-sites

It is blindingly clear that all three existing schools are in the Northern third of Harpenden and are well-located to serve the North, Central and Eastern parts. None of them is well-located to serve the Southern third (including Southdown and Hatching Green). Why put yet another school in the Northern half, and none in the South of Harpenden?

It seems obvious to me that, of the sites show on that map, Site G (East of Croftwell) would much better serve the South of Harpenden. It would take load off the existing schools and cut the length and amount of all journeys, especially cars, as many more of the students would be within walking distance. It would serve Wheathampstead better than the B653 site because it has less traffic and thus would allow faster car and bus journeys. It would also serve Redbourn better, as it can be reached without driving anywhere near the Harpenden High Street (the A1081 is notoriously badly jammed every morning), so this would help ease that problem).

A new secondary school in this area, instead of Batford, would be closer to Crabtree, High Beeches and Grove primary schools, further reducing car traffic (journeys and travel times) for parents dropping off multiple children in the morning. It would be within walking and cycling distance for more students. This would all reduce and improve overall traffic in Harpenden, instead of worsening it, as the favoured proposal would.

One ridiculous reason this option was eliminated early on was apparently because some of the hedges on the Wheathampstead Road (near the junction of Leasey Bridge Lane) would need to be cut back to provide access. Not all the hedges were at risk, and none of them were especially notable. There was apparently no loss of sleep for long-established trees that would be lost for access from in Common Lane for the favoured site. Finally, some “out of the box” thinking: I appreciate that thinking is much more difficult with the constraints of competing and conflicting interests of councils and committees, let me pose two possibilities (which seem no more outrageous than the idea of compulsory purchase of greenbelt farmland for the proposed school):

If HCC is prepared to order the compulsory purchase of the farmland at Lower Luton Road), could it not consider making an offer for (part of) something else, such as the Aldwickbury Park golf course which might be slightly better positioned than Site G, to avoid traffic through smaller back streets? There are plenty of golf courses around Harpenden, so there might be “only” scores or perhaps hundreds of voters upset by this (mainly the members and direct neighbours). The golf course could be reconfigured to the reduced space and even upgrade facilities with the cash injection.

Even further out of (the other side of) that box: what about making an offer to buy out the Aldwickbury School, which would enable HCC to get instant access to an operational school, which could have additional classrooms added rapidly. Maybe this still needs some land from the golf club. There might be many more objections to this approach (parents), but who knows, perhaps that school management would be grateful for an honourable exit to serve the greater good.

If the new/expanded school required most of the area of the golf club, then this could provide impetus for infill housing development towards the sewage treatment works.

Sincerely,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 3:38 PM To: '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' Subject: Harpenden's proposed new school Importance: High

Dear Councillor, Even as I write this, I visualise busy Councillors clicking away from it, or simply scrolling rapidly down, rather than reading it carefully. Please just don’t say afterwards: “No-one ever thought it could be this bad”.

Whether or not Herts County Council feels it can justify a new school at all (there seem to be conflicting calculations of basic need and timing), and whether or not the site selection process was carried out in a totally unbiassed and fair manner (not fitting the findings to a desired outcome), the fundamental flaw remains: lack of spare capacity in the approach roads.

The Lower Luton Road (B653) is already at full capacity every morning at school drop-off time, and near capacity most of the afternoon. One small delay along the road causes tail-backs and delays, for example all of the following are common occurrences (but won’t be recorded in your official traffic measurements):

1. If there is even a short delay to checkout queues inside the Tesco/Esso store in Batford, this will rapidly cause delays to drivers moving cars away from the forecourt, causing the inwards driveway to be blocked by cars queuing for fuel, then causing both Northbound and Southbound traffic blockages on the B653 as some of those cars queue in their carriageway lane for a place on the forecourt.

2. The rapid blockage of the Northbound and Southbound traffic flows means that cars exiting that forecourt are also blocked, resulting in a gridlock outside the Tesco/Esso. This immediately blocks Southview Road opposite. Within minutes, the tailback blocks the Station Road (B652) roundabout as well.

3. The tailbacks quickly stretch towards Luton, Wheathampstead, Harpenden town centre and Batford, right in the middle of drop-off times for Sauncey Wood primary school (on Pickford/Milford Hills), Batford Nursery (Holcroft Road) and the playgroup at Batford Hall (Tallents Crescent). Even when the checkout queues clear, it can take up to an hour for all the approach roads to clear, because there is no spare capacity at that time of day.

4. Bus routes serving existing school runs and commuters are affected by the same traffic jams, and then exacerbate the situation because they are delayed in reaching and clearing their stops. These delays cause unpredictable arrival times for passengers, and potential knock-on effects through the morning (even if some slack is planned into the timetables).

5. Imagine now having say 20 teenagers (or 200!) stopping at Tesco on their way to that new school to socialise and to buy a snack bar or drink. Even if Tesco/Esso puts on more staff, there will be new higher peaks of queuing in the shop, and thus causing more frequent (multiple times each morning) chaos within and outside that business.

6. It only takes one small section of roadworks or a poorly parked delivery van along the narrow road between Batford and Wheathampstead to cause delays even worse than outside Tesco/Esso, as there is little space for cars to pass. In many places there is too little space for two trucks, large vans or buses to safely pass without scrapping hedges or mounting kerbs. Instead, they slow or stop to let others past, causing a ripple of vehicles slowing and stopping behind them. 7. There is a seemingly idiotic practice of placing bus stops directly opposite each other, so that when Northbound and Southbound buses are stopped at the same time, then both carriageways are totally blocked for several minutes. This is guaranteed to occur more frequently and for longer periods if there are to be more school buses to serve more students in that area.

8. Traffic jams are far worse when temporary traffic lights are in place for roadworks (as recently at the Cherry Tree, and before that near the water treatment pond). Traffic very rapidly tails back miles at a time, both ways, because there is no spare capacity to allow this build-up to be reduced quickly.

9. Further East along the B653, where it is called Codicote Road, the roundabout outside the St Albans Girls’ School (aka STAGS) at Wheathampstead is also blocked every day, even when nothing is going especially wrong. All it takes is, for example, a delivery van at the bakery or Tesco’s on the Wheathampstead High Street (B651) to block one lane, and suddenly traffic on that road backs out into the roundabout. This too is exacerbated by school traffic at the far end of the High Street (for St Helens). Traffic entering and leaving STAGS blocks the B653 in a similar way to the Tesco/Esso problem in Batford, causing gridlock there too.

10. Some cars use the two cul-de-sacs opposite STAGs to avoid entering the school grounds, but turning large cars and 4WDs there can be difficult. The inevitable manoeuvring blocks those side roads, and out onto the B653, where it blocks traffic both ways, across the roundabout and back towards Batford (as well blocking traffic from the Welwyn and Kimpton directions). As with Batford, any such blockages take a long time to clear because there is no spare carrying capacity.

11. If cars and 4WDs drop off students at the proposed new school in Batford, then where will they be able to turn around after doing so? Do you not see that every 100 cars going Northbound and dropping off will become 100 cars doing U-turns and then becoming 100 Southbound cars on the same road? The micro-roundabout at Common Lane will be ravaged by U-turning vehicles of all sizes, but there is nothing yet to help Southbound traffic to turn and head back Northwards again.

12. Or will all those cars avoid that turn-around chaos, by shooting through the back streets of Batford? This will unavoidably take them past the primary school or the nursery or the playgroup, which will all already be overloaded at drop-off time. Or perhaps try their luck through the single-laned, hedge-enclosed rural tracks?

13. The recently added, so-called “turning lane” into STAGS is merely painted lines and an arrow on the same strip of tarmac as before. It has not been widened to accommodate a third lane, so there is barely room for two large vehicles to pass, but certainly enough when the turning lane is occupied by anything larger than a motorcycle. This “turning lane” solution seems like a tick-box road-safety exercise, adding some paint but no additional carriageway. 14. The proposed package of 30 off-site highway works does mention a turning lane and new bus stops (both in item 1). Obviously from the infamous STAGs example, one suspects that the proposed turning lane for the new school in Batford would also be limited to some creative line marking, but no additional carriageway to ease the burden. The new bus stops will probably be the same. Unless extra roadway is added, the painted bus stop will merely act as a periodic total roadblock, and will do nothing for road safety or traffic flow.

15. Besides all the issues outlined above, now imagine up to 1000 children crossing the busy B653 near the school, or further along towards Station Road. Let’s say their safety is secured with multiple crossings (of various species). Traffic will be stopped scores (if not hundreds) of times for individuals and groups to cross. How many minutes in total will that represent, taken from the peak traffic flow capacity, every single school day? How long will that take to clear?

16. Is there a possibility that some students will be too impatient waiting at the crossings, and dart across in front of traffic (especially if they are running late for school)? Or that parents or workers running late will try to beat the pedestrians to the crossing? Or swerve to get around vehicles stopping to drop off at the school?

17. Items 2-11 of the package of 30 amount to tinkering with kerb heights and line-marking in the nearby area and its periphery, but no additional vehicle carrying capacity. The additional crossings and buses stopping can only worsen the plight of motorists, even without additional vehicular traffic (into and out of the school).

18. Items 12-30 seem to be cheap and tacky, crowd-pleasing “stocking fillers” to try to demonstrate that Council “is doing something”. These are not even local to the problem, and again amount to little more than “a lick of paint”. Those railway bridges are irrelevant to the location of this school.

19. If Council is so convinced of the benefit of all those proposed works, then why are you waiting for a new school, before taking action improve pedestrian safety at all those locations?

20. Besides all the tinkering with kerbs and paints, there is no actual proposal for proper road construction, so the original and fundamental problem remains: insufficient capacity to deal with current traffic loads reliably. This causes rapid escalation of traffic jams and very slow clearance of them. A school of this size and site can only make all the problems even worse.

21. Is there any priority given to the environmental risks and damage caused by the additional traffic jams in that stretch, so close to the River Lea and its protected areas?

22. What about health risk to all the students as they wade through the heavy pollution caused by all that traffic standing idling, jammed in gridlock along the Lower Luton Road? Dear Councillors, I guess that most of you do not come from Harpenden, so it’s all merely lines on a map, numbers from experts (who also don’t live here), and all this is not relevant to you or your own daily lives.

I implore you to visit the location yourselves after 8:00 am on any school day. Take a flask of coffee or tea and sit on the veranda of The Malta pub, opposite the Tesco/Esso. See how easily that road can jam, and how long it can take to clear. Watch how many students go in (to Tesco’s, not the pub!) to buy snacks or drinks. Watch how often and how long those pedestrian lights are activated, and watch the effects of buses stopping both sides (and in Southview Road next to the pub). See how all of that affects the flow in all directions.

If you do take up that challenge, you will unfortunately miss the fun outside STAGS, going on at the same time, but on your way from Hertford you might get to see the new “turning lane” as it’s called (if you don’t blink and miss it).

If County Council insists that Harpenden needs a new school, then this is not the right place (the expected load is coming mainly from the Southdown area).

If it insists that this site on Lower Luton Road is acceptable, then it needs to fix the lack of roadway capacity before opening the school.

If it insists that it will suffice to rely on line-markings, drop kerbs, and proposal for speed limits and street lighting at distant sites, then the Committee’s member names will be long remembered for all the traffic mayhem caused for all their constituents, even those living nowhere near this new school.

I believe most of the current Councillors will be remembered in a similar negative way.

Sincerely,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 07 February 2018 20:27 To: Ian Reay; Michael Muir; David Andrews; David Barnard; Stephen Boulton; Steve Drury; Dreda Gordon; John Hale; Seamus Quilty; Andrew Williams; Sara Bedford; Jeff Jones; Adam Mitchell; Teresa Heritage; Spatial Planning Subject: Support for the New School in Harpenden. "I recently supported the planning application for the new secondary school in Harpenden and now understand that the application will be heard by the County Council planning committee on 8th February. This is an urgently needed school for the families of Harpenden and will ensure that previously ring fenced places at St Albans schools can be allocated to St Albans children. The location of the new school has been the result detailed technical work which concludes that the site is appropriate. I fully support this planning application and urge you to support this application at the committee meeting so that this new school can be built without further delay."

Yours sincerely

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 12 February 2018 22:09 To: Spatial Planning Subject: reference number PL\0866\17

We desperately need this fourth secondary school - not just for the current Year 6 children, but to accommodate the expanding population in the future, and to ring fence St Albans school places for St Albans children.

With every good wish,

From: [mailto: Sent: 07 February 2018 16:33 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

I recently supported this planning application and am writing to confirm and reiterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden. I very much hope that it can now be approved without delay.

Yours faithfully

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: Sent: 09 February 2018 18:14 To: Spatial Planning Subject: New Secondry School for Harpenden Planning Reference PL\0866\17

Dear Sir

fully support the planning application for the new secondary school in Harpenden and are writing to ask that you approve the proposal at your imminent meeting.

This is an urgently needed school, and we think it is only natural justice that Harpenden children should be able to attend a Harpenden school.

We believe the location of the new school has been the result of detailed technical work which concludes that the site is appropriate, so ask you to approve this new school now so that can be built without further delay.

We have sent a copy of this to David Williams, Teresa Heritage and Annie Brewster, who are our local County Councillors to ask them to speak up for the children of Harpenden on this urgent matter.

Yours faithfully

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 10 February 2018 12:20 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17 - Support of planning application for new secondary school in Harpenden (Katherine Warington School)

Good Morning,

Kind regards, From: [mailto: ] Sent: 07 February 2018 14:24 To: Ian Reay; Michael Muir; David Andrews; David Barnard; Stephen Boulton; Steve Drury; Dreda Gordon; John Hale; Seamus Quilty; Andrew Williams; Sara Bedford; Jeff Jones; Adam Mitchell Cc: Spatial Planning; David Williams; Annie Brewster; Teresa Heritage Subject: Katherine Warrington - in support

Dear planning committee members,

Ahead of the hearing on the planning for the new Katherine Warington secondary school, I would like to voice my support for the new school.

The school is urgently needed for our local children, and will be a real asset to the area. It is an exciting and well thought through proposal that will provide first class facilities for those who attend, and will also benefit children at the other three secondaries in Harpenden, who will be able to share many of the facilities. The school has the overwhelming support of parents in Harpenden and in the surrounding area. Much detailed consideration has gone into the question of where is the best place to put this school, and I support the conclusion that this is the best and most appropriate site.

With best wishes,

-----Original Message----- From: mailto: Sent: 07 February 2018 12:56 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

I recently supported this planning application and I'm writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay Regards

Sent from my iPhone

From: [mailto: Sent: 07 February 2018 23:02 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

Dear All,

Thank you

Dear all

Ahead of the meeting of the planning committee tomorrow, I just wished to register mine and my family’s continued support for the proposed new secondary school in Harpenden.

– the new school is badly needed and will make a huge difference to the area. All of the required analysis has been completed and the proposed site is the most appropriate, noting that nowhere will ever be perfect and please everyone. We strongly support this planning application. It is good for the local community and our children’s futures and we encourage you to please support the planning application.

Thank you for your attention and good luck tomorrow.

Kind regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 07 February 2018 16:53 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference number: PL\0866\17

Regards  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

From: [] Sent: 07 February 2018 23:01 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17 - Harpenden Secondary School

Dear Sirs/Madams,

Regards

Sent from my iPhone

From: [] Sent: 07 February 2018 19:01 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17 I would like to reiterate my support for the new secondary school in Harpenden.This is urgently needed to ensure that St Albans district children can attend St Albans district schools. Detailed technical work has concluded that the site is suitable.

I fully support this planning application.

Other children will not be so lucky unless a new school is built. I urge you to support this application at the committee meeting so that this new school can be built without further delay.

Best

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 05 February 2018 13:53 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

Dear Planning

Kind regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 04 February 2018 21:55 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

Dear Sirs,

Yours sincerely From: [mailto: Sent: 02 February 2018 14:16 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference number PL\0866\17 Dear sir/madam,

I recently supported this planning application and I am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay.

Yours sincerely

Get Outlook for iOS

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 02 February 2018 18:44 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Application: Reference numberPL\0866\17

Good evening,

Best regards,

Harpenden

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 02 February 2018 14:16 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference number PL\0866\17

Dear sir/madam,

From: [mailto: Sent: 01 February 2018 08:49 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Reference Number PL\0866\17 - new Katherine Warington School in Harpenden

Good Morning

I recently supported this planning application and am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new Katherine Warington Secondary School in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay

Many thanks,

______This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Claranet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.claranet.co.uk ______

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 01 February 2018 13:24 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Katherine Warington School numberPL\0866\17

Dear Sir or Madam

Kind regards From: [mailto: Sent: 01 February 2018 17:19 To: Spatial Planning Subject: 4th Harpenden Secondary School

PLEASE reconsider the location of the new Harpenden Secondary School for 3 Reasons -

1) Thesite,onthebusynarrowLowerLutonRoad,istotallyunsuitable. that already, at peak times, traffic through Batford queues back in both directions and because the site is the wrong side of the river there are only two access roads from Harpenden (Station Road and Westfield Road) which both experience long tailbacks. If the Lower Luton Road is closed between Wheathampstead and Batford for accidents, road works and recently a burst water main, there is no obvious suitable route round it. Even if cars and buses dropping off and picking up children pull off the road, they will cause chaos as they try to rejoin the main traffic. More pedestrian crossings will cause gridlock and there is no obvious safe cycleway to the site - sadly there will be a serious accident waiting to happen.

2) Batford children have two local Secondary Schools within walking distance, whereas those in South Harpenden and the Villages have none, so most of the anticipated 1200 intake will have to come from out of the area, which is absolute madness!

3) The site is on a steep slope which will be expensive to level off to provide decent playing fields.

The proposed site makes no sense at all so please reconsider before it is too late.

From

From: [mailto: Sent: 01 February 2018 16:21 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Reference Number PL\0866\17 - new Katherine Warington School in Harpenden

Good Afternoon,

Many thanks, From: [mailto: ] Sent: 01 February 2018 11:35 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning reference number PL\0866\17

Yours sincerely,

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 30 January 2018 21:56 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Green belt land being used for the proposed development of the Katherine Warrington school

I believe that the green belt land is an unsuitable for the building of a large school . It has been stated by the government that no green belt should be built on until all other options have been clearly researched and reasons given . This area of land at the corner of common lane and Lower Luton Road Batford is a boundary between Wheathampstead Village and Batford Harpenden.

It is an area of natural green beauty on a hillside with a country lane to the north and a beautiful Historic Manor House called Mackerye end . There is a footpath running southwards down the east side which is a joy to walk as down wards you can see the the view across the valley to Aldwickbury . When going upwards you have a joyous view of the pretty roof top chimneys of the Mackerye end house and it’s gardens .

When looking over the Batford and Harpenden estates it is kind to the eye .Not the abundance of greenery that surrounds this field but a river meandering through into these towns .The narrow Lane of the Lower Luton road twisting and turning through the divide between Batford and harpenden. Tree lined streets and gardens . A heath also lies between Batford and the river Lea which is a Nature Reserve .The Lower Luton road the wiggles its way through the country side toward Luton five miles away . When standing on the Lower Luton Road and one looks up in a northerly direction there is a sharp incline as the field climbs into the distance . Red kites fly in abundance over this land which is a joy . locals with the Heron watch intensely .

When turning toward the east while standing on the Lower Luton Road you watch the road rise and full on its way to Wheathampstead. The rise of the road from Batford to the Wheathampstead boundary is steep and busy and totally unsuitable for traffic to enter onto when leaving the school .when coming from the Lea valley estate to the top of the hill it is a blind spot ?

Regards

Sent from my iPad

From: ] Sent: 31 January 2018 18:38 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference numberPL\0866\17

To whom it may concern

This has been dragging on for too long - we need a fourth secondary school!

 There are not enough school places in Harpenden. Over 100 children from Harpenden were allocated a St Albans school in 2017 (and more than 80 children in each of the previous two years).  The demand for places within St Albans is also increasing - Harpenden children cannot rely on this provision for the future, as the St Albans schools will be full.  The demand for places from Harpenden significantly increases over the next few years and is then sustained at a higher level than previously.  Since the current year 6 pupils started reception, 105 permanent primary places have been created in Harpenden (and more in the villages). All these children need secondary places and the existing secondary schools are already full.  Hundreds of houses are likely to be planned for Harpenden in the next few years as St Albans District needs to increase its housing targets. It is inevitable that even more school places will be needed.  All these data and facts, demonstrate that additional places are urgently required (i.e. now, in 2018) and on a sustained and permanent basis after this, confirming the need for a new school in Harpenden.

- The Lower Luton Road is appropriate!  The site was chosen after many detailed studies by professionals. It was deemed the best option available having regard to all considerations and we therefore support this conclusion.  The site is in Green Belt but due to the urgent and sustained need for a new school, the very special circumstances required to justify building on the Green Belt have clearly been fulfilled and this justifies building on a site in the Green Belt.  It is clear from the pupil data that the majority of the increase in demand is from children in Harpenden rather than the villages; this supports the location of the school on a site which is as central in the Harpenden Planning Area as possible, enabling ease of access.  The site also allows for ease of movement of staff and students between the Trust schools creating a true educational partnership.  The site is on existing bus routes supporting oopportunities for children to travel.

- The proposed highways improvements are good enough!

 The documents attached to the planning application show that the proposals will not impact highway or pedestrian safety as proposed improvement measures will be put in place. We support these measures and believe that they will enable safe access to and from the school, and will not compromise the free flow of non-school traffic.  The proposals include Toucan crossings for use by pedestrians and bikes.

- Designed with our children at heart!

Kind regards

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

-----Original Message----- From: [ Sent: 31 January 2018 09:13 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Pl/0886/17

Dear Sir

I recently supported the building of and the opening of the New School at Batford. I am writing to confirm my continued support for the School. Time is short, and it needs to be ready for September 2018, all local Secondary schools are full, and with new housing the demand for places continues apace. PS This new School is also supported by the local MP

Sent from my iPad Before you print think about the ENVIRONMENT Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files, our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender and not necessarily those of the school.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 30 January 2018 16:06 To: Spatial Planning Subject: In support of the plan for the new secondary school in Harpenden - PL\0866\17

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 31 January 2018 08:21 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Subject: PL\0866\17 - Katherine Warrington School

Good morning,

Yours sincerely From: [mailto: Sent: 30 January 2018 16:38 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference number PL\0866\17

Dear Sir/Madam

Kind regards : [mailto: ] Sent: 31 January 2018 13:17 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

Dear Sirs

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 30 January 2018 16:38 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference number PL\0866\17

Dear Sir/Madam

Kind regards From: [mailto: Sent: 31 January 2018 13:17 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

Dear Sirs

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 01 February 2018 10:18 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Reference Number PL\0866\17 - new Katherine Warington School in Harpenden

Good Morning

Thank you

Email:-

Mobile:-

Virus-free. www.avast.com From: [mailto: Sent: 01 February 2018 10:18 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Reference Number PL\0866\17 - new Katherine Warington School in Harpenden

Good Morning

Thank you

Email:-

Mobile:-

Virus-free. www.avast.com

From: [mailto:j ] Sent: 01 February 2018 07:43 To: Spatial Planning Subject: katherine warrington school

Best regards,

From: [mailto: Sent: 30 January 2018 18:09 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning reference number PL\0866\1

Dear Sirs I recently supported this planning application and am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay."

All these data and facts, demonstrate that additional places are urgently required (i.e. now, in 2018) and on a sustained and permanent basis after this, confirming the need for a new school in Harpenden. - The Lower Luton Road is appropriate! The site was chosen after many detailed studies by professionals. It was deemed the best option available having regard to all considerations and we therefore support this conclusion. The site is in Green Belt but due to the urgent and sustained need for a new school, the very special circumstances required to justify building on the Green Belt have clearly been fulfilled and this justifies building on a site in the Green Belt. It is clear from the pupil data that the majority of the increase in demand is from children in Harpenden rather than the villages; this supports the location of the school on a site which is as central in the Harpenden Planning Area as possible, enabling ease of access. The site also allows for ease of movement of staff and students between the Trust schools creating a true educational partnership. The site is on existing bus routes supporting opportunities for children to travel. - The proposed highways improvements are good enough! The documents attached to the planning application show that the proposals will not impact highway or pedestrian safety as proposed improvement measures will be put in place. We support these measures and believe that they will enable safe access to and from the school, and will not compromise the free flow of non-school traffic. The proposals include Toucan crossings for use by pedestrians and bikes. - Designed with our children at heart! The school will be housed in brand new, modern buildings designed for a 21st century education. There will be excellent use of WiFi and other technological facilities. There is no compromise on sports facilities.

Thank you

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 31 January 2018 12:51 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Harpenden new School Dear planning,

Sent from my iPhone

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 30 January 2018 16:05 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Reference Number PL\0866\17

Dear Sir/Madam

I recently supported this planning application and am writing to confirm and reiterate that I remain supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay.

Regards

T: M: F: E: W:

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 31 January 2018 11:41 To: Ian Reay; Michael Muir; David Andrews; David Barnard; Stephen Boulton; Steve Drury; Dreda Gordon; John Hale; Seamus Quilty; Andrew Williams; Sara Bedford; Jeff Jones; Adam Mitchell; Spatial Planning Cc: Teresa Heritage Subject: PL\0866\17 - Katherine Warington school

Dear All,

It is in your power to change this and to release many families and their children from a stressful and frustrating situation.

It is a very sad state of affairs, A great number of children from Harpenden will not be allocated a Harpenden secondary school, which feels ridiculous given the town’s size. A large number in the Southdown area have been given school places in St Albans over the past few years and this will spike even further.

I implore you to approve the building of the Katherine Warington school in the upcoming planning committee meeting. The chosen site is the best available and has undergone rigorous evaluation to test its suitability. The only opposition is a handful of local residents who simply don’t want a school next to them. As far as I can tell, none of their objections meet any of the required standards for rejection of the application.

Please use your powers to help out our local families.

Kind regards.

======From: mailto: ] Sent: 31 January 2018 13:11 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17 - Katherine Warington School Planning Committee, 8 February

I'm writing to urge you to support the planning application for the Katherine Warington School in Batford, near Wheathampstead, which is being heard by the County Council on 8 February.

The school is urgently needed. is in desperate need of a school place. We live in Wheathampstead and do not stand a chance of getting into our nearest school Sir John Laws in Harpenden.

I fully support the location of the school, which has undergone extensive logistical and feasibility studies and I trust the County's judgement that the best decision has been made for the district. The site is in Green Belt but due to the urgent and sustained need for a new school, the very special circumstances required to justify building on the Green Belt have clearly been fulfilled and this justifies building on a site in the Green Belt.

To delay this school being built for another year would deny this year of children a local school that they can walk to and be proud of. It would also allow St Albans' schools to give places back to their local children.

Many families have invested countless hours and commitment into supporting this new school, which will secure the future of our children, and a vocal minority should not be allowed to delay it further.

Furthermore, from looking at the St Albans plan over 800 houses are designated for building in Batford so an established school here would be essential for this new population.

I would urge you to think about the current Year 6 children, looking to move to secondary school in September 2018, and allow them the chance to attend the Katherine Warington School, which I have no doubt will be an excellent, high-acheiving school under the Headship of Mr Tony Smith.

Thank you for your time and I hope I can look forward to your support.

With kind regards

(m: From: [mailto: ] Sent: 30 January 2018 22:10 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning reference number PL\0866\17

Dear Planning Department

We recently supported this planning application and are writing to confirm and re-iterate that we remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay.

Kind regards

)

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 31 January 2018 14:22 To: Spatial Planning Cc: [email protected] Subject: CHAY DEMPSTER - proposed school drainage run off From: [mailto: Sent: 31 January 2018 09:10 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Katherine Warington School - planning reference number PL\0866\17

Dear Sir / Madam

I can’t begin to imagine the consequences for hundreds of children if this application is rejected, and am desperate for this to be avoided.

Yours faithfully

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 31 January 2018 09:52 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

To whom it may concern

Kind regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 31 January 2018 09:50 To: Spatial Planning Subject: New school PL\0866\17

Hello I recently supported this planning application and am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay. Regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 31 January 2018 10:03 To: Spatial Planning Subject: New school PL\0866\17

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: Sent: 31 January 2018 00:11 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Kathryn Warrington School planning

Dear Sirs.

1. This project began with Common Lane residents being kept in ignorance of the planning of this project for several years before being informed of it by a hand delivered, undated letter on the evening before Harpenden Town Council voted on compulsory purchase of the land.

2. This level of dishonesty has continued throughout the project until recently with the sudden announcement that the landowner was to retain a strip of land running the length of Common Lane and this strip of land was, without warning, made available for housebuilding. No mention of this was made when the town council voted for the purchase of this Landscape Conservation land (not to mention its value to the community as a cattle farm which was carefully omitted from the documents with which they were supplied).

3. Conveniently for the landowner, an entrance cutting through the hedgerow halfway up Common Lane will provide commercial vehicle access to the school and a readymade road access to the housebuilding strip! 4.At the location of the proposed new junction, the hedgerow is sited on the very edge of the road, hence this junction will always be a “concealed” entrance where those emerging and those passing it will be unaware of approaching traffic until the last second. With no possibility of adding a pavement, foot traffic emerging will be at serious risk particularly from the downhill traffic. Curing this problem could eliminate the massive destruction of the hedgerow. There are places lower down Common Lane where the recently self-sown/trees, of lesser ecological value, are several metres away from the road which would allow for a much narrower entrance with a clearer view for both emerging and passing traffic and not require hedgerow destruction plus the possibility of a pedestrian safety barrier. Such an entrance could be connected to to original school building point with a short piece of road that would also assist the landowner.

5. The front of the school facing the Lower Luton Road will benefit from an attractive layout softened by trees. On the other hand, residents of Common Lane, those living closest to the school will have their view of distant countryside blotted out by one long institutional Berlin Wall with upper floor school windows providing a good view into their bedrooms.

6 The road safety risks of the design are frightening.

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 31 January 2018 12:11 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Proposed school on lower Luton road

We would like to voice our objections to the proposed scheme to build a secondary school on the field next to Common Lane in Harpenden. There are numerous reasons why this site is unsuitable including: - The huge amount of congestion already present on the Lower Luton Road - this would be made unbearable if a school were built on the proposed site. - The increase in traffic on the Lower Luton Road would also increase, to dangerous levels, the pollution in the area - The Lower Luton Road is not a road which can easily be walked along by children from Wheathampstead - one of the main areas the school is supposed to be servicing. - The site is a green belt area and building a school on it would dramatically change the look of the countryside in this area. - The proposed site is of huge archaeological importance.

For these reasons and more, we strongly object to the proposed building works on this site.

Sent from my iPhone ------Original message ------From: < > Date: 30/01/2018 22:17 (GMT+00:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Harpenden school proposed build

Dear sir / madam

I am aware of your upcoming meeting and I wanted to share my views and grave concerns over the proposals.

It is clear that many issues are evident and I dont believe have been properly considered. I further believe that the whole proposal to be fundamental flawed and is being forced through for political reasons rather than balanced review taking into account all the appropriate factors.

The process to date has been frustrating. The council riding roughshod over local residents and turning a blind eye. Probably as it's not in the posh expensive areas and therefore deemed to be where residents don't matter.

A few grounds for objection include

Visual Impact: The application states it has considered the impact on the area from the worst affected views – and the proposal will be a total eyesore and will be a blot on the landscape. See the attached photo and tell me how you can claim no or little impact.

In practice there are no views from the main vistas from Crabtree across the fields, no views from Milford Hill or Batford estate roads that look over the fields and bizarrely the report claims the view from the Lower Luton Road will be screened by retaining the hillside, while the building elevations portray a view from the Lower Luton Road that shows the main building obliterating the entire northern skyline. The development remains one which will create large areas of dug out land, and large areas of raised platform land. Green Belt Impact: The application requires release of Green Belt land. There is no Local Plan designation for the site that predetermines release, therefore any release has to meet ‘Very Special Circumstances’, under national planning policy guidelines which presume in favour of Green Belt retention. The Applicant is then required to demonstrate there is such a strong case that considerations outweigh standard Green Belt considerations including full and proper consideration of alternatives. The core objection is therefore this is inappropriate development of Green Belt on basis that better alternatives have not been properly considered. Traffic and lack of Mitigation: The expected impact of traffic resulting from the school is a significant factor. Concerns have been expressed by a number of statutory consultees including strong reservations form District Town and parish councils. Concerns about the safety of suggested walk and cycle routes for children - effectively along the Lower Luton Road from Wheathampstead – do not appear to have been addressed. Instead the £6.5m identified in 2015 has been removed from HCC’s budget estimates and the application contains instead a series of minor mitigations which in many instances are likely to frustrate motorists and put pedestrians at greater risk. .

Value for Money and associated risks: The school project was costed at between £53-65m when HCC’s consultants evaluated the project in 2015. This was about £20m more than DfE expect to fund and excluded land costs. In the supporting material the cost estimates have been reduced by between £8-10m – while a large part of this is removal of transport safety mitigation, it is also apparent that the design previously evaluated has been trimmed back – for example the parallel project in Croxley Green promoted by the council has nearly twice the on-site parking provision for same numbers of staff and students.

Archaeology: Material published in early January includes a report from HCC’s own Historic built environment department, which highlights that despite their attempts to provide an acceptable preservation of the archaeological interests found in site investigations (interests that were contrary to expectations of the applicants expressed at their exhibitions), the applicants have twice failed to make adequate plans and have since indicated that they do not wish to discuss the preservation requirements further until a planning determination is made. In essence the Applicants appear to have decided to take a chance on conditions being imposed and that there is a greater chance of further mitigating these into lesser conditions during any development. With many nationally acknowledged experts rating preliminary finds as highly significant, and the discovery or archaeological material in nearly half the trial trenches on the site, the apparently cavalier attitude of the developers is both unacceptable in the context of the Archaeology and the development as a whole.

Regards Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 31 January 2018 09:19 To: Spatial Planning Cc: David Williams Subject: CHAY DEMPSTER - Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, planning application reference 5/2733-17

I am extremely disappointed not to have received an acknowledgement of my correspondence with you and trust this is not an attempt to bury it. For the avoidance of doubt I attach the latest email forwarded to you. i also note no reply to my request for an extension of time has been acknowledged, again a failure on your part.

I now see overspill of water from the proposed school is anticipated to run down our spur road (Lower Luton Road spur - still wrongly named on the planning application!) Please advise whether this has been considered. It also begs the question of safety impact for those coming to school by this route. This has not been addressed in the safety impact assessment - just like the fact that the children will be competing with delivery vehicles in front of Superfine.

Ignoring issues only mean more evidence at the review.

Hoping for some sort of acknowledgement I have cc'd David Williams. Perhaps he can bring some organisation to this sad process.

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: < hertfordshire.gov.uk> To: < > Sent: Thursday, 11 January 2018, 14:47 Subject: RE: Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, planning application reference 5/2733-17

I have passed your email to Chay Dempster. Please can you forward any further emails to [email protected].

Many thanks

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 11 January 2018 14:09 To: Subject: Re: Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, planning application reference 5/2733-17

, thank you for your email. You might also like to send these to Chay as they show typical lorry movements into the Lower Luon Spur opposite the proposed school land - deliveries are morning and evening, block the single width, two-way road and show residents parking - all of these are not mentioned in the safety impact assessment and all are relevant. Why were they missed by the consultant drawing up the report - did they visit???

Regards

From: Spatial Planning To: > Sent: Thursday, 11 January 2018, 11:35 Subject: RE: Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, planning application reference 5/2733-17

Dear

I forwarded your emails to Chay Dempster, I will also forward this email to him now. Apologies.

Kind regards

From: [mailto: Sent: 11 January 2018 11:29 To: Cc: Subject: Fw: Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, planning application reference 5/2733-17

I am disappointed that, as this is a formal process, i have received no response from you to both of my emails. I have no way proof if you have received them - please do me the professional curtesy of an acknowledgement to them both.

Regards

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: < > To: < @hertfordshire.gov.uk> Cc: < > Sent: Friday, 5 January 2018, 15:59 Subject: Re: Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, planning application reference 5/2733-17

As I have not received a reply for an extension of time - rude again. I attach my comments to date. Interesting that I could not even discuss it due to your staff holidays and yet, for such an important development you limit time. i would ask at least for an acknowledgement and particularly that the error on road names is corrected as we are getting visitors asking if it is Crabtree Lane as their drawings say so but the road name says Lower Luton Road!

I am copying in Right School Right Place as I believe they are taking more notice than you seem to.

I have been involved in writing and reviewing reports such as these for over 20 years and see numerous errors in the writing of the 'Problem' and 'Resolution', plus a general failure to acknowledge - the spur of Lower Luton Road is a through road, not as the report states; in and out of Superfine lorry movements impact the roads around the area; This leads me to inform you that the safety report is flawed. I suggest you ask for it to be reviewed by a professional safety impact report writer once they have visited the area.

Regards

From: < @hertfordshire.gov.uk> To: Sent: Friday, 15 December 2017, 11:23 Subject: Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, planning application reference 5/2733-17

Chief Executive and Director of Environment John Wood SPATIAL PLANNING AND ECONOMY UNIT Postal Point CHN216 County Hall Hertford Herts SG13 8DN

Telephone: 01992 556211 Contact: Chay Dempster Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam

Planning application reference: 5/2733-17 Site: Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire Proposed development: application for the construction of new 6 FE school buildings, vehicular access/egress onto the Lower Luton Road, vehicular access onto Common Lane, two pedestrian accesses/egresses onto Common Lane, car parking, cycle storage, coach parking, playing fields, tennis courts / multi-use games area, surface water attenuation measures, hard and soft landscaping and other associated development

I am writing to let you know that additional information has been submitted in connection with the above application and offer you the opportunity to comment. The additional information relates to:

Highways and Transport 1) Extension of existing 30mph Speed Limit Wheathampstead to Batford 2) Relocation of existing 30/40mph Speed Limit 3) Car and Bus Drop Off Spaces 4) Projected Bus Stop Usage by Pupils 5) Harpenden School access Road Safety Audit–designers response DC6_098 6) Harpenden School access Road Safety Audit-designers response DC6_102 7) Harpenden Supplementary Public Transport Note 8) Katherine Warington School Travel Plan 9) Lower Luton Road + Station Road Existing layout (2021 Test) Junction modelling 10) Projects Bus stop use

Further proposals are made in respect of:

▪ Bus Delivery Group Setup ▪ Bus Delivery Group Implementation ▪ Travel Plan Archaeology 1) Archaeological Impact Assessment November 2017 Flood risk and drainage 1) Flood risk assessment (updated 8 December 2017) 2) Attenuation basin sections 3) Foul and surface water drainage strategy 4) Off-site surface water runoff diversion option 4 Proposed boundary ditch

Please refer to the covering letter (Vincent + Gorbing 12 December 2017) for references to specific documents, plans or drawings (further information). If you would like to make comments please submit them in writing, either via https://cloud1.atriumsoft.com/HCCePlanningOPS/loadFullDetails.do?aplId=26370, click on ‘online representation form’, or letter or via [email protected]. Any comments received by 09th January 2018 will be taken into consideration in determining the application. If you have previously made representations on the application these comments will also be taken into consideration.

Yours sincerely

Brian Owen Team Leader, Development Management ****Disclaimer**** The information in this message should be regarded as confidential and is intended for the addressee only unless explicitly stated. If you have received this message in error it must be deleted and the sender notified. The views expressed in this message are personal and not necessarily those of Hertfordshire County Council unless explicitly stated. Please be aware that emails sent to or received from Hertfordshire County Council may be intercepted and read by the council. Interception will only occur to ensure compliance with council policies or procedures or regulatory obligations, to prevent or deter crime, or for the purposes of essential maintenance or support of the email system.

Virus-free. www.avg.com

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 01 February 2018 01:15 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Objection to Proposed new school - application reference 5/2017/2733 (HCC reference SLUP/CC0798 PL|0866|17)

I have previously objected to this proposal, in which I listed 21 objections (attached as signed PDF and Word doc), including direct contravention of NFPP clauses. Although you confirmed receipt, I have had no response to any of my objections. I assume this is a process contravention which can be raised later at appeal stage. Following the further revelations about this development, it seems my objections actually under- estimated the problems this development will cause. It now emerges that the (already insufficient) transport mitigations will now be further de-scoped by another £6.5m.

The transport implications are – by your own consultants admission – horrendous for all of north Harpenden and anyone using the Lower Luton Road. This will have knock-on effects up Station Road and as far afield as Luton and Lemsford. The estimates of student bus, bicycle and walking transit are hopelessly optimistic, and consequently the car traffic will be much worse than modelled. This applies to the considerable influx of students from Wheathampstead and travelling down through Crabtree Lane to drop off at the Marquis of Granby. Cycling is obviously too dangerous on the Lower Luton Road, and walking along the disused railway path from Wheathampstead can only be considered viable when daylight permits in the summer months.

When questioned at the Marford Hall exhibition your transport consultants admitted that the hoped-for increase in bus traffic had not been modelled in the junction models, and so we can expect much worse junction conflicts and consequent queuing at the new school entrance/exit junctions and at the Common Lane junction.

questioned the putative Head, Mr Tony Smith, about staggering school hours to lessen the domino effect of all 3 secondary schools in NE Harpenden having similar hours, he said it was impossible due to the local bus operators’ “needing to make a profit”. This is clearly nonsense, and . Hours staggering and associated bus provision is something that HCC should mandate and fund to lessen the gridlock which will undoubtedly occur.

You will be aware of the serious head-on crash that happened on the Lower Luton Road 2 weeks ago, and the sequence of Gas works (Batford), Electricity works (Marshalls Heath Lane) and other roadworks which have caused havoc over the last few weeks. The Lower Luton Road is both notoriously busy and also a conduit for many utilities between Harpenden and Wheathampstead and onto Hatfield. As such there are frequent roadworks and one-way traffic signals which push this road very quickly into saturation and gridlock. This is not a road which can take any more traffic.

I will leave the Green Belt, visual amenity, flooding, air quality, archaeological and funding objections to others. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sent: 30 January 2018 22:10 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Re: Planning Application PL\0866\17 -Objections - School Development Control Meeting 8th Feb 2018

To Whom It May Concern.

We would be grateful if representations can be made on behalf of the Batford Community Action Group on our concerns and objections to the location/process of this development and those objections consist mainly of the following:

Traffic and lack of Mitigation: The expected impact of traffic resulting from the school is a significant factor. Concerns have been expressed by a number of statutory consultees including strong reservations form District Town and parish councils. Concerns about the safety of suggested walk and cycle routes for children - effectively along the Lower Luton Road from Wheathampstead – do not appear to have been addressed. Instead the £6.5m identified in 2015 has been removed from HCC’s budget estimates and the application contains instead a series of minor mitigations which in many instances are likely to frustrate motorists and put pedestrians at greater risk. . Visual Impact: The application states it has considered the impact on the area from the worst affected views – it fails to define these areas and is filled with carefully taken obscure photos that ignore high visual impacts. In practice there are no views from the main vistas from Crabtree across the fields, no views from Milford Hill or Batford estate roads that look over the fields and bizarrely the report claims the view from the Lower Luton Road will be screened by retaining the hillside, while the building elevations portray a view from the Lower Luton Road that shows the main building obliterating the entire northern skyline. The development remains one which will create large areas of dug out land, and large areas of raised platform land.

Drainage: Following criticism of the plans the applicants submitted further drainage proposals following the formal end of the consultation – these acknowledge the plans will see periodic overspill of water across the Lower Luton Road towards the ford but claim it is at an acceptable level.

Parking & Drop Off As mentioned above regarding the 'reduction in proposed parking' to save on costs, there is also the concern of many residents in Batford that the drop off zone by cars taking children to the school will impact greatly on residents. Not just in Batford, but it must be accepted that residents in Crabtree Lane will also be affected badly by cars dropping off children the other side of the Ford so they can avoid having to go into Batford at all. Crabtree residents have no parking issues whatsoever at the moment and so do not want parking permits or restrictions imposed as a direct result of the school being built. We know for a fact the Lea Care Home situated right opposite the proposed site is very concerned that their car pull in bay in front of the home is highly likely to be used as a drop off point and this will not be acceptable. They also do not want to have to introduce and monitor parking permits and/or restrictions when it works perfectly well now. We feel none of these concerns are being addressed appropriately.

For and on behalf of Batford Community Action Group

From: [mailto: Sent: 31 January 2018 11:43 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Objection to planning for Katherine Warrington School

Dear Sir/Madam

I would like to object to the proposed development of the Katherine Warrington School in Batford on the following grounds.

Green Belt Impact: The application requires release of Green Belt land. There is no Local Plan designation for the site that predetermines release, therefore any release has to meet ‘Very Special Circumstances’, under national planning policy guidelines which presume in favour of Green Belt retention. The Applicant is then required to demonstrate there is such a strong case that considerations outweigh standard Green Belt considerations including full and proper consideration of alternatives. The core objection is therefore this is inappropriate development of Green Belt on basis that better alternatives have not been properly considered. Traffic and lack of Mitigation: The expected impact of traffic resulting from the school is a significant factor. Concerns have been expressed by a number of statutory consultees including strong reservations form District Town and parish councils. Concerns about the safety of suggested walk and cycle routes for children - effectively along the Lower Luton Road from Wheathampstead – do not appear to have been addressed. Instead the £6.5m identified in 2015 has been removed from HCC’s budget estimates and the application contains instead a series of minor mitigations which in many instances are likely to frustrate motorists and put pedestrians at greater risk. . Visual Impact: The application states it has considered the impact on the area from the worst affected views – it fails to define these areas and is filled with carefully taken obscure photos that ignore high visual impacts. In practice there are no views from the main vistas from Crabtree across the fields, no views from Milford Hill or Batford estate roads that look over the fields and bizarrely the report claims the view from the Lower Luton Road will be screened by retaining the hillside, while the building elevations portray a view from the Lower Luton Road that shows the main building obliterating the entire northern skyline. The development remains one which will create large areas of dug out land, and large areas of raised platform land. Value for Money and associated risks: The school project was costed at between £53-65m when HCC’s consultants evaluated the project in 2015. This was about £20m more than DfE expect to fund and excluded land costs. In the supporting material the cost estimates have been reduced by between £8-10m – while a large part of this is removal of transport safety mitigation, it is also apparent that the design previously evaluated has been trimmed back – for example the parallel project in Croxley Green promoted by the council has nearly twice the on-site parking provision for same numbers of staff and pupils. Drainage: Following criticism of the plans the applicants submitted further drainage proposals following the formal end of the consultation – these acknowledge the plans will see periodic overspill of water across the Lower Luton Road towards the ford but claim it is at an acceptable level. Archaeology: Material published in early January includes a report from HCC’s own Historic built environment department, which highlights that despite their attempts to provide an acceptable preservation of the archaeological interests found in site investigations (interests that were contrary to expectations of the applicants expressed at their exhibitions), the applicants have twice failed to make adequate plans and have since indicated that they do not wish to discuss the preservation requirements further until a planning determination is made. In essence the Applicants appear to have decided to take a chance on conditions being imposed and that there is a greater chance of further mitigating these into lesser conditions during any development. With many nationally acknowledged experts rating preliminary finds as highly significant, and the discovery or archaeological material in nearly half the trial trenches on the site, the apparently cavalier attitude of the developers is both unacceptable in the context of the Archaeology and the development as a whole.

This is in particular light of the proposals for green belt release in Batford in the future for future housing. These issues will be exacerbated further.

Resident

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 30 January 2018 22:18 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Harpenden school proposed build

Dear sir / madam

I am aware of your upcoming meeting and as a local resident I wanted to share my views and grave concerns over the proposals. It is clear that many issues are evident and I dont believe have been properly considered. I further believe that the whole proposal to be fundamental flawed and is being forced through for political reasons rather than balanced review taking into account all the appropriate factors.

A few grounds for objection include

Visual Impact: The application states it has considered the impact on the area from the worst affected views – I live on the Crabtree side and the proposal will be a total eyesore and will be a blot on the landscape. See the attached photo and tell me how you can claim no or little impact.

Regards

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

-----Original Message----- From [mailto: ] Sent: 30 January 2018 14:29 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Katherine Warrington School planning application I recently supported this planning application and am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay.

Kind regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 29 January 2018 07:28 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference number PL\0866\17

Dear HCC

I am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay.

Best wishes

Sent from my iPad

From: n [mailto: ] Sent: 29 January 2018 14:28 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

From: [mailto: Sent: 30 January 2018 09:37 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17 - Katherine Warrington School

From: [mailto: Sent: 30 January 2018 14:41 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Reference numberPL\0866\17

Dear Planning

I am writing again as a resident and tax payer in Harpenden to deeply express that I totally support this planning application and am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay.

There are not enough school places in Harpenden. It is NOT acceptable that children from Harpenden are allocated a St Albans school The demand for places within St Albans is also increasing - Harpenden children cannot rely on this provision for the future, as the St Albans schools will be full.

The demand for places from Harpenden significantly increases as all the extra primary level places come of age, yet the secondary schools are already full.

Hundreds of houses are likely to be planned for Harpenden in the next few years .

This is urgently needed and the suggested location on Lower Luton Road is very appropriate, I fully support the application for the school to be located there.

The site was chosen after many detailed studies by professionals. It was deemed the best option available having regard to all considerations and I therefore support this conclusion.

The site is in Green Belt but due to the urgent and sustained need for a new school IS in balance more important and there will still be plenty of green space surrounding the school. The site also allows for ease of movement of staff and students between the Trust schools creating a true educational partnership. The site is on existing bus routes supporting opportunities for children to travel.

The proposed highways improvements are good enough in my view. The proposals will not impact highway or pedestrian safety as proposed improvement measures will be put in place. We support these measures and believe that they will enable safe access to and from the school, and will not compromise the free flow of non-school traffic. The proposals include

We want the school to be designed for a 21st century education. There should be no compromise on sports facilities.

From: [mailto: k] Sent: 29 January 2018 13:08 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference numberPL\0866\17 in

Dear sir, madam, "I recently supported this planning application and am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay." yours sincerely

From: [mailto: Sent: 29 January 2018 17:39 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference number PL\0866\17

Good Evening

I recently supported this planning application and am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay. I understand there is another meeting planned on the 8th February and very much hope this will result in approval for the proposed KWS secondary. we very much need this school to have the opportunity to go to school in the area which they call home.

Kind regards -----Original Message----- From: [mailto: Sent: 29 January 2018 17:15 To: Ian Reay; Michael Muir; David Andrews; David Barnard; Stephen Boulton; Steve Drury; Dreda Gordon; John Hale; Seamus Quilty; Andrew Williams; Sara Bedford; Jeff Jones; Adam Mitchell; Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference numberPL\0866\17

I recently supported the planning application for the new secondary school in Harpenden and now understand that the application will be heard by the County Council planning committee on 8th February. This is an urgently needed school for the families of Harpenden and will ensure that previously ring-fenced places at St Albans schools can be allocated to St Albans children. The location of the new school has I recently supported this planning application and am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay.

This has been dragging on for too long - we need a fourth secondary school! There are not enough school places in Harpenden. Over 100 children from Harpenden were allocated a St Albans school in 2017 (and more than 80 children in each of the previous two years). The demand for places within St Albans is also increasing - Harpenden children cannot rely on this provision for the future, as the St Albans schools will be full. The demand for places from Harpenden significantly increases over the next few years and is then sustained at a higher level than previously. Since the current year 6 pupils started reception, 105 permanent primary places have been created in Harpenden (and more in the villages). All these children need secondary places and the existing secondary schools are already full. Hundreds of houses are likely to be planned for Harpenden in the next few years as St Albans District needs to increase its housing targets. It is inevitable that even more school places will be needed.Whathere we like it or not, h All these data and facts, demonstrate that additional places are urgently required (i.e. now, in 2018) and on a sustained and permanent basis after this, confirming the need for a new school in Harpenden. - The Lower Luton Road is appropriate! The site was chosen after many detailed studies by professionals. It was deemed the best option available having regard to all considerations and we therefore support this conclusion. The site is in Green Belt but due to the urgent and sustained need for a new school, the very special circumstances required to justify building on the Green Belt have clearly been fulfilled and this justifies building on a site in the Green Belt. It is clear from the pupil data that the majority of the increase in demand is from children in Harpenden rather than the villages; this supports the location of the school on a site which is as central in the Harpenden Planning Area as possible, enabling ease of access. The site also allows for ease of movement of staff and students between the Trust schools creating a true educational partnership. The site is on existing bus routes supporting opportunities for children to travel. - The proposed highways improvements are good enough! The documents attached to the planning application show that the proposals will not impact highway or pedestrian safety as proposed improvement measures will be put in place. We support these measures and believe that they will enable safe access to and from the school, and will not compromise the free flow of non-school traffic. The proposals include Toucan crossings for use by pedestrians and bikes. - Designed with our children at heart! The school will be housed in brand new, modern buildings designed for a 21st century education. There will be excellent use of WiFi and other technological facilities. There is no compromise on sports facilities.

Thank you for your time,

Sent from my iPhone

From: [mailto: Sent: 29 January 2018 14:21 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference numberPL\0866\17

To whom it may concern,

()

From: [mailto: Sent: 29 January 2018 15:37 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

To whom it may concern

I understand that the application for a fourth school in Harpenden will be heard by the County Council planning committee on 8 February. It is clear that there is an urgent need for this school, and that the detailed technical work to ascertain the suitability of the proposed location has concluded incontrovertibly that is indeed appropriate. The building of this school has already been delayed unnecessarily, causing a great deal of stress and uncertainty to parents in Harpenden, while adding further pressure on schools in St Albans. I urge you to approve this application in order that the new school can be built without further delay.

Yours faithfully

Mobile: Email: LinkedIn:

From: [mailto: Sent: 29 January 2018 13:48 To: Spatial Planning Subject: reference number PL\0866\17

To whom it may concern,

I understand that this planning application (for a new secondary school in Harpenden) will be heard by the County Council planning committee on February 8th. As a Harpenden resident of 25 years and , I am writing to offer my strong support for the proposal and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay.

Yours faithfully,

Tel. + fax From: [mailto: ] Sent: 29 January 2018 13:17 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning reference number PL\0866\17 Katherine Warington School

To whom it may concern,

Local children deserve to go to a local school and walk to school if they choose to.

This is an urgently needed school for the families of Harpenden and will ensure that previously ring fenced places at St Albans schools can be allocated to St Albans children.

The location of the new school has been the result detailed technical work which concludes that the site is appropriate. but this is not just a choice that is 'appropriate' or 'good enough' this is an opportunity for a dynamic forward thinking school that breaks the mould to cater for pupils of today and of the future. This build is not only necessary, but inspiring and exciting. Students can't wait to be a part of this new school, please put your support behind it and make it happen. Harpenden schools are bursting at the seams, and our current cohort is a significant bulge. They will not fit in Harpenden unless this school is built. Please do your part in making it happen!

. I fully support this planning application. The timelines are so tight, we need approval so that in March when the decision is made, parents can choose KWS knowing the school will be ready, this means that building needs to have started!

I appreciate your time in reading this email.

Kind Regards From: [mailto: Sent: 29 January 2018 20:17 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

Good evening,

Regards

Sent from my iPhone

From: [mailto: Sent: 29 January 2018 20:43 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference number PL\0866\17

I recently supported this planning application and am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay. I understand there is another meeting planned on the 8th February and very much hope this will result in approval for the proposed KWS secondary. have the opportunity to go to school in the area which they call home.

We have waited so long for this school to be signed off. Please help our family and get this planning application approved.

Kind regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 29 January 2018 10:27 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Ref PL\0866\17

Dear Madam or Sir, I am writing to confirm and re-iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal and planning application for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay.

Yours sincerely,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 29 January 2018 11:02 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

To whom it may concern; I recently supported this planning application and am writing to confirm and re- iterate that I remain fully supportive of the proposal for the new secondary school in Harpenden and very much hope that it can now be approved without delay. I wholeheartedly look forward to some good news following the hearing. we have waited, and worried, for too long. Kind regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 29 January 2018 14:42 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference numberPL\0866\17 (KW School)

Good afternoon,

I understand that the planning committee will decide about the planning of the KW school on 8th February. I recently support the planning application for the new school in Harpenden, and am writing to re-state my support ahead of this meeting. We look forward to a positive outcome.

Regards -----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 28 January 2018 10:42 To: Spatial Planning Subject: OBJECTIONS concerning so called Katetherine Warrington School planning application PL\0866\17

To whom it may concern (without prejudice)

Since the application has closed further information has appeared on the HCC Website concerning Drainage.

I am concerned that due to the late appearance of this document inadequate attention has been paid to this aspect of the application.

Remembering the Aberfan disaster can we be assured that the huge amount of Earthworks on site will remain stable to hydrological pressure and other natural phenomena over the long term (say the length of the lease that will be awarded to KWS)?

Further as at Aberfan there is rumoured to have been mining on the site what preventative and costly measures will be used when unplugged mineshaft are encountered?

I hope you will adequately consider these concerns.

From: [mailto: Sent: 25 January 2018 08:42 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Representation PL0866/17

Dear Spatial Planning

Further to previous representations, including our representation dated 9 January 2018 in which we indicated that we were continuing to assess material added to planning portal in December 2017 and January 2018, please find attached further representation in respect of application reference PL0866/17. This takes the form of two documents, the representation and a referenced Appendix within the document. The Appendix is also available through Herts CC website at time of submission.

We note that relevant material continues to be added by both applicant and statutory consultees, including substantial drainage reports in the last week. We will review new documents and reserve right to make further representations as appropriate. Yours Sincerely

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 17 January 2018 10:36 To: Spatial Planning; Chay Dempster Subject: Re: Hertfordshire County Council - Online Representation Acknowledgement

Good morning Chay,

Just following up on the bellow and wondering if a call to discuss might be helpful.

Best regards,

On 8 Jan 2018, at 11:46, " " < > wrote:

Thank you /Chay.

Chay, I'm very concerned about how this application is going to have a life changing impact on our quiet road (when it becomes the rat run) and how impact on other roads have been considered but not ours. It seems illogical that the impact is foreseen in some areas (not all) but that those living in those areas are excluded from the census/questionnaire/input.

I'd welcome an opportunity to have a brief call to discuss or appointment if you feel this is more appropriate.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

On 8 Jan 2018, at 10:33, Spatial Planning wrote:

Dear

I can confirm your on-line rep has been received. I am passing it to the case officer, Chay Dempster now.

Kind regards

Senior Support Officer Spatial Planning & Economy Environment Department CHN 216 County Hall Hertford SG13 8DN

Tel: Comnet:

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 08 January 2018 00:47 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Fwd: Hertfordshire County Council - Online Representation Acknowledgement

Dear Team,

Can you please confirm who has reviewed my submission and when?

I wish the submission to be heard and understood by a/the planning committee member responsible for this application and to receive his/her/their specific response to the concerns raised.

Best regards,

Begin forwarded message:

From: Date: 8 January 2018 at 00:42:49 GMT To: Subject: Hertfordshire County Council - Online Representation Acknowledgement

Dear You have successfully recorded your comments online and these have been received by Hertfordshire County Council. Should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to email us on [email protected] or contact the office directly on 01992 556266

Please do not reply directly to this e-mail.

Please use this link to monitor the application: https://cloud1.atriumsoft.com/HCCePlanningOPS/loadFullDetails.do?aplId=26370

Kind Regards, Hertfordshire County Council Online Planning Team The information in this message should be regarded as confidential and is intended for the addressee only unless explicitly stated. If you have received this message in error it must be deleted and the sender notified. The views expressed in this message are personal and not necessarily those of Hertfordshire County Council unless explicitly stated. Please be aware that emails sent to or received from Hertfordshire County Council may be intercepted and read by the Council. Interception will only occur to ensure compliance with Council policies or procedures or regulatory obligations, to prevent or deter crime, or for the purposes of essential maintenance or support of the email system.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 09 January 2018 10:27 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Complaint about unreasonable extension - proposed new school designed to block Lower Luton Road and Common Lane, Batford

Dear Council, I wish to complain about the unreasonable 21-day extension for the significant amount of additional data, when half of those days are over the Christmas/New Year break, when Herts County Council was itself on shutdown. so have barely had time to settle back into the routine, and have not had time to review the additional tomes of information. It is unfair to sneakily bung the info into the public arena at a time when no-one is around to ask or answer questions. IT is as if Council had asked itself: “When is the best to time to issue the info for compliance, but also to ‘hide it’ for least trouble?”

and cannot imagine a school in that location NOT doing permanent damage to the area, let alone to the children attending. Sincerely,

From: - MD ETher NDE [mailto: ] Sent: 08 January 2018 21:21 To: Spatial Planning Subject: OBJECTIONS concerning so called Katetherine Warrington School planning application PL\0866\17

To whom it may concern (without prejudice)

Since I last wrote to you concerning my petition about the lack of objective analysis supporting this application the change.org petition has grown massively.

Please incorporate the following Change.org petition into the objections for the above planning application. This petition has already been acknowledged as compliant by HCC Democratic Services and is also the subject of complaint against HCC Schools Planning officers and members.

The full text may be read here https://www.change.org/p/hertfordshire-county-council-reconsider-the-decision-to-build-a-new- harpenden-school-on-the-site-east-of-common-lane

Please take into account the wishes of 3175 plus petitioners as well as the 136 comments from people who took the time to add their won concerns.

Yours faithfully on behalf of the community

From: - MD ETher NDE [mailto: ] Sent: 08 January 2018 21:02 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Application Katherine Warrington School PL\0866\17

Objection to KWS 22/10/2017 part 4

Dear Chay

In the Air Quality support document for the above application prepared by SYSTRA in Table 1 it shows for NO2 limits for both Annual Average and peak over an hour not to be exceeded more than 18 times a year.

I see no justification as to why peak was not used. Surely this is more relevant as this is when young children will be most at risk as the peaks are during times children are travelling to and returning from school.

Further I find the consultant measured at the LLR Common Lane R/bout NO2 at 20.46 μgm ̄3 and cancer causing PM10's at 15.76 μgm ̄3. The limit average is 40 for both. However the measure they gave themselves was an increase of >4 μgm-3 was a "major negative" by 2025. However traffic will rise by 26% it is forecast (caused by the school alone adding nearly 4000 Car Journeys a day). So if all remains the same NO2 20.46 would increase by 5.3 (which is a major negative).

They then decide cars will will become more efficient saying "The reduction in Annual Mean NO2 concentrations from 2014 to 2025 are as a result of presumed improved engine efficiency and reduced pollutant output, meaning that lower Background Concentrations are likely to be present". As the say this is a presumption not a fact. Latest figures show that new car pollution levels are rising not falling in the wake of Dieselgate. So any figures that assume falling pollution levels from cars is purely speculative.

So using the presumption the Consultants conclude this will increase by 0.8 which is a Minor Negative.

So amazingly a major negative becomes a minor negative on the site in their own words where "the Site had the highest predicated levels of NO2 amongst the other studied site options"

The pollution calculations are incorrect and fail to illustrate real life road conditions particularly stationary traffic.

This application should be rejected.

Rgds

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 09 January 2018 21:42 To: Chay Dempster; Spatial Planning Cc: '' Subject: Objection to Planning Application PL\0866\17 (5/2733-17)

In December 2017, because of scheduling issues, I presented petition to the Education Panel at County Hall.

I am submitting this objection on behalf of the petition signatories, who continue to grow in number every day, using information in the public domain, including the HTC presentation published by RSRP.

I understand that this petition has now reached 3250 signatures, including paper signatures previously submitted.

I am therefore submitting a) This email and b) The planning application information page (attached planning pg.pdf) c) various linked items as objections to the planning application. PL\0866\17 (5/2733-17) a. my presentation to the panel, 14th December 2017 (attached 171214 petition etc ….pdf) b. agenda pack and minutes of the meeting 14th December 2017 (linked) http://cmis.hertfordshire.gov.uk/hertfordshire/Calendarofcouncilmeetings/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingP ublic/mid/397/Meeting/774/Committee/105/Default.aspx c. my follow-up email to panel members and substitutes (attached1801 ed panel email.pdf) d. HTC presentation by RSRP (attached 171127 HTC Right etc…pdf) e. Traffic experiment walk to school (attached 2 files walk etc … jpg) f. Archaeology report from local magazine (attached 2 files history etc ….jpg)

Objections include: 1) The planning application landing page still displays incorrect and misleading information, demonstrating that the application is not being run properly. 2) On procedural grounds, where Herts County Council appear to have obstructed the valid petition, I see this as evidence that HCC are not managing this planning application in good faith, from consultation, transparency through processes, neutrality and more. 3) Some of the commentary from HCC officers in the meeting did not appear to match published data or records of events as the project has developed. This is again evidence that HCC are not managing this planning application in good faith. Data claimed by HCC is incorrect or misleading. 4) Although I sent a follow-up email to members, and the email was successfully delivered to the HCC email addresses, very few councillors appear to have read the email (based on lack of ‘read receipts’ obtained, and just a couple of actual responses). If true that councillors did not read the email, that in itself is evidence that HCC are not managing this application in good faith. 5) There is ample evidence within published planning application documents and statutory responses that the application fails site selection, green belt, traffic, road safety, visual impact, local amenity/disturbance, noise, proximity to listed/historic resources, design, pollution, landscape, flood, archaeology, need and several other fundamental planning tests. Sadly I do not have time to list all the issues in detail.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 10 January 2018 23:43 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Lower Luton road , pollution .

One of my objection to the proposed school development on green belt land at the junction on the Lower Luton Road with Common Lane Batford is the amount of extra traffic that will be created by this I’ll thought through Planning application. Most days because of the junctions situated at Batford the traffic congestion backing in all directions for most part of an hour causes already a heady amount of pollution by people trying to get their children to Sir John Lawes and St George’s schools . In those early days traffic was more free flow , however over the last twenty years due to more and more people cutting through Wheathampstead from the A1m to join the M1 or go to Luton Airport has increased so much so that

At least twice a week the traffic backs up from Batford past the Lea Valley estate . NO PERSON TURNS OF THEIR IGNITION , and the haze from standing cars that are left Ticking Over can be seen rising along the valley . However much this application expresses , that minimal car usage will be used is laughable . you only have to look in every other car to see children in school uniform being transported by Mum or Dad . No thinking minded parent would agree that the road is safe to walk along . We are also promised the added bonus of school busses engines ticking over while children embark and disembark . In a country that is trying to cut emissions wherever possible I reckon Herts County Council has a couldn’t care less attitude . There are already three good schools in north Harpenden . The need has been shown that the school if needed is in South Harpenden , Redbourn , Markyate and Wheathampstead . Where at the top of the hill going from Wheathampstead to St. Albans behind the adequate old school which was removed for housing, there are fields left from behind the old school grounds . Using the area of green belt land for this proposed school will link Wheathampstead to Harpenden as Batford comes under the parish of Harpenden . I request that planning permission be turned down for planning application for the Cathrine Warrington School.

Sent from my iPhone

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 09 January 2018 10:49 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Complaint about unreasonable extention

I wish to complain about the unreasonable 21-day extension for the significant amount of additional data, when half of those days are over the Christmas/New Year break, when Herts County Council was itself on shutdown.

I also draw your attention to the serious road accident which occurred on the Lower Luton Road on Friday 5 January involving a crash and fire. The road was closed for some hours before it could be cleared and before the Highways department considered the road safe following the fire.

I spoke to the police at the scene who have and continue to consider putting a school on this road to be unsuitable because of volume of traffic and narrow pavements. The council has not made a convincing argument for needing this school anyway but has nevertheless bought this land before planning permission has been given, which they originally said they would not do, and will now be ruling on their own planning project! This whole process has been morally questionable.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 09 January 2018 13:30 To: Spatial Planning Subject: 88 Objections to the planning application

Please find attached objections lodged via RSRP. This is not the entirety extent of objections to the planning application, but it represents ones that have been copied to RSRP Right School Right Place.

Please acknowledge receipt of these documents.

79 compressed file 4+2+1+2

On behalf of Right School Right Place

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 05 January 2018 18:41 To: Spatial Planning Subject: New 6-form-of-entry school building, vehicular access/egress onto the Lower Luton Road, pedestrian access/egress onto the Lower Luton Road, etc

Dear sir,

I understand that I need to write to you with my objections before the 11th January 2018 regarding the proposed school on land adjacent to the Lower Luton Road, Batford.

I will start by indicating my horror at even considering the proposal given how notoriously busy and dangerous the lower Luton road is. With its blind bends, hills, and the narrow width of this road. Tonight (5th Jan) coming home from work there were road works in Batford causing huge traffic tail backs in both directions and also there had been a very nasty accident involving two cars between Valley Rise and Manor Road, Lower Luton Road where one of the cars caught fire and the police closed that part of the Lower Luton road completely all day. Diverting ALL traffic up Valley Rise and down Manor road. This is a residential road and having buses and lorries charging past your window is not nice, and the speed at which these vehicles were going was very dangerous considering small children play in this road. I can’t understand why there is not a solid white line down the middle of this road as it is so dangerous with cars and vans overtaking and resulting in charnage when it goes wrong.

I see that the Council has installed a ‘electronic speed indicating sign’ at the bottom of Valley Rise on the Lower Luton road which tells the driver when he is going too fast or keeping to the speed limit. Most of the time the traffic goes through this electronic device showing the driver a red sad face because they are travelling too fast. My point is that these three factors alone should ring alarm bells in your heads and telling you that the Lower Luton road is not a place for a thousand children. Do you think that all these children will walk out slowly from school and push their bikes across the road to go home. No, they will come out of school looking at their phones, talking to their friends, pushing and shoving each other and riding their bikes straight onto the Lower Luton road. You are not only putting their lives at risk but also the drivers who use this road.

I drove past Batford Junior school the other day at collection time and the parents of the children had parked anywhere and everywhere so their child could see them. It was very hazardous going round some of the bends on the wrong side of the road not knowing who was coming the other way as cars where just parked nearest the school. Do you not think that this will not happen at this new proposed school. Parents will park on the Lower Luton road, all up Common lane, in the area by the new flats opposite the new proposed school and also the little road that leads down to the river, I believe is called Crabtree lane. So you will have all that extra traffic, plus coaches and not forgetting staff vehicles using the Lower Luton road when it is over used as it is.

The complete infrastructure has not been looked at thoroughly, so you will be making this road even more dangerous than it is already.

Again I will reiterate my huge concern for the safety of these school children, along with the congestion and pollution that extra vehicles will give.

Lastly, it seems democracy as disappeared, as your Council was elected by the people who live around this area and now you don’t seem to want to listen to the views and concerns we have. This is not the right place for this school.

I will be sending this letter by post as well to make sure that hopefully it is read.

Yours faithfully Sent from my iPad

From: [mailto: Sent: 22 December 2017 10:52 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Plg Applicn 5/2733-17, yours of 15/12/17, additional info.

Comments on items 173 and 71:

173, Car & Bus Drop-off Spaces: I’d put the other way round to emphasise you need to MINIMISE CAR USE: e.g. you’ll surely need to restrict car drop-off by eg a licensing system (like a Disabled Badge) so only available for those living over eg a mile away by the MOST DIRECT walking or cycling route [e.g. using the footbridge access from the South so car users can’t claim over a mile using the convoluted road system!]. Otherwise you’ll have back-up on to the already very busy Lower Luton Road [it’s a stupid site anyway!] as the Drop-off spaces get filled. As an example, cars parked both sides, including over the yellow ‘No Stopping 8a.m. to 5p.m.’ zigzags, so basically a single track road leading on to the A405 dual carriageway!

71, Foul etc strategy: I was told a sewer was installed across the site from the Sauncey Wood development down to the Lower Luton Road in the ?1960s but ?how reliable and presumably you’ll know of it - and familiar with the site

Dear Sirs

HCC Planning Application 5/2733-17, Harpenden Senior School, Lower Luton Road Transport Assessment

Previously I provided the comments below but can find no record of these comments or any answers on the HCC planning web site applicable to the proposals. I note that further traffic assessments have now been provided which seem more a means of justifying the unjustyfied to baffle any logical assessment for the lay person. I suggest that the traffic considerations should be subject to a second and independent professional assessment because simple common sense to any user of the Lower Luton Road says there must be a problem which cannot be disproven no matter whatever selective report is submitted with endless caveats.

I write to express my concern about the validity of the traffic impact assessment within the Transport Assessment submitted as part of the Planning Application.

As a periodic user of the Lower Luton Road, I am always surprised at the volume of traffic using this road during peak hours. In peak hours the traffic seems to be almost a continuous nose to tail flow in both directions. I suspect this is exacerbated by the Lower Luton Road being used is a cut-through from M1 Junction 10 to M25 Junction 23 and to all towns east of Harpenden. If the M1 has a problem then this always seriously impacts the Lower Luton Road.

Common sense alone tells me that vehicle traffic serving the school can only cause serious congestion to all traffic using the Lower Luton Road. The statement in the Transport Assessment ‘traffic projections indicate relatively small proportionate increase in traffic flows at all key local junctions during peak hours’ and the school proposals are ‘not expected to have a severe impact on the operation of the local highway network’ seem of course helpful to the planning application but nonsense for future reality.

daily and sometime the extreme congestion solely caused by school traffic.

Particular questions: 1. I note the transport assessments are based on 18% of pupils arriving by car. Has this been validated as realistic for Harpenden schools based on current % car traffic flows to say Roundwood Park School? 2. Has the traffic impact assessment considered the impact of the all new and additional pedestrian and pelican crossings working in cinque or some random order? For example, traffic through Harpenden town centre can come to almost a halt when the four crossings work in a random and opposing sequence.

Regards From: [mailto: ] Sent: 15 December 2017 11:40 To: Subject: Re: Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, planning application reference 5/2733-17

Trying to understand the relevance of this 'further Information' as it is not submitted for the Planning Application according to your filing system. Also I note that there is at least one extra item you do not refer to that has been put in the 'further Information folder - Education Need Statement. What exactly are you asking me to comment on, those you list or those submitted in that folder on the same day? I cannot start to review until I know which you are referring to and therefore the date of the 9th of January must be reviewed until I get an answer.

Regards

From: < @hertfordshire.gov.uk> To: Sent: Friday, 15 December 2017, 11:23 Subject: Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, planning application reference 5/2733-17

Chief Executive and Director of Environment John Wood

SPATIAL PLANNING AND ECONOMY UNIT Postal Point CHN216 County Hall Hertford Herts SG13 8DN Telephone: 01992 556211 Contact: Chay Dempster Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to let you know that additional information has been submitted in connection with the above application and offer you the opportunity to comment. The additional information relates to:

Further proposals are made in respect of:

▪ Bus Delivery Group Setup ▪ Bus Delivery Group Implementation ▪ Travel Plan

Archaeology 1) Archaeological Impact Assessment November 2017 Flood risk and drainage 1) Flood risk assessment (updated 8 December 2017) 2) Attenuation basin sections 3) Foul and surface water drainage strategy 4) Off-site surface water runoff diversion option 4 Proposed boundary ditch

Yours sincerely

Virus-free. www.avg.com

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 15 December 2017 12:10 To: Subject: Re: Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, planning application reference 5/2733-17 i have just finished downloading these documents. Do you know how many documents there are - offered to the community for comment over the Christmas Break! How many more examples of 'mis-using the planning process and its timescales. No wonder there are so many people joining together to get HCC to act properly.

I am formally asking for an extension to the 9th deadline rather than ask the media to do it for me. regards From: < @hertfordshire.gov.uk> To: Sent: Friday, 15 December 2017, 11:23 Subject: Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, planning application reference 5/2733-17

This image cannot currently be displayed.

Chief Executive and Director of Environment John Wood

SPATIAL PLANNING AND ECONOMY UNIT Postal Point CHN216 County Hall Hertford Herts SG13 8DN

Telephone: 01992 556211 Contact: Chay Dempster Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to let you know that additional information has been submitted in connection with the above application and offer you the opportunity to comment. The additional information relates to:

Further proposals are made in respect of:

▪ Bus Delivery Group Setup ▪ Bus Delivery Group Implementation ▪ Travel Plan

Yours sincerely Brian Owen Team Leader, Development Management ****Disclaimer**** The information in this message should be regarded as confidential and is intended for the addressee only unless explicitly stated. If you have received this message in error it must be deleted and the sender notified. The views expressed in this message are personal and not necessarily those of Hertfordshire County Council unless explicitly stated. Please be aware that emails sent to or received from Hertfordshire County Council may be intercepted and read by the council. Interception will only occur to ensure compliance with council policies or procedures or regulatory obligations, to prevent or deter crime, or for the purposes of essential maintenance or support of the email system.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 15 December 2017 21:38 To: Subject: Re: Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, planning application reference 5/2733-17

Please be aware and take notice. On the information before me ( I strongly oppose the proposal to erect a school on the Wheathampstead/ Harpenden border) I strongly oppose the information I have as it relates to Wheathampstead teenage young residents. I am concerned re the costs and dangers and dangers for students travelling to/from a a school. I have expressed my views several months ago in the Herts Ad.

Please find another site!

Sent from my iPad

On 15 Dec 2017, at 11:18, < @hertfordshire.gov.uk> wrote:

Chief Executive and Director of Environment John Wood

SPATIAL PLANNING AND ECONOMY UNIT Postal Point CHN216 County Hall Hertford Herts SG13 8DN

Telephone: 01992 556211

Contact: Chay Dempster Email: [email protected] v.uk

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to let you know that additional information has been submitted in connection with the above application and offer you the opportunity to comment. The additional information relates to:

Further proposals are made in respect of:

Yours sincerely

From: [mailto: Sent: 08 December 2017 09:13 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Application Katherine Warrington School PL\0866\17

Objection to KWS 22/10/2017 part 3

Dear Chay

We residents have been told all along by the politicians (David Williams HCC and Julian Daly SADC) that the time to question the site selection was during the planing application consideration

The table on page 35 of the Comparative Site Assessment Report FINAL 11-09-17.pdf seems to have weak correlation with the consultants reports it refers to. As this table is the basis for the selection of this site and its removal from Green Belt the officers of HCC or truly independent consultants should analyse this as my own analysis shows that this is not the case and this report currently cannot be used to justify this application.

As it stands this applications should be rejected until Vincent and Gorbing demonstrate how the scores correlate with the evidence in an objective way.

Rgds

From: [mailto: Sent: 08 December 2017 07:36 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL0866/17 Representation

Dear Spatial Planning

On 16 November our group submitted a representation on the above planning application. We indicated that we would be following this with additional submissions as there were uncorrected omissions and new material posted late in the consultation window. We are now submitting the first additional material. Diue to absence of material that was either indicated as with the application but not present or was referred to in matters leading to the application but then not used in the final version, it has been necessary to included copies of other published materials with this submission.

Unfortunately this includes some large files, notably reports produced by HCC or Vioncent & Gorbing on behalf of HCC. While we have included references to these where they remain on HCC websites we have had to include copies (or in some cases abridged copies) to ensure source material is available for consideration. From a practical perspective we are therefore submitting the main representation with smaller appendices in this mail and will follow with other mails for larger Appendices. We anticipate 3 or 4 emails and will advise when complete.

We ask you to note that the need to compile and include such additional material has been a time consuming one and was triggered by the submission of additional material by HCC in the last week of the initial 6 week consultation period. We do not believe it would have been possible to review in any less time than has been taken, which in itself is less than 6 weeks from publication of new information. Naturally we would have preferred to have seen the bulk of this information with the original application. It should be noted that the Needs information is a trigger for many other considerations and we continue to work on these aspects and will make further representations as quickly as possible.

Yours Sincerely

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 08 December 2017 07:43 To: Spatial Planning Subject: RSRP Representation PL 0866/17

Dear Spatial Planning

Please find attached 3rd and final email with additional information related to our representation made earlier today

Reagrds

RSRP

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 08 December 2017 07:41 To: Spatial Planning Subject: RSRP repesentation for PL/0866/17

Dear Spatial Planning

Please find attached second email with attachments as advised

Regards

From: [mailto: Sent: 08 December 2017 07:38 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL 0866/17 RSRP Representation

Dear Spatial planning

Further to recent mail, please find attached first additional email with attachment(s) Regards -----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 14:25 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School

Although it seems unlikely that anyone is taking any notice of opposition to the proposed new Batford school, I would like to OPPOSE the scheme in the strongest possible terms.

Even if there were a need for this school, the effect on traffic on the Lower Luton Road will be horrendous, and it will be extremely dangerous for anyone, especially children, to walk to school. Although I would be very interested to hear of any magic solution to this aspect if you have one, I would prefer to hear that you have stopped the plan altogether.

From: l [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 10:20 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Spatial Planning Subject: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford

I am writing to ask that you represent our views and reject the proposed school at Batford.

Batford is absolutely the wrong place for a school this dangerous location is too far from the pupils who may need it.

In particular, the Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places that reflect real areas of need. This is the basis of policy in the Harpenden Neighbourhood Plan - why is this plan being ignored. The location is a critical gap that prevents coalescence between neighbouring settlements. These two combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances specified in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm.

The Very Special Circumstances required for removal from Green Belt have not been demonstrated.

The case for justifying a school on this site has not been made. There is no demonstration of a local need especially: school rolls are falling in Harpenden. School figures show that the school is reliant on demand from Luton and surrounding area outside the Harpenden Secondary Schools planning area. This means the school is not needed for local pupils and will be reliant on pupils coming from a distance. There is insufficient evidence of how pupils will travel and where from: the effect on local traffic is unacceptable.

This proposed site will put the vast majority of pupils on the road, unlike other more sustainable options that would take traffic off the roads. Suggested traffic mitigation measures are wholly inadequate for the circumstances bringing further damage to a wide area. Identified specific measures in many cases will reduce safety provision for all users. Traffic surveys were apparently done during holiday periods and when roads were closed for repairs, floods or weather.

This is a highly prominent site widely visible across Harpenden. Landscape and Visual Impact reviews have only been given for extremely limited circumstances and conclusions are unrealistic. It is an area designated by Herts County Council to conserve and improve.

The on-site archeology is of national significance and the NPPF says is must be treated as such. The professional view is that it is so significant that it must be investigated/excavated in full.

There has been insufficient community involvement in this process from the outset. Proposed school hours, scale, lighting, operation and future expansion are unclear and conflicting within the documentation.

There are many matters relating to visual amenity, noise, disturbance (and more) that will affect a significant proportion of Harpenden. For example inadequate parking, mismatched transport planning and the poor match to local need that will create significant traffic safety hazards, nuisance and additional parking over a very wide area.

There is no doubt in our minds that the bottom of Crabtree Lane and its adjacent roads will become car parks if the site is allowed to go ahead.

From: [mailto: Sent: 27 November 2017 10:11 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Planning Applications Subject: FW: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School From: mike wakely [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 09:25 To: Subject: Fw: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School

Very many thanks and forwarding last nights upteen emails on the school... I have told all that SADC are only advisory Best wishes,

From: < > Sent: 27 November 2017 07:30 To: [email protected] Subject: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School

I understand the Harpenden town council meeting is being held for the new school this evening. The traffic impact and huge cost of the development on such an unsuitable site mean, in my view, an alternative site (site G) should be considered. Please could you represent my views at the meeting.

Thank you

Sent from my iPhone -- ****Disclaimer****

The information in this message should be regarded as Private and is intended for the addressee only unless explicitly stated. If you have received this message in error it must be deleted and the sender notified. The views expressed in this message are personal and not necessarily those of St Albans City and District Council unless explicitly stated. Please be aware that emails sent to or received from St Albans City and District Council may be intercepted and read by the council. Interception will only occur to ensure compliance with council policies or procedures or regulatory obligations, to prevent or deter crime, or for the purposes of essential maintenance or support of the email system.

Please note that the Council does not accept service by e-mail

From: [mailto: Sent: 27 November 2017 19:51 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; David Williams; Teresa Heritage; Annie Brewster; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: OBJECTION: Proposed Secondary School in Batford

Dear Councillors and MP

I am asking to respectfully ask that you respect my views regarding the proposed siting of the new secondary school planned for the area.

I enclose an e-mail sent to the planning department at Herts CC eleven days ago and this explains my reasoning for objecting to the scheme - if this is not already self evident from the plans.

I am particularly concerned that there is a substantial degree of unfairness involved in the process, and if not plain skulduggery, there has been a substantial massaging of the true impact of positioning the school in the field at Batford farm. And no , where fairness is the name of the game, and if I was provided with stilted information by expert service providers used to investigate a claim I, that would have been no good to anyone and I would have to consider not using them again. However, with regard to the recommendations concerning site F, I understand that:-  The site was originally described as one of the most unobtrusive (or the most unobtrusive) whereas at present it would be hard to argue that the view from Crabtree Lane is not one of the finest in the town, overlooking the endangered open countryside on the opposite side of the valley. It is not only Crabtree Lane that enjoys the view, the field is prominent from other local roads too.  The site was described by Vincent and Gorbing as being low grade agricultural land used for grazing a few horses, whereas in fact it was a working cattle farm. I have been told that a councillor supporting the planning application does not feel that this has any relevance but I strongly disagree - where else in the area can you see a field of cows, both close by and from afar? As for low grade - it is South facing -and being a hillside enjoys maximum sunshine.  Photographs produced by The Landscape Partnership appear to be deliberately taken to play down the attractiveness of the site. Viewpoint T confuses a pond used for the storage of water, presumably for the Aldwickbury Golf Club - as being the "River Lea" to give the impression of the Lea being a canalised watercourse with sheeted banks rather than the pretty small river that it is, and Viewpoint U shows a photograph cut in half which is taken from much the same position as mine below but shows a lot of unkempt foliage in the foreground (which is actually quite attractive when you see it in real life)

These are just three examples, I do know however that the effect on the Grade II listed Marquis of Granby has been overlooked, and that (maybe purposely) there is a dearth of photographs taken from the opposite side of the valley where the visual impact of the school will be greatest.

I am obviously aghast at the amount of earthworks required at this archaeological site where a number of skeletons were found only recently, the difficulty that children will have reaching it, the effect of additional traffic on the Lower Luton Road through Batford and beyond, the additional expense of building a school on the site, and all the other reasons why it is the wrong place to put a school, that have been pointed out elsewhere. Please acknowledge this e-mail to confirm that you have at least read it. I asked the same of the planning department but have received nothing so far other than an automatic receipt, so I assume that they have ignored it.

Yours,

My e-mail to the planning department is pasted below.

I am writing to object to the planning application PL/0866/17. I I do hope that somebody will read my objections and take them into account when considering the application. The following is my initial representation in the above matter. I reserve the right to submit again as further information is made available and analysis of the material published is undertaken.

I was astounded that the report from Vincent and Gorbing contended that the Common Lane/Lower Luton Road site (site F) was the most appropriate site for a new school. I accept that there must occasionally be special circumstances for building on Green Belt land but in this instance the choice of site is ludicrous, not only because it is being built in entirely the wrong place but also because a site chosen is arguably the most conspicuous of any of the ten or so sites originally considered. The site will destroy one of the most picturesque views from the town to the countryside, looking across the Lea Valley. If you build on Site F you might just as well build anything anywhere. Absolutely no consideration seems to have been given to the above in reports that I have seen: I have read that the land is "low grade", used for grazing a few horses, whereas in fact it is a south facing slope that has been used for cattle/dairy farming a county councillor Mr Williams that he did not think that the mistake mattered. I do not agree; where else locally can you see cows in fields from near and afar?, Similarly I understand that the construction has been described as visually unobtrusive. How I would like to spend an afternoon with the author visiting the various sites and hearing their rationale. The green belt at the site is very tight - because there is only a short distance between the houses of Wheathampstead and Batford, using green belt land here will have a more detrimental effect than building on green belt land on the edge of a village. (Not that I advocate building on green belt land at all). My second major objections relate to the general positioning of the school. The construction would mean that there would be entrances to three secondary schools within a linear mile. What is the point of concentrating the locations of three of four secondary schools within such a small area? If you are going to put three schools close together, why have the biggest one on the far side of the River Lea, thus restricting the routes of access from the town? Would it be too much to ask that it be located where it is needed, namely Wheathampstead or Southdown, or somewhere between the two that children can access reasonably. It is all a question of positioning a new school in such a place as the aggregate of journey times/ distances (pupil miles) are kept to a minimum, thereby keeping vehicles off the road as far as possible - either because they do not have to drive so far, or because the schools are near enough to be within reasonable walking distance. If the school is situated at Site F, the traffic situation on the Lower Luton Road is going to be chaotic. It is bad enough at the moment, with frequent long jams and gridlock on occasions caused by motorists being unable to access the Esso petrol station. Only the other evening traffic tailing back from the roundabout at lower Luton Road extended back over the top of the hill, this is bound to become a frequent occurrence in years to come. (I also understand that the research into traffic and travel have been wholly inadequate, with the roundabout at Common Lane being removed and traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings being relegated to "zebra" crossings. I can't imagine what effect a solid stream of hundreds of kids crossing on a zebra crossing would have on traffic even at its current level. Then there is the safety aspect with motorists becoming impatient.

On a personal level I am expecting the bottom end of Crabtree Lane and Marquis lane to be used for dropping off and collecting, and also for the parking of cars during the day, walk and that is fine, but there isn't room for more cars. (I have no idea what the parking arrangements at the school site are and whether there is sufficient provision for everybody including sixth formers). There is traffic chaos in the summer during the Larks in the Parks event and whilst this is more than acceptable for one day a year, it would be a nightmare if it happened on a twice daily basis. (Also the additional traffic would pose a threat to the substantial number of cats residing in Crabtree Lane) . Due to lack of screening the noise from the playing fields is bound to carry right across the valley. Similarly, I cannot imagine that there will not at some point be an application to install some form of floodlighting and again this would be all the more conspicuous bearing in mind the fact the school would be in one of the most conspicuous of the shortlisted sites. There is so much information concerning the application and I have not had time to read and digest it all due to not being aware of it until recently. Similarly we have received very little information from those promoting the school or the planning authority. How can it be that we have been denied the opportunity of knowing exactly what is involved? For example, I had always thought that the school buildings would be tucked away in the bottom corner of the site, and alongside Common Lane so as to be the least conspicuous, and to preserve as far as possible the buffer between Batford and Wheathampstead. I also thought no building would be allowed on Green Belt land unless there were Very Special Circumstances. I have recently seen that an area of land on Common Lane has been fenced off as though for housing. Why is this? It only serves to push the school buildings further towards Wheathampstead. Further it that only today that I found that there are four different layouts for the school. As I stated above, no consideration seems to have been given to the opposite side of the valley from the school. There seems to be much comment on the Thatched Cottage on the Lower Luton Road and the effect that the buildings might have on it, being so close to bland looking industrial units as it is, yet no consideration has been given to the setting of the Grade II listed, 1690 built Marquis of Granby. I attach a photo of the pub taken from the railway path crossing, showing what a disastrous effect options 1, 2 and 3 would have on the vista. The hedgerow just above the roof marks the route of the Lower Luton Road. No thought seems to have been given to this by Beacon Planning.. It doesn't even appear in the Heritage Asset Sensitivity list in their report. I can only think that this is because the blight on the views Mackerye End isn't too bad, but that Crabtree Lane isn't being mentioned because it is severe enough to have to try to sweep under the carpet. Outrageous!!!! (I recall Beacon or Vincent and Gorbing commenting somewhere that the proposal will have no effect on the Marquis of Granby - it sticks in my mind as they called it "Grandby")!

As a Council Tax payer I also object to the cost of the scheme. Bearing in mind the amount of landscaping that will need to be carried out. Why spend so many millions more than Also from the figures I have seen I am not at all certain that the need for a new school has been proven - at least not in Harpenden town. Bearing in mind that there have to be Very Special Circumstances for the land to be taken out of the green belt I wonder to what extent the need for another school - in Harpenden rather than elsewhere- has been proven. I understand that it has been suggested that only one in three students from Wheathampstead will attend the school. Surely this reinforces the need for a school in a position that Wheathampstead children can get to easily. The case for justifying a school on the site has clearly not been made. It is clear that a lot of people support the idea of a new school to the extent that after so long they really don't care where it is situated. bad it not been such a serious subject, I would have been amused by a publication from the Harpenden Parents Group telling their subscribers why a fourth school is needed and they support the new school at Site F....as though they don't know themselves. Similarly I am worried that there has been some economies of accuracy when it comes to the planning application. I know that this is largely subjective, but I know that some of the traffic surveys have been carried out at times of reduced road usage. , both in Batford. There was supposed to be somebody / some people from the council there, and there may well have been, but if there were, they were not identifying themselves, let alone making themselves approachable. who I thought was from Kier Construction (she had a Kier Badge) and it was only later that I found out that she was from Vincent and Gorbing, hiding behind a Kier badge. To summarise, my objections are - 1) Insufficient justification for releasing green belt land - particularly where the belt is so tight. 2) Blight on the landscape. Not only the building but also the associated landscaping 3)Proposed location would cause traffic chaos on B653 / insufficient mitigation measures. 4)Safety risks to children resulting from the above. 5) Further traffic/parking difficulties in Crabtree Lane. 6) School is in the wrong place generally - not in a place convenient to maximum number of attendees. (Three school entrances within a mile). 7) There has been no demonstration of a local need when taking other nearby schools into account. 8) Noise and possible future light pollution. 9) Lack of transparency and late release of documents compromises the position of objectors. There has been insufficient community involvement in this process from the outset. 10) Cost. The site is expensive and a huge amount of money will be needed to carry out earthworks. 11) (and not mentioned above) - The archaeological importance of the site generally. Not only were a number of skeletons discovered, but it is clear from the number of flint arrowheads I have found in my garden over the years that people have been living in the immediete area for a very long time. I have received literature from RSRP (thank goodness, as but for them I wouldn't have any). I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Finally, please email confirmation that you have received this email and that it has been accepted as a valid response to the planning application'.

Yours sincerely

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: Sent: 27 November 2017 12:52 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: Objecton to the new school

I would like to raise my objection to the siting of the new school on Lower Luton road. I recently walked along the road to Wheathampstead and found that the footpath is so narrow in places as to be dangerous, children could be forced into the road and so soften the traffic clearly does not travel at 30mph. The path is being encroached on by the disintegrating banks & weeds, in places it simply disappears and you are forced to cross the road to get to a useable footpath. Also, what about the quality of air for the children walking along the road.

The traffic at 8-8.30am is atrocious, especially around Tescos where it often backs up behind buses, delivery lorries, traffic lights etc, Lower Luton road can be an absolute nightmare in the mornings. Has a traffic survey been done at this time of day? Another matter is the flooding that occurs in heavy rain at the bottom of the hill by the Common Lane roundabout. Why is a free school bus not being considered for pupils from the villages? Surely that would go a long way to reducing traffic congestion which can only increase when parents start taking their children to school because it is too dangerous for them to walk. Look at how chaotic it gets around the St Albans Girls prep school at pick up & drop off times.

Please re-consider the decision to locate the school on such a poor location.

Kind regards, From: [mailto: Sent: 27 November 2017 11:44 To: Spatial Planning Subject: New School Propsal

I remain flabbergasted that the proposal for another senior school in Harpenden, along Common Lane is continuing. It beggars belief that the practicalities - or rather total lack of practicalities for this site, seem to be irrelevant. The Lower Luton Road is an awful road to walk along. The traffic is extremely heavy and has pinch points which often make me have to pull over in order to let lorries or buses pass safely. To build a school where 1200 children are expected to walk or as we all know will happen, get driven to, will be massively detrimental to all concerned. Local residents, road usage and congestion, the poor children forced to attend this school. Little seems to matter to the numties who think this is a good place to build a school. I feel sick saying it but genuinely believe it won't be until a child is killed on this road that someone might get the idea the school should not have been built there.

My honest and genuine belief is there are back handers happening at the council to push this through and no one with an ounce of common sense would EVER consider it a feasible plan to build a massive senior school on such a tiny country road.It's people in positions of authorities and power ignoring the local people and the just doing what lines their back pockets. No wonder we have no faith on government or in council when outrageous plans like this steam ahead.

Yours in despair

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 07:31 To: Planning Applications Subject: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School

Thank you

Sent from my iPhone From: [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 12:13 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Planning Applications Subject: FW: Objection : proposed secondary school in Batford

From: mike wakely [mailto: Sent: 27 November 2017 12:13 To: Subject: Re: Objection : proposed secondary school in Batford

; HCC have decided to themselves make the planning decision and SADC is only advisory. I

From: < > Sent: 27 November 2017 12:07:56 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection : proposed secondary school in Batford

I wish to register that I endorse and submission(s) by RSRP on this planning application. Please circulate this to all councillors, thanks you.

The Very Special Circumstances required for removal from Green Belt have not been demonstrated.

This is a highly prominent site widely visible across Harpenden Landscape and Visual impact reviews have only been given for extremely limited circumstances and conclusions are unrealistic. It is an area designated by Herts County Council as conserve and improve.

The on-site archeology is of national significance and the NPPF says it must be treated as such. The professional view it that it is so significant that it must be investigated/excavated in full.

The case for justifying a school on this site has not been made. There is no demonstration of a local need especially: school rolls are falling and when taking other nearby schools into account. Documentation confuses Harpenden and wider area need.

There are many matters relation to visual amenity, noise, disturbance ( and more ) that will affect a significant proportion of Harpenden. aFor example inadequate parking, mismatched transport planning and the poor match to local need the will create significant traffic safety hazards, nuisance and additional parking over a very wide area.

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect.Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

On a totally personal view

both with SADC and English Heritage only to now realise the beautiful hamlet will be affected by lighting at the playing fields together with cars on the school run opting not to sit in queues of traffic on the Lower Luton Road ( one of the busiest B roads in the county ) but instead taking short cuts through our single lanes through the hamlet with several blind bends, not only ruining the verges and hedgerows but definitely waiting for accidents to happen when drivers will be tearing round the corners oblivious to traffic that may be coming in the other direction. I trust English Heritage have been brought into this planning as I would be very interested on their take in this matter.

Yours faithfully -- ****Disclaimer****

Please note that the Council does not accept service by e-mail

From: [mailto: Sent: 27 November 2017 10:26 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Spatial Planning Subject: new school

I wish to register that I endorse any submission(s) by RSRP on this planning application. Please circulate this to all councillors, thank-you.

 The Very Special Circumstances required for removal from Green Belt have not been demonstrated....is ti to allow more housing to be built on the green belt??????  This proposed site will put the vast majority of pupils on the road, unlike other more sustainable options that would take traffic off the roads. Suggested traffic mitigation measures are wholly inadequate for the circumstances bringing further damage to a wide area. Identified specific measures in many cases will reduce safety provision for all users. Traffic surveys were apparently done during holiday periods and when roads were closed for repairs, floods or weather.  This is a highly prominent site widely visible across Harpenden. Landscape and Visual Impact reviews have only been given for extremely limited circumstances and conclusions are unrealistic. It is an area designated by Herts County Council as conserve and improve.  The on-site archeology is of national significance and the NPPF says is must be treated as such. The professional view is that it is so significant that it must be investigated/excavated in full.  The case for justifying a school on this site has not been made. There is no demonstration of a local need especially: school rolls are falling and when taking other nearby schools into account. Documentation confuses Harpenden and wider area need.  There has been insufficient community involvement in this process from the outset. Proposed school hours, scale, lighting, operation and future expansion are unclear and conflicting within the documentation.  There are many matters relating to visual amenity, noise, disturbance (and more) that will affect a significant proportion of Harpenden. For example inadequate parking, mismatched transport planning and the poor match to local need that will create significant traffic safety hazards, nuisance and additional parking over a very wide area.  I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. I would ask all concerned to drive along the Lower Luton Road between 8.00 and 9.00 or 3.30 and 5.00. The traffic is not only heavy on the Lower Luton road but backed up Station road as well. This is just going to get worse with the few pupils who are able to walk using the crossings! Also any one who has to drive regularly along the Lower Luton road in the winter know how dangerous it is in the dark as the road is narrow, lorries and busses make it more so and it does not need more cars travelling along it! kind regards

Many thanks for this.

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 14:00, < > wrote:

I wish to register that I endorse any submission(s) by RSRP on this planning application and would be grateful if you could circulate this to all councillors.

•The Very Special Circumstances required for removal from Green Belt have not been demonstrated.

•This proposed site will put the vast majority of pupils on the road, unlike other more sustainable options that would take traffic off the roads. Suggested traffic mitigation measures are wholly inadequate for the circumstances bringing further damage to a wide area. Identified specific measures in many cases will reduce safety provision for all users. Traffic surveys were apparently done during holiday periods and when roads were closed for repairs, floods or weather.

•There is insufficient information on the impact of the school on the local community to allow proper understanding/consideration of the totality of the measures.

•School figures show that the school is reliant on demand from Luton and surrounding area outside the Harpenden Secondary Schools planning area. This means the school is not needed for local pupils and will be reliant on pupils coming from a distance. There is insufficient evidence of how pupils will travel and where from: the effect on local traffic is unacceptable.

•Local roads and access are dangerous for pupils to travel, particularly if walking or cycling. This is an unacceptable risk. •This is a highly prominent site widely visible across Harpenden. Landscape and Visual Impact reviews have only been given for extremely limited circumstances and conclusions are unrealistic. It is an area designated by Herts County Council as conserve and improve.

•The on-site archaeology is of national significance and the NPPF says is must be treated as such. The professional view is that it is so significant that it must be investigated/excavated in full.

•The case for justifying a school on this site has not been made. There is no demonstration of a local need especially: local school rolls are falling and documentation confuses Harpenden and wider area need.

•There has been insufficient community involvement in this process from the outset. Proposed school hours, scale, lighting, operation and future expansion are unclear and conflicting within the documentation.

•There are many matters relating to visual amenity, noise, disturbance (and more) that will affect a significant proportion of Harpenden. For example inadequate parking, mismatched transport planning and the poor match to local need that will create significant traffic safety hazards, nuisance and additional parking over a very wide area.

•I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

There is very strong feeling it the area that there has been an absence of consultation going back as far as the inception of the plan in 2011, which was not communicated to local residents until September 2013. Nothing that has happened since could possibly be described as ‘consultation’ in any meaningful way. We rely on local councillors to represent our views, feel very strongly that this has not been happening in this instance and look to you to rectify this on our behalf.

Thank you. From: [] Sent: 27 November 2017 11:37 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Fw: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School Importance: High

Planning application PL\0866\17

From: Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 11:34 AM To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] Subject: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School

during that time the traffic has increased dramatically.

We are not opposed to a school if it is necessary – although figures seem to shift to support HCC’s argument – but we consider building a school here as dangerous. Anyone walking along or cycling along this road will know the problems. Children will not walk singly – which is necessary along parts of this road and even then with a bus/coach/lorry travelling along, usually above the speed limit, and trying to pass each other you are dangerously close to mirrors and vehicles. Not on this road but a friend has been disfigured for life having been hit by a lorry mirror while he was waiting to cross a road.The traffic will only increase over the years even if a school is NOT built here.

The site is also one of great archaeological interest – when were residents going to be apprised of this fact?

Also how do we inform ourselves of the reasons why the other 8 (?) proposed sites were rejected?

Yours sincerely,

From: mike wakely [mailto: Sent: 27 November 2017 15:15 To: ; Subject: Re: Objecton to the new school ; HCC have decided to make the planning decision themselves rather than SADC.

Both SADC and HTC can therefore only comment but .

From: < > Sent: 27 November 2017 12:51:39 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objecton to the new school

Why is a free school bus not being considered for pupils from the villages? Surely that would go a long way to reducing traffic congestion which can only increase when parents start taking their children to school because it is too dangerous for them to walk. Look at how chaotic it gets around the St Albans Girls prep school at pick up & drop off times.

Please re-consider the decision to locate the school on such a poor location.

Kind regards,

-- ****Disclaimer****

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 16:47 To: Planning Applications Subject: Objection Letter for the Planning at Woodland Court, St Albans (ref- 5/2017/3086)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached my objection letter for the planning application at Woodland Court, St Albans.

Kind regards,

From: mailto: Sent: 28 November 2017 08:19 To: ' '; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; David Williams; Teresa Heritage; Annie Brewster; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected]; ' ' Subject: RE: OBJECTION: Proposed Secondary School in Batford

Not only have I read your email but I agree with most of the 11 objections you raised in your email to planning. Wheathampstead Parish Council has been involved in the choice of site for the new school from the beginning and we, too, were against the choice of the Batford site. We have continued to point out its shortcomings and have proposed alternative sites but our comments seem to fall on deaf ears. We also pointed out that the original site assessments were flawed.

It is my personal view (and not necessarily the view of my council) that there has been a bulldozer approach to this probably caused by inadequate planning around the time that the Wheathampstead educational site was sold for housing in the relatively recent past and the subsequent pressure to solve the lack of school places.

I am personally appalled at the additional cost that landscaping this site will incur at a time when budgets are tight and we are cancelling important services throughout the county, not to mention at the detrimental impact it will have on the local landscape. There is also the issue of creeping coalescence particularly as the land owner has reserved a strip of land clearly as a potential building site. Chairman, Wheathampstead Parish Council

From: [mailto: Sent: 27 November 2017 19:51 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: OBJECTION: Proposed Secondary School in Batford

Dear and

I am asking to respectfully ask that you respect my views regarding the proposed siting of the new secondary school planned for the area.

I enclose an e-mail sent to the planning department at Herts CC eleven days ago and this explains my reasoning for objecting to the scheme - if this is not already self evident from the plans.

I am particularly concerned that there is a substantial degree of unfairness involved in the process, and if not plain skulduggery, there has been a substantial massaging of the true impact of positioning the school in the field at Batford farm. And no where fairness is the name of the game, and if I was provided with stilted information by expert service providers used to investigate a claim I, that would have been no good to anyone and I would have to consider not using them again. However, with regard to the recommendations concerning site F, I understand that:-  The site was originally described as one of the most unobtrusive (or the most unobtrusive) whereas at present it would be hard to argue that the view from Crabtree Lane is not one of the finest in the town, overlooking the endangered open countryside on the opposite side of the valley. It is not only Crabtree Lane that enjoys the view, the field is prominent from other local roads too.  The site was described by Vincent and Gorbing as being low grade agricultural land used for grazing a few horses, whereas in fact it was a working cattle farm. I have been told that a councillor supporting the planning application does not feel that this has any relevance but I strongly disagree - where else in the area can you see a field of cows, both close by and from afar? As for low grade - it is South facing -and being a hillside enjoys maximum sunshine.  Photographs produced by The Landscape Partnership appear to be deliberately taken to play down the attractiveness of the site. Viewpoint T confuses a pond used for the storage of water, presumably for the Aldwickbury Golf Club - as being the "River Lea" to give the impression of the Lea being a canalised watercourse with sheeted banks rather than the pretty small river that it is, and Viewpoint U shows a photograph cut in half which is taken from much the same position as mine below but shows a lot of unkempt foliage in the foreground (which is actually quite attractive when you see it in real life)

These are just three examples, I I do know however that the effect on the Grade II listed Marquis of Granby has been overlooked, and that (maybe purposely) there is a dearth of photographs taken from the opposite side of the valley where the visual impact of the school will be greatest.

Please acknowledge this e-mail to confirm that you have at least read it. I asked the same of the planning department but have received nothing so far other than an automatic receipt, so I assume that they have ignored it.

Yours,

My e-mail to the planning department is pasted below.

I am writing to object to the planning application PL/0866/17. I do hope that somebody will read my objections and take them into account when considering the application. The following is my initial representation in the above matter. I reserve the right to submit again as further information is made available and analysis of the material published is undertaken.

I was astounded that the report from Vincent and Gorbing contended that the Common Lane/Lower Luton Road site (site F) was the most appropriate site for a new school. I accept that there must occasionally be special circumstances for building on Green Belt land but in this instance the choice of site is ludicrous, not only because it is being built in entirely the wrong place but also because a site chosen is arguably the most conspicuous of any of the ten or so sites originally considered. The site will destroy one of the most picturesque views from the town to the countryside, looking across the Lea Valley. If you build on Site F you might just as well build anything anywhere. Absolutely no consideration seems to have been given to the above in reports that I have seen: I have read that the land is "low grade", used for grazing a few horses, whereas in fact it is a south facing slope that has been used for cattle/dairy farming I was told by a county councillor Mr Williams that he did not think that the mistake mattered. I do not agree; where else locally can you see cows in fields from near and afar?, Similarly I understand that the construction has been described as visually unobtrusive. How I would like to spend an afternoon with the author visiting the various sites and hearing their rationale. The green belt at the site is very tight - because there is only a short distance between the houses of Wheathampstead and Batford, using green belt land here will have a more detrimental effect than building on green belt land on the edge of a village. (Not that I advocate building on green belt land at all). My second major objections relate to the general positioning of the school. The construction would mean that there would be entrances to three secondary schools within a linear mile. What is the point of concentrating the locations of three of four secondary schools within such a small area? If you are going to put three schools close together, why have the biggest one on the far side of the River Lea, thus restricting the routes of access from the town? Would it be too much to ask that it be located where it is needed, namely Wheathampstead or Southdown, or somewhere between the two that children can access reasonably. It is all a question of positioning a new school in such a place as the aggregate of journey times/ distances (pupil miles) are kept to a minimum, thereby keeping vehicles off the road as far as possible - either because they do not have to drive so far, or because the schools are near enough to be within reasonable walking distance. If the school is situated at Site F, the traffic situation on the Lower Luton Road is going to be chaotic. It is bad enough at the moment, with frequent long jams and gridlock on occasions caused by motorists being unable to access the Esso petrol station. Only the other evening traffic tailing back from the roundabout at lower Luton Road extended back over the top of the hill, this is bound to become a frequent occurrence in years to come. (I also understand that the research into traffic and travel have been wholly inadequate, with the roundabout at Common Lane being removed and traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings being relegated to "zebra" crossings. I can't imagine what effect a solid stream of hundreds of kids crossing on a zebra crossing would have on traffic even at its current level. Then there is the safety aspect with motorists becoming impatient.

On a personal level I am expecting the bottom end of Crabtree Lane and Marquis lane to be used for dropping off and collecting, and also for the parking of cars during the day, and that is fine, but there isn't room for more cars. (I have no idea what the parking arrangements at the school site are and whether there is sufficient provision for everybody including sixth formers). There is traffic chaos in the summer during the Larks in the Parks event and whilst this is more than acceptable for one day a year, it would be a nightmare if it happened on a twice daily basis. (Also the additional traffic would pose a threat to the substantial number of cats residing in Crabtree Lane) . Due to lack of screening the noise from the playing fields is bound to carry right across the valley. Similarly, I cannot imagine that there will not at some point be an application to install some form of floodlighting and again this would be all the more conspicuous bearing in mind the fact the school would be in one of the most conspicuous of the shortlisted sites. There is so much information concerning the application and I have not had time to read and digest it all due to not being aware of it until recently. Similarly we have received very little information from those promoting the school or the planning authority. How can it be that we have been denied the opportunity of knowing exactly what is involved? For example, I had always thought that the school buildings would be tucked away in the bottom corner of the site, and alongside Common Lane so as to be the least conspicuous, and to preserve as far as possible the buffer between Batford and Wheathampstead. I also thought no building would be allowed on Green Belt land unless there were Very Special Circumstances. I have recently seen that an area of land on Common Lane has been fenced off as though for housing. Why is this? It only serves to push the school buildings further towards Wheathampstead. Further it that only today that I found that there are four different layouts for the school. As I stated above, no consideration seems to have been given to the opposite side of the valley from the school. There seems to be much comment on the Thatched Cottage on the Lower Luton Road and the effect that the buildings might have on it, being so close to bland looking industrial units as it is, yet no consideration has been given to the setting of the Grade II listed, 1690 built Marquis of Granby. I attach a photo of the pub taken from the railway path crossing, showing what a disastrous effect options 1, 2 and 3 would have on the vista. The hedgerow just above the roof marks the route of the Lower Luton Road. No thought seems to have been given to this by Beacon Planning.. It doesn't even appear in the Heritage Asset Sensitivity list in their report. I can only think that this is because the blight on the views Mackerye End isn't too bad, but that Crabtree Lane isn't being mentioned because it is severe enough to have to try to sweep under the carpet. Outrageous!!!! (I recall Beacon or Vincent and Gorbing commenting somewhere that the proposal will have no effect on the Marquis of Granby - it sticks in my mind as they called it "Grandby")!

As a Council Tax payer I also object to the cost of the scheme. Bearing in mind the amount of landscaping that will need to be carried out. Why spend so many millions more than Also from the figures I have seen I am not at all certain that the need for a new school has been proven - at least not in Harpenden town. Bearing in mind that there have to be Very Special Circumstances for the land to be taken out of the green belt I wonder to what extent the need for another school - in Harpenden rather than elsewhere- has been proven. I understand that it has been suggested that only one in three students from Wheathampstead will attend the school. Surely this reinforces the need for a school in a position that Wheathampstead children can get to easily. The case for justifying a school on the site has clearly not been made. It is clear that a lot of people support the idea of a new school to the extent that after so long they really don't care where it is situated. bad it not been such a serious subject, I would have been amused by a publication from the Harpenden Parents Group telling their subscribers why a fourth school is needed and they support the new school at Site F....as though they don't know themselves. Similarly I am worried that there has been some economies of accuracy when it comes to the planning application. I know that this is largely subjective, but I know that some of the traffic surveys have been carried out at times of reduced road usage. , both in Batford. There was supposed to be somebody / some people from the council there, and there may well have been, but if there were, they were not identifying themselves, let alone making themselves approachable. At the second meeting I was speaking to a lady who I thought was from Kier Construction (she had a Kier Badge) and it was only later that I found out that she was from Vincent and Gorbing, hiding behind a Kier badge. To summarise, my objections are - 1) Insufficient justification for releasing green belt land - particularly where the belt is so tight. 2) Blight on the landscape. Not only the building but also the associated landscaping 3)Proposed location would cause traffic chaos on B653 / insufficient mitigation measures. 4)Safety risks to children resulting from the above. 5) Further traffic/parking difficulties in Crabtree Lane. 6) School is in the wrong place generally - not in a place convenient to maximum number of attendees. (Three school entrances within a mile). 7) There has been no demonstration of a local need when taking other nearby schools into account. 8) Noise and possible future light pollution. 9) Lack of transparency and late release of documents compromises the position of objectors. There has been insufficient community involvement in this process from the outset. 10) Cost. The site is expensive and a huge amount of money will be needed to carry out earthworks. 11) (and not mentioned above) - The archaeological importance of the site generally. Not only were a number of skeletons discovered, but it is clear from the number of flint arrowheads I have found in my garden over the years that people have been living in the immediete area for a very long time. I have received literature from RSRP (thank goodness, as but for them I wouldn't have any). I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Finally, please email confirmation that you have received this email and that it has been accepted as a valid response to the planning application'.

Yours sincerely

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 15:55 To: [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: Objection- proposed secondary school in Batford

Please represent my views. This is absolutely the wrong place for a school. This dangerous location is too far from the pupils who may need it. Traffic data from Herts County Council website already show a significant increase in road usage of the Lower Luton Road over the last 8 yrs – the traffic count on this stretch of road has increased from 10,800 to 12,000 over that time period. Pedestrian and cyclist casualties have increased significantly. And the group with the highest incidence of pedestrian and cyclist casualty is those aged 10- 19. It feels to be a toxic mix to add a 1000 young people as road users to a road that is narrow, has significant increase in traffic usage and already regular casualties. The planned site is also directly opposite a newly opened elderly care facility, increasing traffic risk therefore, to the elderly housed there. It continues the current allocation system that discriminates against pupils outside Harpenden, putting the biggest burden on village and rural families. One of the reasons for needing the school is the new housing built on the site of the old secondary school in Wheathampstead, housing large numbers of school age children. In particular, the Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places that reflect real areas of need. The location is considered to be one of national archaeological significance and is also a critical gap that prevents coalescence between neighbouring settlements. These combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances specified in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm.

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

From: [mailto: Sent: 26 November 2017 11:24 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Spatial Planning Subject: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School - OBJECTION (would each recipient please confirm receipt and intended action)

I wish to register that I endorse any submission(s) by RSRP on this planning application. Please circulate this to all councillors as I am aware that there is an attempt to avoid listening to objections.

 The Very Special Circumstances required for removal from Green Belt have not been demonstrated.  This proposed site will put the vast majority of pupils on the road, unlike other more sustainable options that would take traffic off the roads. Suggested traffic mitigation measures are wholly inadequate for the circumstances bringing further damage to a wide area. Identified specific measures in many cases will reduce safety provision for all users. Traffic surveys were apparently done during holiday periods and when roads were closed for repairs, floods or weather.  This is a highly prominent site widely visible across Harpenden. Landscape and Visual Impact reviews have only been given for extremely limited circumstances and conclusions are unrealistic. It is an area designated by Herts County Council as conserve and improve.  The on-site archeology is of national significance and the NPPF says is must be treated as such. The professional view is that it is so significant that it must be investigated/excavated in full.  The case for justifying a school on this site has not been made. There is no demonstration of a local need especially: school rolls are falling and when taking other nearby schools into account. Documentation confuses Harpenden and wider area need.  There has been insufficient community involvement in this process from the outset. Proposed school hours, scale, lighting, operation and future expansion are unclear and conflicting within the documentation.  There are many matters relating to visual amenity, noise, disturbance (and more) that will affect a significant proportion of Harpenden. For example inadequate parking, mismatched transport planning and the poor match to local need that will create significant traffic safety hazards, nuisance and additional parking over a very wide area.  I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

 There is insufficient information on the impact of the school on the local community to allow proper understanding/consideration  School figures show that the school is reliant on demand from Luton and surrounding area outside the Harpenden Secondary Schools planning area. This means the school is not needed for local pupils and will be reliant on pupils coming from a distance. There is insufficient evidence of how pupils will travel and where from: the effect on local traffic is unacceptable.  Local roads and access are dangerous for pupils to travel, particularly if walking or cycling. This is an unacceptable risk.  I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments. From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 13:36 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: Objection: planning application PL\0866\17

Dear Rosemary, Pip, Anne and Mike, I wish to register my very strong objections to the above planning application for a proposed secondary school and ask that the Council takes these into account when reviewing the application. I ask you directly to represent my views to your fellow councillors. Points on which I wish to raise my objections are:  The application has a lot of information but the ability to view and digest it has been extremely restrictive, as the Authority hearing said application (HCC) has not provided adequate opportunity to review paper copy in locations close to the proposed site. This has denied local people the opportunity to make informed decisions.  The proposal appears to be founded on an unproven need, the HCC forecast having to be “adjusted” to generate the necessary number of children. There is no indication of where in the area the majority of the children for the school live. This provides a very unconvincing case for the Very Special Circumstances tests to take the land out of Green Belt designation.  There are more than enough places for Harpenden children in the existing schools, the potential shortfall has been felt in villages/rural areas. It make no sense to build another school so close to others and make almost all potential pupils have the longest journeys of all the schools in the town - this continues to discriminate against village/rural families.  A school closer to the pupils in need (Wheathampstead/Southdown) would take pupils and traffic off the roads and be a sustainable longer term solution.  Transport and traffic considerations are wholly inadequate. Mitigation appears to mean removal of traffic measures originally introduced on safety grounds (e.g. removal of roundabout at Common Lane and change of light-controlled crossing to zebra crossing on widened carriageway at Station Road/Lower Luton Road), addition of crossings close to bends/junctions (Station Road at Coldharbour Lane and Station Road at Marquis Lane) and little of no measure for the Lower Luton Road to Wheathampstead.  The “Travel Plan” has an unexplained expectation of more pupils from Redbourn, Flamstead and Markyate than from Wheathampstead. It appears to suggest only 1 in 2 Wheathampstead pupils will attend the school, with no explanation of where the rest will go.  Landscape consideration suggest minimum effect despite highly visible terracing and substantial buildings that will change the outlook for a significant proportion of Harpenden – it is a highly prominent site visible from a wide are.  There has been insufficient time to review the material properly all of which could have been presented publicly much earlier. I ask you to take into account all the areas of concern and objection that are brought to your attention when forming your response to HCC. 

 I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect and as that you forward this message to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

I thank you for your consideration and help in this matter.

From: [mailto: On Behalf Of Sent: 26 November 2017 15:35 To: Rosemary Farmer; Pip Martyn; Anne James; Mike Wakely; Mary Maynard Cc: Spatial Planning; St Albans District Planning: Subject: OBJECTIONS concerning so called Katetherine Warrington School planning application SADC 5/2017/2733 and HCC PL\0866\17 Importance: High

To whom it may concern (without prejudice) Please include and consider the following Change.org petition as individual objections for the above planning application.

Kindly note the petition has grown very strongly (tripling in size in the last three weeks alone) as the result of the planning application being submitted by HCC to be approved by it's very own officers.

Further note we have been told all along that the time to make presentations about the proposal is at the planning determination.

This petition has already been acknowledged as compliant by HCC Democratic Services and is also the subject of complaint against HCC Schools Planning officers and members.

The full text may be read here https://www.change.org/p/hertfordshire-county-council-reconsider-the-decision-to-build-a-new-harpenden- school-on-the-site-east-of-common-lane

Please take into account the wishes of 888 petitioners as well as the over 100 very valid comments

Yours faithfully on behalf of the community

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 12:59 To: Spatial Planning Subject: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School

PLEASE reconsider the location of the new Harpenden Secondary School for 3 Reasons -

1) The site on the busy, narrow, Lower Luton Road is totally unsuitable. I know that already, at peak times, traffic queues back in both directions and because the site is the wrong side of the river there are only two access roads from Harpenden (Station Road and Westfield Road) which both experience long tailbacks. If the Lower Luton Road is closed between Wheathampstead and Batford for accidents, road works and recently a burst water main, there is no obvious suitable route round it. Even if cars and buses dropping off and picking up children pull off the road, they will cause chaos as they try to rejoin the main traffic. More pedestrian crossings will cause gridlock and there is no obvious safe cycleway to the site - sadly there will be a serious accident waiting to happen.

3) The site is on a steep slope which will be expensive to level off to provide decent playing fields.

Please reconsider before it is too late. From

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 16:44 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: My objection to the location of the proposed Katherine Warington school

Dear councillors

I have heard that some objections submitted via the normal routes have gone astray, so I attach my objection which I lodged on 14th November and for which I have received an email receipt.

My letter lists 21 objections based on material considerations – not just vague complaints - with the latter 6 objections pointing out direct contraventions of the National Planning Policy Framework. In summary I believe this is a dangerous site for schoolchildren, and entails unnecessary travel and congestion for pupils and staff attending the school. I contend that the traffic analyses are incomplete, and have not been presented in a form which is comprehensible to those it affects. I also contend that the proposed mitigating highway actions can have no meaningful effect on what will be a congestion disaster not only for the Lower Luton Road, but Station Road and Harpenden High Street. No doubt this situation every weekday morning and evening will be a lasting testament to HCC’s planning process.

Since the 3 existing Harpenden secondary schools changed their admissions criteria, there is no longer any threat to residents in their catchment areas. However the consequent “casting adrift” of residents in Southdown, Wheathampstead, Redbourn, and rural villages means this school is being built in diametrically the wrong side of Harpenden. The fact that it will consume Green Belt land while lacking any “very special circumstances” to justify it simply adds to the shambolic story of selecting this site.

Kind regards From: mike wakely [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 09:26 To: Subject: Fw: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford

From: < > Sent: 26 November 2017 22:30 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford

Dear All,

I wish to register that I endorse any submission(s) by RSRP on this planning application. Please circulate this to all councillors, thank-you.

Yours sincerely,

-- ****Disclaimer****

Please note that the Council does not accept service by e-mail

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 21:11 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Subject: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford

Good evening

I am writing to express my concern at the proposed development of land off Lower Luton Road for a school.

Not only is this patently the wrong place for a school, being sited on a busy road which is in a location far from the pupils who may need it, but the Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places that reflect real areas of need. The location is considered to be one of national archaeological significance and is also a critical gap that prevents coalescence between neighbouring settlements. These combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances specified in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm.

Of particular concern is that for all the world this all appears to be a fait accompli. HCC’s actions are particularly strange and should be carefully scrutinised. HCC has the freehold, it has invested significantly in the site, is advertising entry for pupils next year and appears to be paying lip service to the proper planning process. Why a site which has had just one application in the past, and that for a small advertising hoarding which was refused on green belt grounds, should be considered suitable is beyond me.

This site is wrong. It is sloping which means the full use of the site cannot be achieved. It is on a road which all councillors should come and witness during peak times before voting and see for themselves how dangerous the positioning is. It is green belt and key to preserving the boundary of Harpenden. It does not take a crystal ball to see what applications will be made for the strip of land adjacent the proposed school site not in HCC ownership and equally no guessing what the council’s response will then be in upholding green belt as they do (correctly) in every other case.

Please forward my e mail to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

Yours

Virus-free. www.avast.com

From: mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 23:38 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: Objection to proposed secondary school in Batford

Dear Councillors,

Please represent my views.

The very special circumstances required for removal from Greenbelt have not been demonstrated. This proposed site will put the vast majority of pupils on the road, unlike other more sustainable options that would take traffic off the roads. Suggested traffic mitigation measures are wholly inadequate for the circumstances, bringing further damage to a wide area. Identified specific measures in many cases will reduce safety provision for all users. Traffic surveys were apparently done during holiday periods and when roads were closed for repairs, floods or weather.

The proposed school is in an area designated by Herts County Council for conservation and improvement. Impact reviews have only been given for extremely limited circumstances and the conclusions are unrealistic. The on-site archaeology is of national significance and the NPPF says it must be treated as such. The professional view is that it is so significant that it must be investigated/excavated in full. The case for justifying a school on this site is not being made. There is no demonstration of a local need especially; school roles are falling;especially when taking other nearby schools into account. Documentation confuses Harpenden and a wider area need. There has been insufficient community involvement in this process from the outset. Proposed school hours, scale, lighting, operation and future expansion are unclear and conflicting within the documentation.

There are many matters relating to visual amenity,noise, disturbance etc that will affect a significant proportion of the surrounding communities. For example inadequate parking, mismatched transport planning and the poor match to local need that will create significant traffic safety hazards, nuisance and additional parking over a very wide area.

I am particularly concerned by the very narrow pavements coinciding in width constrictions in the Lower Luton Road which make it very dangerous for fit and able adults to walk along - let alone mothers with prams and children. The road is so narrow that lorry and bus side mirrors overhang the pavement and pedestrians need to be constantly aware of this and prepared to jump aside. It is certainly not a fit or remotely safe road to encourage children to walk or cycle along. It is shameful that the road traffic survey carried out by the Council makes no mention of this true situation and glosses over many other safety aspects

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submissions by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

Yours sincerely,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 16:39 To: 'Rosemary Farmer'; 'Pip Martyn'; 'Anne James'; 'Mike Wakely'; 'Mary Maynard' Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: OBJECTION: proposed secondary school in Batford

Please represent my personal views.

This is absolutely the wrong place for a school, this dangerous location is too far from the pupils who may need it. The case for justifying a school on this site has not been made. There is no demonstration of a local need when school rolls are falling and when taking other nearby schools into account. Documentation confuses Harpenden and wider area need. There are significantly more places in Harpenden schools than there are Harpenden pupils. Taking village schools into account still does not demonstrate a need for an extra school, and in particular, does not demonstrate a need for a monolithic school in (NE) Harpenden, so close to existing facilities.

There are many more flexible and sustainable solutions that have not been properly considered.

It continues the current allocation system that discriminates against pupils outside Harpenden, putting the biggest burden on village and rural families and as such fails any equalities test.

In particular, the Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places that reflect real areas of need. The location is considered to one of national archaeological significance and is also a critical gap that prevents coalescence between neighbouring settlements. These combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances specified in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm.

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

There are many grounds to refuse this application: - Incomplete, misleading and conflicting documents that form part of the application - invalid certificates that should never get through to being accepted - A-Z of SADC plan policies not met - Disregard for local landscape assessments listed buildings/curtilage, farms: Out of character and contrary to Herts CC landscape assessments, detrimental to local listed buildings and complete disregard for their settings - missing information that has just not been made available or is too late to sensibly look at - Lack of correct and up-to-date evidence - Just too much information for anyone to be able to read or analysis in a reasonable time - Poor access to planning documentation - Complete lack of appropriate consultation and engagement with wide area residents - A design, implementation ‘plan’ that will irrevocably harm a highly visible, prominent site - Lack of process transparency - Misleading and incomplete LVIA/Environmental/impact with significant adverse effect, over development, loss of amenity - Noise, nuisance, traffic danger, lack of mitigation, lack of adequate parking on site, flood risk - Lack of regard for local listed buildings and views, including making a prominent hill top even more prominent - Aggressive terracing to try to compensate for the steeply sloping site makes this worlds away from a sustainable development - Woefully insufficient parking on site that will blight the local area/narrow streets/quiet village - No information on proposals/space to expand to 8FE instead of 6 - No explanation of how the school can be justified when there aren’t enough pupils in the forecasts - No explanation about the proposal that the school has to be justified using out of area pupils - Traffic assessments, evidence and mitigation that does not match reality and will make an already dangerous and overcrowded road more crowded and dangerous - Flood attenuation and risk management? But the hillside is already pretty good at that, adding the school will increase flash flood risk through channelled water. - Visual impact – the main viewpoints are completely missing from the assessments - existing views will be damaged for ever. The hillside is highly visible from half of Harpenden and you can see half of Harpenden from the hill. The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties over a significant portion of Harpenden adversely affecting the residential amenity owners - Traffic and parking proposals do not match reality of adding a school to a road that is already a car park. Significantly affects highway safety in that traffic mitigation is inadequate, as is parking, especially when assessed with the narrow overcrowded roads in the near vicinity. - Archaeology: NPPF states that this site must be treated as a national monument. From County initial dismissal and rudeness about prior studies unconnected with the proposal and now significant findings. Just the context, setting, history and undisturbed farm should have been enough to ring alarm bells. Now it’s confirmed to be a nationally important site that will need complete excavation. - No evidence that adequate school transport will improve road conditions, and under-provision of parking spaces will guarantee overspill/blight over a very wide area on both sides of the river Inadequate on-site parking that contravenes new school car/pupil/staff ratios? - No valid, justified (pupil) needs assessment – current census figures confirm no need for the school. - Complete failure to demonstrate special circumstances - Inadequate pupil needs assessment means that traffic will be created by a school in this location, as opposed to traffic being taken off the roads by a more suitably placed school. An expectation that most pupils will cycle down the lower Luton road or down Crabtree or along unlit pathways? No. - Stunning lack of awareness that Batford is the wrong place for potential pupils in need. No up to date needs analysis, or acknowledgement that pupils at this proposed location will have the longest, most expensive, time consuming, discriminatory school journeys of all the schools - Stunning lack of regard to a small village setting, with only some 1000 dwellings in Batford, yet Wheathampstead, that could fill more than half a school (and a whole school between it and Southdown) is considered too small. By that logic, Batford should not be considered at all, especially as there is no need for school places anywhere in the vicinity - Lack of clarity about hours of operation. The local County Councillor has stated that the school plans to operate 7 days a week as many hours as possible, and he expect it to put the operation of other community facilities at risk. Yet school hours are different in different parts of the application information, and impact assessments are based on the smallest school for the shortest number of hours. Planning documentation is therefore incorrect and incomplete. - No lighting (in the planning application) on hilltop but sport England says there must be lights/facilities open to the public – lights at the top of that hill would be highly visible for miles. - Inadequate wildlife assessments and natural environment impact assessments - Using SADC plan components, including agriculture, landscape and other policies, there are many policies that the plan does not meet - Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. - Unacceptable over-development of a green belt site, with development completely out of character and detrimental to the character of the Batford and the Lea Valley neighbourhood. Design (bulk and massing, detailing and materials) overbearing, out of scale. - Have the police/traffic management people been asked for their opinion? I bet they’re not happy, in addition to the fire service? What about ambulance access? - Disability/emergency service access to the hilltop sports facilities? Is there going to be a lift?

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sent: 26 November 2017 17:15 To: Cllr R Farmer; [email protected]; Anne James ([email protected]); Cllr M Wakely Cc: Spatial Planning; Planning Applications Subject: Objection: Proposed secondary school in Batford

Dear Councillors,

Please represent the views of the Batford Community Action group that this is absolutely the wrong place for a school, this dangerous location is too far from the pupils who may need it.

It continues the current allocation system that discriminates against pupils outside Harpenden, putting the biggest burden on village and rural families.

In particular, the Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places that reflect real areas of need. The location is a critical gap that prevents coalescence between neighbouring settlements. These two combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances specified in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm.

We wish to register that we endorse any submission(s) by RSRP on this planning application:

Your faithfully From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 22:37 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: Objection: Proposed secondary school in Batford

Dear Councillors, Please represent my views regarding the proposed school in Batford.

This location is absolutely the wrong place for a school; its dangerous location is too far from the pupils who may need it. The proposed site is part of a narrow greenbelt gap that prevents coalescence between settlements and cannot meet the very special circumstances test.

Other sites were rejected because the school entrance could not be on a busy main road, and yet here we are, this proposal is for a dangerous junction on the busiest B road in the county, one that is already overcapacity. The initial site settlement failed to take a range of potential options in account and the way conclusions were reached was not consistent or balanced. Traffic and access suggestions imply the majority of pupils will cycle or walk to school - this is at best impractical, given that most will live too far away to walk and at worst dangerous-the lower Luton road and access road lanes from Southdown and villages are not suitable for cyclists. The next main junction on the Lwr Luton Road east of the school is at Marshalls Heath Lane/Leasey Bridge Lane – a very dangerous accident spot. LBL is already a rat run for traffic from Southdown and towns west of Harpenden who try to avoid Station Rd. It is entirely irresponsible for the planners to ignore the dangerous situation on this road which is widely used by traffic now, let alone what it would be like for parents bringing pupils to school in a rush in the morning from the towns west of Harpenden. The Lwr Luton Rd is already congested and frightening to walk on the very narrow pavement next to moving traffic- lorry wing mirrors overhanging pavement. No consideration for safety of children walking-cycling, potholes, speeding overtaking traffic. Ill considered access for traffic from feeder routes/narrow country lanes without a safe cycle- walking route from Wheathampstead.

Parking facilities are inadequate for the even a 6FE school, yet expansion to 8FE is already within the design. Road/entrance and access proposals will make an overcapacity and dangerous road even worse, the negative impact will be felt over a very wide area for generations. Inadequate on-site parking will instantly mean a high number of cars attempting to park in neighbouring roads that are already narrow, restricted ; dangerous road entrance and access proposals will make an over-capacity and dangerous road even worse - the negative impact will be felt over a very wide area for generations. The environmental damage and impact of putting a school in what is widely accepted by all parties to be in a very bad location outweighs any and all perceived need. The need simply does not exist in or near Batford, the future need is for other surrounding village locations. I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submissions by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all Councillors and the relevant planning departments.

Yours sincerely

From: [mailto: @stalbans.gov.uk] Sent: 27 November 2017 09:51 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Planning Applications Subject: FW: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School

From: mike wakely [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 09:26 To: Subject: Fw: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School

From: < > Sent: 26 November 2017 22:45 To: [email protected] Subject: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School

Please ask those that consider the current Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School site to take a stroll along the same passage the pupils will take each morning & late afternoon to appreciate our concerns. We can confirm that we believe this is absolutely the wrong place for a school, it is too dangerous. The Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places. A6 Just outside Harpenden near Beesonend Lane must be more suitable for the following reasons :-

Situated on a A road not a Broad. Has an established cycle path. Has a foot path & room for improvement. On a main bus route. Sent from my iPhone

-- ****Disclaimer****

Please note that the Council does not accept service by e-mail

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 21:31 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Spatial Planning; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford

Good evening

I am writing to express my concern at the proposed development of land off Lower Luton Road for a school.

I think that this is the wrong place for a school, as it is on a very on a busy road and nowhere near the pupils who will need to go there. There are no secondary schools at all in Wheathampstead or Redbourn. The location is considered to be one of national archaeological significance and is also a green space between Harpenden and Wheathampstead, which will be effectively joined . These combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances specified in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm.

HCC has the freehold, it has invested significantly in the site, is advertising entry for pupils next year process but this site has had just one application in the past, and that for a small advertising hoarding which was refused on green belt grounds. It seems strange that it is now ok to build a school here.

This is not a good use of the site as it is sloping which means the full site cannot be used. It is on a very busy narrow road where there are not always pavements and where there are, they are very narrow – children will have to walk to school in single file !

I think that it is very important that the councillors should visit the site both in the morning and at the end of school to see for themselves just how dangerous this would be. They will have to get there early as there will be nowhere to park.

Please forward my e mail to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

Yours

Virus-free. www.avast.com

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 09:54 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Planning Applications Subject: FW: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford

From: mike wakely [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 09:27 To: Subject: Fw: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford From: < > Sent: 26 November 2017 22:22 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford

Dear All,

Please can I ask that you represent my views that the site at Batford is completely wrong place for the proposed secondary school.

I wish to highlight that my greatest concerns are around transport and traffic - about which I am incredibly worried. The new school is widely publicised as being founded on an ethos of sustainability - with every pupil able to travel to school by foot, bike or bus - but this is practically an impossibility under the (lack of) transport/road plans set out.

In addition to the safety issues around pupils not being able to safely get to school on foot, by bike etc I believe that in the long term, situating the school on this site will have huge knock on traffic problems for the whole of the town in busy hours - and that from talking to local friends and other parents, this is something that the majority of local Harpenden/Southdown residents are unaware of. As a user of the Lower Luton Road in peak hours I am painfully aware of how busy this route already is - and how it is regularly used as an alternative route by M1 and A1 road users if either of those two have delays - and easily gets jammed up. This situation can only get much worse under the plans to put a new school on the Batford site with the huge increase in volume of cars.

On trying to find out information about bus service provision at consultation meetings, it was suggested children that needed to come by bus would use established privately operated bus services - which I do not believe will offer a suitable and robust solution at all - patchy timetables, safeguarding issues etc will mean lack of uptake and put parents and pupils back in cars to make the journey to/from the school, putting pressure on the already strained traffic situation on lower luton road / station road (batford end).

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

In addition to the above I would like to emphasise:

– The Very Special Circumstances required for removal from Green Belt have not been demonstrated.

–The case for justifying a school on this site has not been made. There is no demonstration of a local need especially: school rolls are falling and when taking other nearby schools into account. Documentation confuses Harpenden and wider area need. And again, it appears that a large number of pupils will be coming from out of the immediate local area - meaning they will have to use car or bus services to get to/from school.

–This is a highly prominent site widely visible across Harpenden. Landscape and Visual Impact reviews have only been given for extremely limited circumstances and conclusions are unrealistic. It is an area designated by Herts County Council as conserve and improve.

It continues the current allocation system that discriminates against pupils outside Harpenden, putting the biggest burden on village and rural families. I appreciate you taking the time to read and consider the content of my email in respect of this issue.

Yours sincerely,

-- ****Disclaimer****

Please note that the Council does not accept service by e-mail -----Original Message----- From: [mailto: Sent: 26 November 2017 22:22 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford

Dear All,

Please can I ask that you represent my views that the site at Batford is completely wrong place for the proposed secondary school.

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

In addition to the above I would like to emphasise:

– The Very Special Circumstances required for removal from Green Belt have not been demonstrated.

It continues the current allocation system that discriminates against pupils outside Harpenden, putting the biggest burden on village and rural families.

I appreciate you taking the time to read and consider the content of my email in respect of this issue.

Yours sincerely,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 10:00 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Planning Applications Subject: FW: Subject: My views re proposal of school to be granted planning and purchase of green belt land to be built on at corner of Lower Luton Road and Common Lane Batford

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 09:35 To: Subject: Fw: Subject: My views re proposal of school to be granted planning and purchase of green belt land to be built on at corner of Lower Luton Road and Common Lane Batford

From: < > Sent: 26 November 2017 16:25 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; jdavidwilliams ; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Subject: My views re proposal of school to be granted planning and purchase of green belt land to be built on at corner of Lower Luton Road and Common Lane Batford Please represent my views as to the building of this school in the wrong place. This dangerous location is far too far from the pupils who may need it.

It continues the current allocation system that discriminates against pupils out side Harpenden, putting the biggest burden on villages and rural families.

In particular,the Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places that reflect real areas of need.

The location is considered to be of national archaeological significance and is also a critical gap that prevent coalescence between neighbouring settlements. These combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm.

I understand that further work is being undertaken by the RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I indorse this work and the forthcoming submission (s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning department.

I would also like to add that, in these days of air pollution worries and concern, it is obvious that the air around this area will become more polluted than it already is.

The road is already gridlocked for some hours during the day while drivers sit in their cars, engine turned on waiting to move .

Regards

-- ****Disclaimer****

Please note that the Council does not accept service by e-mail

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 20:20 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford

Dear Councillors,

Please represent my views this is absolutely the wrong place for a school, this dangerous location is too far from the pupils who may need it. It continues the current allocation system that discriminates against pupils outside Harpenden, putting the biggest burden on village and rural families. In particular, the Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places that reflect real areas of need. The location is considered to one of national archaeological significance and is also a critical gap that prevents coalescence between neighbouring settlements. These combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances specified in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm.

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

Further, as a local resident, I feel that far too little attention has been paid to the local transportation infrastructure needed to support the additional journeys to and from the area. The majority of students are projected to come from outside the local area -- highlighting that the school isn't centred around the need, too far to cycle / walk safely, and requiring many more car / bus journeys on country lanes and already heavily congested local roads. The intersection of Lower Luton Road and Common Lane is already very dangerous with limited visibility to the right when leaving Common Lane. Removing the mini-roundabout and increasing the number of vehicles on LLR at rush hour will only intensify this.

Regards,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 18:44 To: Planning Applications Subject: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School

It makes absolutely no sense to build a new school in Batford where local children can already walk to 2 Secondary Schools, unlike those in South Harpenden and Wheathampstead who have NO local school. The proposed site, being on the side of a steep hill, will be expensive to develop plus the cost of new road works at the end of Station Road. Because of its location, the Lower Luton Road cannot be widened to accommodate more traffic which is already extremely busy at school opening and closing times. Local residents are not being listened to, although they know better than anyone the existing traffic problems.

Why can't the planning department see the pitfalls? There appears to be no obvious reason to build the school in Batford. No positive advantages have ever been put forward, which makes me think there must be an ulterior motive for not listening to reason and trying push through the planning application. I hope the excuse that the process has already gone too far is not going to be used and that common sense will prevail before it is too late to build the school in a more sensible location.

I will lose faith in local democracy if no one listens to the objections put forward.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 18:27 To: [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford

Dear Councillor As a local resident I am sure that you agree that the plan to build a school at the junction of Lower Luton Road and Common Lane is ludicrous. HCC plans is to make the road traffic worse by removing the pedestrian crossing by the Co Op and removing the LLR Common Lane Roundabout and making the school entrance on a hill with poor visibility coming either way. The position of this school is madness. Please use all your powers to prevent this foolhardy plan coming to fruition. . From: [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 09:59 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Planning Applications Subject: FW: Objection to the proposed school at Batford

From: [mailto: Sent: 27 November 2017 09:34 To: Subject: Fw: Objection to the proposed school at Batford

From: < > Sent: 26 November 2017 18:18 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to the proposed school at Batford

Dear Sirs/Madams

We wish to object most strongly on the following grounds:-

 The Application has a lot of information, but the ability to view and digest it all has been extremely restrictive, as the Authority hearing the application (Hertfordshire County Council) has not provided adequate opportunity to review paper copy in locations close to the proposed site. This has denied local people, many of whom will be directly affected should this application be granted, the opportunity to make informed decisions.  The proposal appears founded an unproven Need, with the HCC forecast having to be “adjusted” to generate the necessary number of children. There is no indication of where in the area the majority of the children for the school live. This appears to provide a very unconvincing case for the Very Special Circumstances tests to take the land out of Green Belt.  Transport and traffic considerations are wholly inadequate. Mitigation appears to mean removal of traffic measures originally introduced on safety grounds (for example, roundabout removal at Common Lane, change of light- controlled crossing to zebra crossing on widened carriageway at Station Road / Lower Luton Road), addition of crossings close to bends/ junctions (Station Road at Coldharbour Lane; Station Road at Marquis Lane) and little or no measures for the Lower Luton Road to Wheathampstead.  The ‘Travel Plan’ has an unexplained expectation of more pupils from Redbourn, Flamstead and Markyate than from Wheathampstead (although it would be the nearest school in the Priority area). It appears to suggest only 1 in 3 Wheathampstead pupils will attend the school, with no explanation of where the rest will go.  Landscape considerations suggest minimum effect despite highly visible terracing and substantial buildings that will change the outlook for a significant proportion of Harpenden – it is a highly prominent site, visible from a wide area.  I doubt that there is sufficient time to properly review the material, which could have been presented publicly much earlier. I ask you to take into account all the areas of concern and objection that are brought to your attention when forming your response to HC

Why is the proposal in the wrong place?

 There are more than enough places for Harpenden children in the existing schools, the potential shortfall has been felt in villages/rural areas. It make no sense to build another school so close to others and make almost all potential pupils have the longest journeys of all the schools in the town - this continues to discriminate against village/rural families.  A school closer to the pupils in need (Wheathampstead/Southdown) would take pupils and traffic off the roads and be a sustainable longer term solution  The council has failed to adequately consider other sustainable solutions, such as 6th form provision in Rothamsted/other locations, using under-used primary schools or other novel sustainable balanced solutions  This is a highly prominent expensive site, other sites would represent far greater value for money and less environmental damage  HCC data forecasts falling primary rolls which in turn do not lead to a need for significant additional places in the short or medium term  While there is a general understanding that more housing may be built over the next 20 years, the amount of potential new housing in the area does not add up to a complete new school even for Harpenden pupils (given standard housing/pupil yield data). It is therefore not sustainable spatial planning to create further school places when the location of new housing is unknown and which rely on out-of-area pupils.  This proposed site is part of a narrow Green Belt gap that prevents coalescence between settlements and cannot meet the very special circumstances test  Other sites were rejected because a school entrance could not be on a busy main road, and yet here we are, this proposal is for a dangerous junction on the busiest B road in the county, one that is already over-capacity..  Initial site assessment failed to take a range of potential options in account and the way conclusions were reached was not consistent or balanced.  Traffic and access suggestions imply the majority of pupils will cycle or walk to school - this is at best impractical, given that most will live too far away to walk and at worst dangerous - the Lower Luton Road and access roads/lanes from Southdown and villages are not suitable for cyclists.

Why is the design, environmental impact and community impact unsuitable

 The amount of earthworks needed to make level surfaces means the development is far from sustainable and removes any spirit of green belt from the site  Raising significant sections of the field has a huge visual impact from all directions and will make the location even more prominent  Parking facilities are inadequate for the even a 6FE school, yet expansion to 8FE is already within the design  Road/entrance and access proposals will make an over-capacity and dangerous road even worse - the negative impact will be felt over a very wide area, for generations.  Inadequate on-site parking will instantly mean a high number of cars attempting to park in neighbouring roads that are already narrow, restricted and dangerous.  Architectural heritage (of potentially national importance) of the site has been ignored and would be irrevocably damaged by the proposed development. The district archaeologist has recommended refusal.  Playing fields at the top of a highly visible (across much of the town) location are not consistent with maintaining an open green vista within the green belt. There is no provision for lighting which would presumably be an early change request. The fields will become even more prominent than they are now.  School opening hours are inconsistent within application documentation, and inconsistent with County Councillor statements to the effect that the proposed head teacher would seek to use the school extensively out of school hours (thereby threatening other community activities, locations and groups).  The council has failed to engage with local residents throughout the whole process.  Sport fields at the top of the site restrict access for those with a number of difficulties and also restrict access for emergency services  Building locations and sizes will have an overbearing impact on the local area, including visual, flood, noise and safety impacts.  The environmental damage and impact of putting a school in what is widely accepted by all parties to be in a very bad location outweighs any and all perceived need. The need simply does not exist in or near Batford, the future need is for Wheathampstead, Southdown and other village locations.

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

Yours faithfully

-- ****Disclaimer****

Please note that the Council does not accept service by e-mail

From: [mailto: Sent: 26 November 2017 18:25 Subject: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford

I am hoping you will be able to add my voice to the local outcry. This is absolutely the wrong place for a school. The location is dangerous and is too far from the pupils who may need it. It continues the current allocation system that discriminates against pupils outside Harpenden, putting the biggest burden on village and rural families. It is within walking distance of children who already have two schools within easy (and a third within possible) walking distance. In particular, the Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places that reflect real areas of need. The location is considered to one of national archaeological significance and is also a critical gap that prevents coalescence between neighbouring settlements. These combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances specified in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm.

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

I have already submitted comments to the online consultation and have grave concerns that local people are not being listened to in this matter. In brief, my objections include the following:  The B653 is already at capacity and . There is often a tailback to East Hyde in the mornings and, every fortnight or so, the traffic is slow or at a standstill all the way to Luton Parkway roundabout. Going towards Luton the road was clear except for the inevitable cars doing U-turns to avoid the traffic jam.  The proposed alterations to road layout and crossings are sketchy and, in the case of altering the pelican crossing near Co- op to a zebra crossing, dangerous. Many drivers do not see the crossing lights as it is – or possibly just ignore them.

Traffic already backs up at the roundabout and will back up even further when there are the usual crowds of pupils crossing to and from Sir John Lawes, which will be the preferred school for most children from our estate.  The plans for the roundabout and the ford are unclear and threaten our green spaces further. It looks as if a road is planned between Crabtree Lane, over what is now the ford, to join the B653 near Batford Mill. If the mini-roundabout is to be removed it will be very difficult to leave Common Lane or the road opposite.  Whenever there is a delay on the Lower Luton Road, traffic uses the estate as a ‘rat run’. The buses and recycling lorries already struggle to get through and a school in this location will add to these problems.  There are no cycle paths between Wheathampstead and Batford. The Lea Valley Way provides a good cycle path as far as Leasey Bridge Lane but then becomes unsuitable for bikes, heading off through the fields to Wheathampstead. The B653 is dangerous for cyclists. The footpath near Batford is reasonably wide and might be usable as a cycle path on a quiet day, but it becomes narrow nearer Wheathampstead and is unpleasant to walk along due to the traffic.  There are already three secondary schools within walking distance. (40 minutes to Roundwood Park School from Batford. I do the walk twice a week, though admittedly it would be a lot to expect pupils to do this daily.) The school should be situated where it would benefit the children who find it difficult to get school places, perhaps in Wheathampstead or Southdown. Children should be able to walk to school, and we all know that, although walking to the new school or using public transport will be encouraged, most pupils will arrive by car. The buses tend to be unreliable because of traffic delays already.  Recently a leading archaeologist commented that he was horrified that this site is to be built on without proper investigation as it is potentially of national significance.  The now-defunct Property Spy tried to sell land for housing near the proposed school site. If this development is allowed, there will be other groups seeking to build between Marshalls Heath and Batford.  Traffic will inevitably increase along the narrow lanes beyond Batford and Kimpton. Leasey Bridge Lane is another route likely to be used by parents and staff coming from Wheathampstead Southdown.

Local people were quick to point out the traffic problems associated with this site at the first meetings held some years ago now but there still seem to have been no real solutions offered. When I visited the most recent exhibition about the school the people on duty were able to talk about the school itself but not how the traffic would be managed, and this is the main concern of local people. To build here would be a grave mistake, not just for Batford but also for Harpenden as a whole as well as the commuting schoolchildren.

Yours faithfully, .

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 20:10 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: Objection; the proposed new secondary school in Batford

Dear Councillor

I wish to voice my strenuous objection to the proposal by Hertfordshire County Council to build a secondary school on the site off Common Lane in Batford. I do not think that anyone in their right mind could possibly believe that this is a suitable location for a school for a legion of reasons some of which I will detail below:

1/ unsuitable topography of the site requiring massive and expensive groundworks which will not provide the tax payer with value for money

2/ a school with the sports pitches on a different level is not fit for purpose

3/ the Lower Luton Road is already gridlocked and there will be no safe way for children to get to the school, regardless of the impact of the increase in traffic movements

4/ the site has archaeological remains of national significance which require excavation

5/ alternative sites have been discounted using criteria which apply equally if not more to the Batford site

6/ locating a fourth school in such proximity to 3 existing schools does not make sense when the shortfall of places occurs in Wheathampstead, Kimpton and outlying villages, UNLESS the hidden agenda is the closing of Sir John Lawes and redevelopment of the land for housing

7/ the case for the need for a new school has not been made as Herts County Council's own figures show that this is a short term bulge, and with school rolls currently falling this bulge should be addressed by less permanently destructive means.

8/ the Very Special Circumstances required for removal from Green Belt have not been demonstrated.

I hope that you will bear these objections in mind in your deliberations on the planning application.

Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: [mailto: Sent: 26 November 2017 20:52 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: Objection: the proposed new Secondary School in Batford

Dear Councillor

I am emailing you to voice my objection to the proposed new school on the Lower Luton Road in Batford.

I believe the site is totally unsuitable to cope with the huge volume of traffic that is inevitable with a new school of this size. The Lower Luton Road is unable to cope with the traffic it already has to deal with.

I understand that there are a couple of other sites in the area which could be considered but have been discounted using criteria which apply equally to the Batford Site.

The need for a new school is temporary. Some of the schools in Harpenden, the Free School, St Hilda's and St Helen's in Wheathampstead are NOT full to capacity.

The site has archaeological remains of national significance which require excavation.

The Site is in the Green Belt with unsuitable topography requiring massive and expensive groundworks which will not provide the tax payer with value for money.

Very few people, even those in favour of another school really believe that this is a suitable site, I wonder if there is another motive behind all this!

I would plead with you to bear these objections in mind.

Yours faithfully

Sent from my iPad

From: [mailto: @stalbans.gov.uk] Sent: 27 November 2017 10:00 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Planning Applications Subject: FW: My views re proposal of school to be granted planning and purchase of green belt land to be built on at corner of Lower Luton Road and Common Lane Batford

From: mike wakely [mailto: ] Sent: 27 November 2017 09:36 To: Subject: Fw: My views re proposal of school to be granted planning and purchase of green belt land to be built on at corner of Lower Luton Road and Common Lane Batford

From: < > Sent: 26 November 2017 14:26 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: My views re proposal of school to be granted planning and purchase of green belt land to be built on at corner of Lower Luton Road and Common Lane Batford

Please represent my views as to the building of this school in the wrong place .This dangerous location if far to far from the pupils who may need it . It continues the current allocation system that discriminates against pupils out side Harpemden,putting the biggest burden on villages and rural families . In particular,the Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places that reflect real areas of need. The location is considered to be of national archaeological significance and is also a critical gap that prevent coalescence between neighbouring settlements . These combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm . I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I indorse this work and the forthcoming submission (s) by RSRP in this respect.Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning department I would also like to add that in these days of air pollution worries and concern it is obvious that the air around this area will become more polluted than it already is . The road is already gridlocked for some hours during the day while drivers sit in their cars ,engine turned on waiting to move .

Regards Sent from my iPad -- ****Disclaimer****

Please note that the Council does not accept service by e-mail

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 18:02 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: Objections against the proposed new school at Batford

Dear Sirs/Madams

We wish to object most strongly on the following grounds:-

 The Very Special Circumstances required for removal from Green Belt have not been demonstrated.  This proposed site will put the vast majority of pupils on the road, unlike other more sustainable options that would take traffic off the roads. Suggested traffic mitigation measures are wholly inadequate for the circumstances bringing further damage to a wide area. Identified specific measures in many cases will reduce safety provision for all users. Traffic surveys were apparently done during holiday periods and when roads were closed for repairs, floods or weather.  This is a highly prominent site widely visible across Harpenden. Landscape and Visual Impact reviews have only been given for extremely limited circumstances and conclusions are unrealistic. It is an area designated by Herts County Council as conserve and improve.  The on-site archeology is of national significance and the NPPF says is must be treated as such. The professional view is that it is so significant that it must be investigated/excavated in full.  The case for justifying a school on this site has not been made. There is no demonstration of a local need especially: school rolls are falling and when taking other nearby schools into account. Documentation confuses Harpenden and wider area need.  There has been insufficient community involvement in this process from the outset. Proposed school hours, scale, lighting, operation and future expansion are unclear and conflicting within the documentation.  There are many matters relating to visual amenity, noise, disturbance (and more) that will affect a significant proportion of Harpenden. For example inadequate parking, mismatched transport planning and the poor match to local need that will create significant traffic safety hazards, nuisance and additional parking over a very wide area.  There is insufficient information on the impact of the school on the local community to allow proper understanding/consideration  School figures show that the school is reliant on demand from Luton and surrounding area outside the Harpenden Secondary Schools planning area. This means the school is not needed for local pupils and will be reliant on pupils coming from a distance. There is insufficient evidence of how pupils will travel and where from: the effect on local traffic is unacceptable.  Local roads and access are dangerous for pupils to travel, particularly if walking or cycling. This is an unacceptable risk.

Why is the proposal in the wrong place?

Why is the design, environmental impact and community impact unsuitable

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

Yours faithfully

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sent: 26 November 2017 17:15 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Anne James ([email protected]); [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected] Subject: Objection: Proposed secondary school in Batford

Dear Councillors, Please represent the views of the Batford Community Action group that this is absolutely the wrong place for a school, this dangerous location is too far from the pupils who may need it.

It continues the current allocation system that discriminates against pupils outside Harpenden, putting the biggest burden on village and rural families.

We wish to register that we endorse any submission(s) by RSRP on this planning application:

Your faithfully

Batford Community Action Group

From: l [mailto: Sent: 26 November 2017 20:16 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; ST Albans planning Subject: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford I wish to register that I endorse any submission(s) by RSRP on this planning application. Please circulate this to all councillors, thank-you.

Approximately two thirds of the projected pupil intake of the proposed new school is expected to be from villages and areas to the west or south west of Harpenden. Surely a sites E, I/J, K and H would be far more suitable. Less traffic congestion, safety of access by the pupils and even the time to get to school would be improved.

Yours Sincerely,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 20:27 To: 'Rosemary Farmer'; 'Pip Martyn'; 'Anne James'; 'Mike Wakely'; 'Mary Maynard' Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Batford School

In particular, the Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places that reflect real areas of need. The location is considered to be one of national archaeological significance and is also a critical gap that prevents coalescence between neighbouring settlements. These combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances specified in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm.

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

The road system is totally unsuitable and already there are delays morning and evening From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 17:33 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Spatial Planning; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection: proposed secondary school in Batford

Please represent my views this is absolutely the wrong place for a school, the site on the Lower Luton Road is a dangerous location and access to the school on foot or by bicycle will be extremely hazardous no matter what attempts are made by the highways department to help traffic flow. The site is also too far from the pupils who may need it and only helps to perpetuate the current allocation system that discriminates against pupils outside Harpenden, putting the biggest burden on village and rural families. In particular, the Council has failed to adequately consider safe sustainable options for extending secondary school places that reflect real areas of need. It has recently been discovered that the site is of national archaeological significance as well as being a critical gap that prevents coalescence between neighbouring settlements. These combined mean the site does not meet the Special Circumstances specified in the National Planning Framework for determining need over harm.

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Please forward my letter to all councillors and the relevant planning departments.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 November 2017 12:59 To: Spatial Planning Subject: OBJECTION: Proposed 4th Harpenden Secondary School

PLEASE reconsider the location of the new Harpenden Secondary School for 3 Reasons -

1) The site on the busy, narrow, Lower Luton Road is totally unsuitable. As a Batford resident I know that already, at peak times, traffic queues back in both dir ctions and because the site is the wrong side of the river there are only two access roads from Harpenden (Station Road and Westfield Road) which both experience long tailbacks. If the Lower Luton Road is closed between Wheathampstead and Batford for accidents, road works and recently a burst water main, there is no obvious suitable route round it. Even if cars and buses dropping off and picking up children pull off the road, they will cause chaos as they try to rejoin the main traffic. More pedestrian crossings will cause gridlock and there is no obvious safe cycleway to the site - sadly there will be a serious accident waiting to happen. 2) Batford children have two local Secondary Schools within walking distance, whereas those in South Harpenden and the Villages have none, so most of the anticipated 1200 intake will have to come from out of the area, which is absolute madness!

3) The site is on a steep slope which will be expensive to level off to provide decent playing fields.

Please reconsider before it is too late.

From From: [mailto: Sent: 16 November 2017 18:21 To: Spatial Planning Subject: In regards to the school on Common Lane/The Lower Luton Road

I wish to register my objections to the planning application PL\0866\17 for a proposed secondary school in Harpenden and ask that the Council takes these into account when reviewing the application.

 The Application has a lot of information, but the ability to view and digest it all has been extremely restrictive, as the Authority hearing the application (Hertfordshire County Council) has not provided adequate opportunity to review paper copy in locations close to the proposed site. This has denied local people, many of whom will be directly affected should this application be granted, the opportunity to make informed decisions.  The proposal appears founded an unproven Need, with the HCC forecast having to be “adjusted” to generate the necessary number of children. There is no indication of where in the area the majority of the children for the school live. This appears to provide a very unconvincing case for the Very Special Circumstances tests to take the land out of Green Belt.  Transport and traffic considerations are wholly inadequate. Mitigation appears to mean removal of traffic measures originally introduced on safety grounds (for example, roundabout removal at Common Lane, change of light-controlled crossing to zebra crossing on widened carriageway at Station Road / Lower Luton Road), addition of crossings close to bends/ junctions (Station Road at Coldharbour Lane; Station Road at Marquis Lane) and little or no measures for the Lower Luton Road to Wheathampstead.  The ‘Travel Plan’ has an unexplained expectation of more pupils from Redbourn, Flamstead and Markyate than from Wheathampstead (although it would be the nearest school in the Priority area). It appears to suggest only 1 in 3 Wheathampstead pupils will attend the school, with no explanation of where the rest will go.  Landscape considerations suggest minimum effect despite highly visible terracing and substantial buildings that will change the outlook for a significant proportion of Harpenden – it is a highly prominent site, visible from a wide area.  I doubt that there is sufficient time to properly review the material, which could have been presented publicly much earlier. I ask you to take into account all the areas of concern and objection that are brought to your attention when forming your response to HCC.  I endorse the work of RSRP and ask that you forward this to HCC as an objection. please email confirmation that you have received this email and that it has been accepted as a valid response to the planning application.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

From: [mailto: Sent: 16 November 2017 18:50 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Application PL/0866/17. School at Lower Luton Road, Batford Dear Sirs/Mesdames

I am writing to object to the planning application PL/0866/17. It is the first time I have ever made an objection to a planning application in 60 odd years. I do hope that somebody will read my objections and take them into account when considering the application. The following is my initial representation in the above matter. I reserve the right to submit again as further information is made available and analysis of the material published is undertaken.

where else locally can you see cows in fields from near and afar?, Similarly I understand that the construction has been described as visually unobtrusive. How I would like to spend an afternoon with the author visiting the various sites and hearing their rationale. The green belt at the site is very tight - because there is only a short distance between the houses of Wheathampstead and Batford, using green belt land here will have a more detrimental effect than building on green belt land on the edge of a village. (Not that I advocate building on green belt land at all). My second major objections relate to the general positioning of the school. The construction would mean that there would be entrances to three secondary schools within a linear mile. What is the point of concentrating the locations of three of four secondary schools within such a small area? If you are going to put three schools close together, why have the biggest one on the far side of the River Lea, thus restricting the routes of access from the town? Would it be too much to ask that it be located where it is needed, namely Wheathampstead or Southdown, or somewhere between the two that children can access reasonably. It is all a question of positioning a new school in such a place as the aggregate of journey times/ distances (pupil miles) are kept to a minimum, thereby keeping vehicles off the road as far as possible - either because they do not have to drive so far, or because the schools are near enough to be within reasonable walking distance. If the school is situated at Site F, the traffic situation on the Lower Luton Road is going to be chaotic. It is bad enough at the moment, with frequent long jams and gridlock on occasions caused by motorists being unable to access the Esso petrol station. Only the other evening traffic tailing back from the roundabout at lower Luton Road extended back over the top of the hill, this is bound to become a frequent occurrence in years to come. (I also understand that the research into traffic and travel have been wholly inadequate, with the roundabout at Common Lane being removed and traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings being relegated to "zebra" crossings. I can't imagine what effect a solid stream of hundreds of kids crossing on a zebra crossing would have on traffic even at its current level. Then there is the safety aspect with motorists becoming impatient.

On a personal level I am expecting the bottom end of Crabtree Lane and Marquis lane to be used for dropping off and collecting, and also for the parking of cars during the day, We have people parking around us to visit the old railway line walk and that is fine, but there isn't room for more cars. (I have no idea what the parking arrangements at the school site are and whether there is sufficient provision for everybody including sixth formers). There is traffic chaos in the summer during the Larks in the Parks event and whilst this is more than acceptable for one day a year, it would be a nightmare if it happened on a twice daily basis. (Also the additional traffic would pose a threat to the substantial number of cats residing in Crabtree Lane) . Due to lack of screening the noise from the playing fields is bound to carry right across the valley. Similarly, I cannot imagine that there will not at some point be an application to install some form of floodlighting and again this would be all the more conspicuous bearing in mind the fact the school would be in one of the most conspicuous of the shortlisted sites. There is so much information concerning the application and I have not had time to read and digest it all due to not being aware of it until recently. Similarly despite living very close to the site we have received very little information from those promoting the school or the planning authority. How can it be that we have been denied the opportunity of knowing exactly what is involved? For example, I had always thought that the school buildings would be tucked away in the bottom corner of the site, and alongside Common Lane so as to be the least conspicuous, and to preserve as far as possible the buffer between Batford and Wheathampstead. I also thought no building would be allowed on Green Belt land unless there were Very Special Circumstances. I have recently seen that an area of land on Common Lane has been fenced off as though for housing. Why is this? It only serves to push the school buildings further towards Wheathampstead. Further it that only today that I found that there are four different layouts for the school. As I stated above, no consideration seems to have been given to the opposite side of the valley from the school. There seems to be much comment on the Thatched Cottage on the Lower Luton Road and the effect that the buildings might have on it, being so close to bland looking industrial units as it is, yet no consideration has been given to the setting of the Grade II listed, 1690 built Marquis of Granby. I attach a photo of the pub taken from the railway path crossing, showing what a disastrous effect options 1, 2 and 3 would have on the vista. The hedgerow just above the roof marks the route of the Lower Luton Road. No thought seems to have been given to this by Beacon Planning.. It doesn't even appear in the Heritage Asset Sensitivity list in their report. I can only think that this is because the blight on the views Mackerye End isn't too bad, but that Crabtree Lane isn't being mentioned because it is severe enough to have to try to sweep under the carpet. Outrageous!!!! (I recall Beacon or Vincent and Gorbing commenting somewhere that the proposal will have no effect on the Marquis of Granby - it sticks in my mind as they called it "Grandby")! As a Council Tax payer I also object to the cost of the scheme. Bearing in mind the amount of landscaping that will need to be carried out. Why spend so many millions more than Also from the figures I have seen I am not at all certain that the need for a new school has been proven - at least not in Harpenden town. Bearing in mind that there have to be Very Special Circumstances for the land to be taken out of the green belt I wonder to what extent the need for another school - in Harpenden rather than elsewhere- has been proven. I understand that it has been suggested that only one in three students from Wheathampstead will attend the school. Surely this reinforces the need for a school in a position that Wheathampstead children can get to easily. The case for justifying a school on the site has clearly not been made. It is clear that a lot of people support the idea of a new school to the extent that after so long they really don't care where it is situated. bad it not been such a serious subject, I would have been amused by a publication from the Harpenden Parents Group telling their subscribers why a fourth school is needed and they support the new school at Site F....as though they don't know themselves. Similarly I am worried that there has been some economies of accuracy when it comes to the planning application. I know that this is largely subjective, but I know that some of the traffic surveys have been carried out at times of reduced road usage. I have attended two meetings, both in Batford. There was supposed to be somebody / some people from the council there, and there may well have been, but if there were, they were not identifying themselves, let alone making themselves approachable.

To summarise, my objections are - 1) Insufficient justification for releasing green belt land - particularly where the belt is so tight. 2) Blight on the landscape. Not only the building but also the associated landscaping 3)Proposed location would cause traffic chaos on B653 / insufficient mitigation measures. 4)Safety risks to children resulting from the above. 5) Further traffic/parking difficulties in Crabtree Lane. 6) School is in the wrong place generally - not in a place convenient to maximum number of attendees. (Three school entrances within a mile). 7) There has been no demonstration of a local need when taking other nearby schools into account. 8) Noise and possible future light pollution. 9) Lack of transparency and late release of documents compromises the position of objectors. There has been insufficient community involvement in this process from the outset. 10) Cost. The site is expensive and a huge amount of money will be needed to carry out earthworks. 11) (and not mentioned above) - The archaeological importance of the site generally. Not only were a number of skeletons discovered, but it is clear from the number of flint arrowheads I have found in my garden over the years that people have been living in the immediete area for a very long time. I have received literature from RSRP (thank goodness, as but for them I wouldn't have any). I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. Finally, please email confirmation that you have received this email and that it has been accepted as a valid response to the planning application'.

Yours sincerely

From: [mailto: Sent: 16 November 2017 23:53 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL/0866/17

1)Insufficient justification for releasing green belt land - particularly where the belt is so narrow. 2) Blight on the landscape. Not only the building but also the associated landscaping. Why no account of impact from the other side of valley? Impact on the Marquis of Granby (Grade 2 listed, 1690, said to be slight but in fact it is far worse than other buildings (such as Thatched Cottage and Mackerye End where site sensitivity is classed as High and Very High. c 3)Proposed location would cause traffic chaos on B653 / insufficient mitigation measures. 4)Safety risks to children resulting from the above. 5) Further traffic/parking difficulties in Crabtree Lane. 6) School is in the wrong place generally - not in a place convenient to maximum number of attendees. (Three school entrances within a mile). 7) There has been no demonstration of a local need when taking other nearby schools into account. 8) Noise and possible future light pollution. 9) Lack of transparency and late release of documents compromises the position of objectors. There has been insufficient community involvement in this process from the outset. 10) Cost. The site is expensive and a huge amount of money will be needed to carry out earthworks. 11) The archaeological importance of the site generally. Not only were a number of skeletons discovered, but it is clear from the number of flint arrowheads I have found in my garden over the years that people have been living in the immediate area for a very long time.

Get Outlook for Android

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 16 November 2017 19:35 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Application PL/0866/17. School at Lower Luton Road, Batford

Dear Sirs/Mesdames

I am writing to object to the planning application PL/0866/17. It is the first time I have ever made an objection to a planning application in overr 60 years. I would like somebody to read my objections and take them into account when considering the application. The following is my initial representation in the above matter. I reserve the right to submit again as further information is made available and analysis of the material published is undertaken.

I cannot comprehend how the Common Lane/Lower Luton Road site (site F) was earmarked as the most appropriate site for a new school. I accept that there must occasionally be special circumstances for building on Green Belt land but in this instance the choice of site is ridiculous, not only because it is being built in entirely the wrong place but also because the site chosen is arguably the most conspicuous of any of the ten or so sites originally considered. The site will destroy one of the most picturesque views from the town to the countryside, looking across the Lea Valley. If you build on Site F you might just as well build anything anywhere. Absolutely no consideration seems to have been given to the above in reports that I have seen: I have been told that one said that the land is "low grade", used for grazing a few horses, whereas in fact it is a south facing slope that has been used for cattle/dairy farming i I was told by a county councillor Mr Williams that he did not think that the mistake mattered but I do not agree; where else locally can you see cows in fields from near and afar? Similarly I understand that the construction has been described as visually unobtrusive. This is simply not the case. The green belt at the site is very narrow - because there is only a short distance between the houses of Wheathampstead and Batford, and using green belt land here will have a more detrimental effect than building on green belt land on the edge of a village. (Not that I advocate building on green belt land at all). My second major objections relate to the general positioning of the school. The construction would mean that there would be entrances to three secondary schools within a mile of each other. What is the point of concentrating the locations of three of four secondary schools in Harpenden within such a small area? If you are going to put three schools close together, why have the biggest one on the far side of the River Lea, thus restricting the routes of access from the town? Would it be too much to ask that it be located where it is needed, namely Wheathampstead or Southdown, or somewhere between the two that children can access reasonably. It is all a question of positioning a new school in such a place as the aggregate of journey times/ distances (pupil miles) are kept to a minimum, thereby keeping vehicles off the road as far as possible - either because they do not have to drive so far, or because the schools are near enough to be within reasonable walking distance. If the school is situated at Site F, the traffic situation on the Lower Luton Road is going to be chaotic. It is bad enough at the moment, with frequent long jams and gridlock on occasions caused by motorists being unable to access the Esso petrol station. Only the other evening traffic tailing back from the roundabout at lower Luton Road extended back over the top of the hill, this is bound to become a frequent occurrence in years to come. (I also understand that the research into traffic and travel have been wholly inadequate, with the roundabout at Common Lane being removed and traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings being relegated to "zebra" crossings. I can't imagine what effect a solid stream of hundreds of kids crossing on a zebra crossing would have on traffic even at its current level. Then there is the safety aspect with motorists becoming impatient. I expect the bottom end of Crabtree Lane and Marquis Lane will be used for dropping off and collecting children, and also for the parking of cars during the day. People park around this location to walk on the old railway line walk and there isn't room for more cars parked on the roadside. . (I have no idea what the parking arrangements at the school site are and whether there is sufficient provision for everybody including sixth formers). There is traffic chaos in the summer during the Larks in the Parks event and whilst this is more than acceptable for one day a year, it would be a nightmare if it happened on a twice daily basis. (Also the additional traffic would pose a threat to the substantial number of cats residing in Crabtree Lane) . Due to lack of screening the noise from the playing fields is bound to carry right across the valley. Similarly, I cannot imagine that there will not at some point be an application to install some form of floodlighting and again this would be all the more conspicuous bearing in mind the fact the school would be in one of the most conspicuous of the shortlisted sites. There is so much information concerning the application and I have not had time to read and digest it all due to not being aware of it until recently. Similarly despite living very close to the site we have received very little information from those promoting the school or the planning authority. How can it be that we have been denied the opportunity of knowing exactly what is involved? For example, I had always thought that the school buildings would be tucked away in the bottom corner of the site, and alongside Common Lane so as to be the least conspicuous, and to preserve as far as possible the buffer between Batford and Wheathampstead. I also thought no building would be allowed on Green Belt land unless there were Very Special Circumstances. I have recently seen that an area of land on Common Lane has been fenced off as though for housing. Why is this? It only serves to push the school buildings further towards Wheathampstead. Further it that only today that I found that there are four different layouts for the school. As I stated above, no consideration seems to have been given to the opposite side of the valley from the school. There seems to be much comment on the Thatched Cottage on the Lower Luton Road and the effect that the buildings might have on it, being so close to bland looking industrial units as it is, yet no consideration has been given to the setting of the Grade II listed, 1690 built Marquis of Granby. I attach a photo of the pub that my husband took from the railway path crossing, showing what a disastrous effect options 1, 2 and 3 would have on the landscape. The hedgerow just above the roof marks the route of the Lower Luton Road. No thought seems to have been given to this by Beacon Planning.. It doesn't even appear in the Heritage Asset Sensitivity list in their report. I can only think that this is because the blight on the views Mackerye End isn't too bad, but that Crabtree Lane isn't being mentioned because it is severe enough to have to try to sweep under the carpet. (I recall Beacon or Vincent and Gorbing commenting somewhere that the Marquis of Granby was too far away to be affected by the school..

As a Council Tax payer I also object to the cost of the scheme. Bearing in mind the amount of landscaping that will need to be carried out. Why spend so many millions more than other sites would cost, bearing in mind all of the landscaping that will be needed. Also from the figures I have seen I am not at all certain that the need for a new school has been proven - at least not in Harpenden town. Bearing in mind that there have to be Very Special Circumstances for the land to be taken out of the green belt I wonder to what extent the need for another school - in Harpenden rather than elsewhere- has been proven. I understand that it has been suggested that only one in three students from Wheathampstead will attend the school. Surely this reinforces the need for a school in a position that Wheathampstead children can get to easily. The case for justifying a school on the site has clearly not been made. It is clear that a lot of people support the idea of a new school to the extent that after so long they really don't care where it is situated. bad it not been such a serious subject, I would have been amused by a publication from the Harpenden Parents Group telling their subscribers why a fourth school is needed and they support the new school at Site F....as though they don't know themselves. Similarly I am worried that there has been some economies of accuracy when it comes to the planning application. I know that this is largely subjective, but I know that some of the traffic surveys have been carried out at times of reduced road usage. I have attended two meetings, both in Batford. There was supposed to be somebody / some people from the council there, and there may well have been, but if there were, they were not identifying themselves, let alone making themselves approachable. To summarise, my objections are - 1) Insufficient justification for releasing green belt land - particularly where the belt is so tight. 2) Blight on the landscape. Not only the building but also the associated landscaping 3)Proposed location would cause traffic chaos on B653 / insufficient mitigation measures. 4)Safety risks to children resulting from the above. 5) Further traffic/parking difficulties in Crabtree Lane. 6) School is in the wrong place generally - not in a place convenient to maximum number of attendees. (Three school entrances within a mile). 7) There has been no demonstration of a local need when taking other nearby schools into account. 8) Noise and possible future light pollution. 9) Lack of transparency and late release of documents compromises the position of objectors. There has been insufficient community involvement in this process from the outset. 10) Cost. The site is expensive and a huge amount of money will be needed to carry out earthworks. 11) (and not mentioned above) - The archaeological importance of the site generally. Not only were a number of skeletons discovered, but it is clear from the number of flint arrowheads I have found in my garden over the years that people have been living in the immediete area for a very long time. I have received literature from RSRP (thank goodness, as but for them I wouldn't have any). I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect. This e-mail is very similar to my husband's as we composed both of them together. Finally, please email confirmation that you have received this email and that it has been accepted as a valid response to the planning application'.

Yours sincerely

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 17 November 2017 00:00 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Hertfordshire County Council Consultation: Proposed new school – application reference 5/2017/2733 (HCC reference SLUP/CC0798 PL|0866|17)

I would like to object to this proposal because it will create so much traffic congestion and pollution that my use and enjoyment of my home will be much worsened. I do not believe I will be able to use the Lower Luton Road during weekday school hours and will be subject to unnecessary noise and air pollution.

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 16 November 2017 19:23 To: Spatial Planning Subject: OBJECTION: planning application PL\0866\17

Please acknowledge receipt of this email

I wish to register my OBJECTION to this planning application

This planning application would be humorous if it wasn’t so serious. Want a new school? Let’s go and look at different options, ignore some of the best, most sustainable options and then pick some inconvenient locations. Then, for good measure, choose another site because you need to make up numbers. It’s the comedy site because no-one in their right mind would think it was a good idea. The trouble is, someone wasn’t paying attention and they somehow managed to let the comedy site through and now they don’t know how to wriggle out of it. There are so many grounds to refuse this application: - Incomplete, misleading and conflicting documents that form part of the application - invalid certificates that should never get through to being accepted - A-Z of SADC plan policies not met - Disregard for local landscape assessments listed buildings/curtilage, farms - missing information that has just not been made available or is too late to sensibly look at - Lack of correct and up-to-date evidence - Just too much information for anyone to be able to read or analysis in a reasonable time - Poor access to planning documentation - Complete lack of appropriate consultation and engagement with wide area residents - Oh and a design, implementation ‘plan’ that will totally trash a highly visible, prominent site - And destroy a farmers business so you can claim that the land isn’t farmed - Oh, and the lack of transparency in not posting application responses - And say you won’t purchase the land unless planning application granted, then do the opposite - Green Belt, and allowing the promise of back-door green belt access - LVIA/Environmental/ impact, adverse effect, over development, loss of amenity - Noise, nuisance, traffic danger, lack of mitigation, lack of adequate parking on site, flood risk - Trashing the local landscape, complete lack of regard for local listed buildings and views - Making a prominent hill top even more prominent - Aggressive terracing to try to compensate for the steeply sloping site - Woefully insufficient parking on site that will blight the local area/narrow streets/quiet village - No information on proposals/space to expand to 8FE instead of 6 - No explanation of how the school can be justified when there aren’t enough pupils - No explanation about the proposal that the school has to be justified using out of area pupils - Have I mentioned laughable traffic assessments and mitigation? - Traffic evidence does not match reality - Flood attenuation and risk management? But the hillside is already pretty good at that, adding the school will increase flash flood risk through channelled water. - Visual impact – it looks like you intentionally picked irrelevant viewpoints and then hid round corners to take the worst photos. The existing views will be trashed. The hillside is visible form half of Harpenden and you can see half of Harpenden from the hill. It’s visible, it will be irrevocably damaged - Traffic and parking proposals do not match reality of adding a school to a road that is already a car park - Archaeology, initial dismissal and rudeness about prior studies unconnected with the proposal - Archaeology, just the context, setting, history and undisturbed farm should have been enough to ring alarm bells. Now, surprise surprise, it’s a potentially nationally important site that will need complete excavation. - Public statements that the archaeological assessment would be damming and negative, even before statutory investigations were underway - Lack of published planning responses, lack of transparency - No evidence that adequate school transport will improve road condition - No valid, justified needs assessment - Complete failure to demonstrate special circumstances - Laughable expectation that pupils will cycle down the lower Luton road or down Crabtree or along unlit pathways - Stunning lack of awareness that the school is in the wrong place – or is it all a ploy to be able to legally avoid providing school transport - No up to date needs analysis, or acknowledgement that pupils at this proposed location will have the longest, most expensive, time consuming, discriminatory school journeys of all the schools - Stunning lack of regard to a small village setting that you’re proposing to plonk a monster on, when there is no need for school places anywhere in the vicinity - Lack of clarity about hours of operation. We all know they’ll say school hours then extend - No lighting on hilltop but sport England says there must be lights/facilities open to the public - No acknowledgement that the school intends to operate all hours of the day - No acknowledgement that the county councillor is telling facilities in the neighbourhood they are under threat because of the school - Inadequate wildlife assessments - Agriculture, landscape, a whole raft of SADC plan policies that the application doesn’t meet - No specification of a development plan to test the application against - Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. - Unacceptable over-development of the site - Development completely out of character and detrimental to the character of the Batford and the Lea Valley neighbourhood - Design (bulk and massing, detailing and materials) overbearing, out of scale and detrimental to the area - The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties over a significant portion of Harpenden adversely affecting the residential amenity owners - Out of character and contrary to Herts CC landscape assessments - Detrimental to local listed buildings and complete disregard for their settings - Significantly affects highway safety in that traffic mitigation is inadequate, as is parking, especially when assessed with the narrow overcrowded roads in the near vicinity. - Have I mentioned totally inadequate on-site parking that contravenes new school car/pupil/staff ratios? - Have the police/traffic management people been asked for their opinion? I bet they’re not happy, in addition to the fires service? What about ambulance access? - Disability access to the sports facilities? Is there going to be a lift?

There are serious administrative and procedural issues that render the application invalid, yet you chose to pretend all’s well. You have made it difficult for large sectors of the population to access the application and submit objections. And you are aiding and abetting a parents group in misleading their members to try to achieve an outcome which is so far from sustainable that, well, it’s laughable. I’m not sure that there is enough time in the world to object to every detail, so in that respect I wish to also state that I agree that RSRP submissions also represent my views. Just because I haven’t mentioned something in this submission doesn’t mean that I don’t object to that somethings not important.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 15 November 2017 20:43 To: Tracy Harvey; Cllr S Gaygusuz; Cllr F Leonard; Cllr L Bolton; Cllr G Harrison; Cllr E Harris; Cllr A Pawle - External; Cllr G Turner; Cllr D Yates; herts ad; Subject: Re: Planning Application - Katherine Warrington School (5/2017/2733) meeting 27-11-2017

Dear All;

If an planning applicant proposed a new facility with 1200 daily employees arriving in one shift on the already very busy Lower Luton Road and only proposed some minor pavement improvements then I strongly suspect the applicant would be sent away to reflect. However this applicant Herts County Council acknowledging only 25% of their employees (pupils and staff) would arrive by walking or cycling does that. Coaches will only cover some and 30 coaches in half an hour on already busy Lower Luton Road is a slow painful nightmare and add likely new SLP ~750 NE Harpenden site houses plus double sized Luton Airport up the road. HCC say in their new highway report that they could afford no more than some minor pedestrian pavement improvements and not even some cycling path facilities. Not even recognition or improvement to narrow footbridge over the River Lea opposite leading to access road with no pavements but heavy vehicles use. However their earlier Stormor highway report justifying this site suggested an estimated £1.5m of highway improvements including widening Batford bridge and Harpenden High Street roundabout. HCC have changed their planning policy to allow them to avoid highway improvements for their applications and unilaterally decided to determine the application themselves. That in itself is questionable by the planning inspectorate.

Parents need a new secondary school now. HCC state the secondary school demand is centred on Harpenden South but they decided with the Stomor Highways report to place it in Harpenden East where we have already two large secondary schools. The Stormor highway report justifying the Harpenden East site did survey and recognise that the road network needed considerable improvements but they missed the most efficient and effective solution. This to add a direct link between Harpenden South and the school by an estimated short extension of the existing Piggottshill Lane across the River Lea. As a Civil Engineer with local track record of re-designing Westminister Lodge 25% bigger pool and service road all at no extra cost but a saving and other projects we sent the attached to HCC and their road consultants. Obviously estimated £3m is too much notwithstanding their high expenditure elsewhere in the County. Their first consultants did contact us but replaced by HCC.

School and Harpenden East residents need help so could I recommend that you recommend a strict condition of the attached Piggottshill Lane extension or equivalent to any approval.

Mike Wakely Harpenden East District Councillor 5 Oakfield Road Harpenden AL5 2NF From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sent: 16 November 2017 22:06 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

Proposed new 6FE school buildings and associated development at Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Herts. ref: PL\0866\17

Dear Sirs

We are writing in connection with the above planning application.

Batford Community Action Group (BCAG) is a residents group that works for and on behalf of our Batford village community, including local businesses, schools, clubs and approximately 1200 households.

Given the large number of documents within the planning application, we have not had time to properly review a number of aspects of the application. We therefore advise that we intend to continue to review the materials and make a further submission by 29th November 2017.

Our initial concerns relate to Green Belt development, the unsuitability of a school of this size in a village of just 1200 households, the archaeological, environmental and landscape impact, as well as traffic and road safety issues. In addition, we have grave concerns about the lack of local community engagement which includes lack of access to the planning application materials. As you may be aware, Batford is classified as one of the more deprived areas within SADC with all the associated disadvantages. I do not believe that BCAG was identified as a local community group, and as such we did not receive notification of the planning application.

The BCAG fully support the need to cater for adequate school places for Harpenden and surrounding areas but believes the location of Batford for the Katherine Warington School continues to prove the wrong location, especially when taking into account the demographics and traffic/highways impact on our village.

Please email confirmation that you have received this email and that it has been accepted as a valid response to the planning application. Your faithfully,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 16 November 2017 21:52 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Subject: PL/0866/17: New Secondary School in Harpenden To whom it may concern - While i am supportive of the new school at site F, having read the Travel Plan in the planning consultation documents I find it incredible (and utterly unacceptable) that no provision whatsoever is made for sustainable transport (walking/cycling) for Wheathampstead children, who were most affected by the borough's decision to close the village's secondary school, and whom are likely to constitute the largest group of future prospective pupils (especially given the recent cessation of a priority agreement at St George's and SJL).

Because Wheathampstead falls just outside the assumed 2km walkable limit there will be no footway provision to the east of Folly Fields, on what is a well known dangerous pedestrian route due to the narrow roads and dangerously narrow pavements ( and I've seen multiple accidents and large vehicles mounting pavements to avoid crashing into other oncoming vehicles, as well as cars overtaking at over 70mph in the 30mph limit presumably racing to Luton airport). In addition, despite a travel plan admission that cyclists will cycle up to 5km they have ridiculously lazily stated that there isn't sufficient EXISTING safe cycle infrastructure to provide this everywhere. This is Wheathampstead, the area is a veritable mecca for cyclists from far and wide! More importantly this goes against assurances at a Wheathampstead Parish Council meeting by Maxine & David Williams that there would be safe sustainable travel options from the village and specifically that any application would include provision to provide a safe walkway between the village and Folly Fields and onwards to the new school site.

If this development goes ahead without safe sustainable pedestrian and cycling routes children will be killed on this dangerous road and local government / planning officials will have blood on their hands. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly but if the development goes ahead as it stands it will merely be a matter of time before this happens.

Thank you for taking the time to read my severe concern.

Yours Sincerely

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 14 November 2017 20:01 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17 We fully support the application for the Katherine Warington School. The area is in desperate need of a fourth secondary school to meet increased demands.

As parents with young children we are aware that the existing secondary school provision in this area will not meet our needs.

Kind regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 14 November 2017 16:35 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

Dear Sirs, A fourth secondary school in Harpenden is vital. The number of homes that have already been built mean there are more Senior School children in Harpenden. To demand that many of these children must be bused or driven out of the town increases the traffic and therefore the pollution. Children should be walking to school not being carried out of their home area and having to make friends in distant places thereby creating more traffic not less.

Yours faithfully,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 15 November 2017 17:38 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Comments on new secondary school Harpenden

New 6FE school* building, Lower Luton Road Harpenden

Comment i)

The current plan for a new secondary school appears from what information is available to not include plans for “green” access.

The road between the proposed site and Wheathampstead is not suitable for cycling and too narrow to have safe cycle provision. I have heard suggestions proposed of car sharing, mini buses and even double deck buses. But no actual ‘plan.’ If one exists the various alternatives would not be touted as hearsay. The costs of these ‘Plans’ would also be part of the whole process, not an add-on capable of falling foul of later enforced economy.

The comparative costs should surely be applied to school sites rejected if only for comparison.

To have a cheaper site but with more expensive access costs would not have been an equitable comparison.

Questions: Has the reinstatement of the former railway route into Wheathampstead been seriously examined or instead put to one side? This reinstated direct route would actually benefit more than just the new Harpenden secondary school, possible more , two or three others. Is there a plan?

Comment ii)

The HCC notice which invites comment refers to “School” with no descriptive designation but in other documents and in the media it has been described as a “Free School” why the omission? Is there indeed a government diktat for all secondary schools to be so called “free” schools?

The government until recently was preparing to create new grammar schools nationally so why are only “Free” schools possible for a new secondary establishment? Everyone favours new schools but “free” schools are contentious.

All discussion and planning has been centred on Herts County Council. The Government website https://www.gov.uk/types-of-school/free-schools says “Free schools are funded by the government but aren’t run by the local council. They have more control over how they do things.”

Questions: Why then has HCC been the lead on establishment of a “Free” school?

If the school is indeed designated “free” and therefore has more control over how they do things, why are they not ensuring more impact in the process and demonstrating a real difference? Surely the “spatial planning” of this school should include not just the site itself but the schools position in its environs?

Who is responsible?

Who is failing to provide all the information as well as costs? From: - MD ETher NDE [mailto: ] Sent: 14 November 2017 17:35 To: Spatial Planning Subject: OBJECTIONS concerning so called Katetherine Warrington School planning application PL\0866\17

To whom it may concern (without prejudice)

Please incorporate the following Change.org petition into the objections for the above planning application.

Kindly note the petition has grown very strongly since the planning application was launched by HCC topple be approved by it's very own officers.

This petition has already been acknowledged as compliant by HCC Democratic Services and is also the subject of complaint against HCC Schools Planning officers and members.

The full text may be read here https://www.change.org/p/hertfordshire-county-council-reconsider-the-decision-to-build-a-new- harpenden-school-on-the-site-east-of-common-lane

Please take into account the wishes of 740 plus petitioners as well as the over 100 very valid comments.

Yours faithfully on behalf of the community

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 14 November 2017 17:31 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Fourth Secondary School for Harpenden

Re Planning Reference PL/0866/17

I fully support the need for a fourth secondary school in Harpenden on the preferred site at Batford. The reason for my support is simply that the current three secondary schools appear to be routinely over subscribed. In addition, should significant housing development take place in Harpenden (over and above the current high level of infilling/garden grabbing) then this fourth school will satisfy one aspect of the extra infrastructure required in a future St Albans Strategic Local Plan.

Finally the site at Batford would appear the most appropriate location geographically, vis a vis the location of the current schools, taking into account the needs of Wheathampstead residents and to avoid further traffic congestion in Harpenden town centre.

Thank you for taking the above aspects into account.

Regards

Sent from Outlook

From: [mailto: Sent: 14 November 2017 23:47 To: Spatial Planning Cc: David Williams; Teresa Heritage Subject: Planning reference numberPL\0866\17

Dear Sirs

We are writing to support the planning application for the Katherine Warrington School. The new secondary school is desperately needed now and a lot of work has gone into selecting the best site.

Harpenden is in clear need of a fourth secondary school. There are not enough school places in Harpenden. Over 100 children from Harpenden were allocated a St Albans school in 2017 (and more than 80 children in each of the previous two years). At the same time, the demand for places within St Albans is also increasing - Harpenden children cannot rely on this provision for the future, as the St Albans schools will be full. Just this week, Sandringham School has sought approval to reduce their 2019 onwards intake numbers. This means the 55 bulge places currently being allocated to Harpenden (15) and Wheathampstead (40) will not be available.

Since the current year 6 pupils started reception, 105 permanent primary places have been created in Harpenden (and more in the villages). All these children need secondary places and the existing secondary schools are already full. Hundreds of houses are likely to be planned for Harpenden in the next few years as St Albans District needs to increase its housing targets. It is inevitable that even more school places will be needed.

We feel the Lower Luton Road is appropriate. The site was chosen after many detailed studies by professionals. It was deemed the best option available having regard to all considerations and we therefore support this conclusion. The site is in Green Belt but due to the urgent and sustained need for a new school, the very special circumstances required to justify building on the Green Belt have clearly been fulfilled and this justifies building on a site in the Green Belt.

It is clear from the pupil data that the majority of the increase in demand is from children in Harpenden rather than the villages; this supports the location of the school on a site which is as central in the Harpenden Planning Area as possible, enabling ease of access.

In summary, we agree with the conclusions reached and wholeheartedly support this planning application.

Yours faithfully

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 15 November 2017 23:22 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17 - Katherine Warrington School Planning Application - Objection

Dear Sir / Madam,

I wish to register my objections to the planning application PL\0866\17 for a proposed secondary school in Harpenden and ask that the Council takes these into account when reviewing the application.

There are a number of areas that I feel have not been addressed and that are objectionable with the application for the school in the location. I have outlined these areas below.

Location  The Very Special Circumstances required for removal from Green Belt have not been demonstrated  This is a highly prominent expensive site, other sites would represent far greater value for money and less environmental damage  This proposed site is part of a narrow Green Belt gap that prevents coalescence between settlements and cannot meet the very special circumstances test  Initial site assessment failed to take a range of potential options in account and the way conclusions were reached was not consistent or balanced.  A school closer to the pupils in need (Wheathampstead/Southdown) would take pupils and traffic off the roads and be a sustainable longer term solution  Other sites were rejected because a school entrance could not be on a busy main road, and yet here we are, this proposal is for a dangerous junction on the busiest B road in the county, one that is already over-capacity.  The amount of earthworks needed to make level surfaces means the development is far from sustainable and removes any spirit of green belt from the site  Raising significant sections of the field has a huge visual impact from all directions and will make the location even more prominent

Transport / Noise / congestion Mitigation

 Transport and traffic considerations are wholly inadequate. Mitigation appears to mean removal of traffic measures originally introduced on safety grounds, for example the roundabout removal at Common Lane, change of light-controlled crossing to zebra crossing on widened carriageway at Station Road / Lower Luton Road; addition of crossings close to bends/ junctions (Station Road at Coldharbour Lane; Station Road at Marquis Lane) and little or no measures for the Lower Luton Road to Wheathampstead.  The majority of individuals outlined in the ‘Travel Plan’ are those that would need to travel the furthest distance across Harpenden – this would only seek to add further traffic across busy roads – not only the Lower Luton Road but also the main Harpenden / Luton road – adding unnecessary traffic. If a school were located closer, the impact would be less severe on the amount of traffic that is experienced on already congested road networks.  The entrance and exit to the proposed site is on one of the busiest B roads in the country. The exit in particular is just below the crest of a blind summit and oncoming traffic would be unable to viewing exiting vehicles – the placement of the exit is wholly inadequate and in a prime position to cause more accidents.  Traffic and access suggestions imply the majority of pupils will cycle or walk to school - this is at best impractical, given that most will live too far away to walk and at worst dangerous - the Lower Luton Road and access roads/lanes from Southdown and villages are not suitable for cyclists.  The noise levels on the Lower Luton Road will increase with higher volumes of traffic on the roads – this will have a negative impact on the quality of life of local residents.  Additional traffic is already being anticipated on the road due to the proposed expansion of Luton Airport and a planned new school to be located near to the Gypsy Lane Retail Park (located on the Batford / Harpenden side of Luton). The planned addition of a school on the Batford side of Harpenden, on a very busy B road, that is also expecting an increase in traffic to occur on the same road over the next few years and has little capacity to expand in certain stretches (due to actual width of road and housing / retail locations), would only increase the traffic to unsafe levels.  The traffic surveys that were undertaken for the site viability were conducted either during school holidays, when roadworks were being undertaken on when sections of the Lower Luton Road were closed – not showing a true representation of the traffic levels that are experienced on the road.

Demand for a school

 The proposal appears founded an unproven Need, with the HCC forecast having to be “adjusted” to generate the necessary number of children. There is no indication of where in the area the majority of the children for the school live. This appears to provide a very unconvincing case for the Very Special Circumstances tests to take the land out of Green Belt.  The ‘Travel Plan’ has an unexplained expectation of more pupils from Redbourn, Flamstead and Markyate than from Wheathampstead (although it would be the nearest school in the Priority area). It appears to suggest only 1 in 3 Wheathampstead pupils will attend the school, with no explanation of where the rest will go. With more pupils coming from further away and having to travel across the whole of Harpenden – it is suggestive that the location and demand for the school should be closer to this are, rather than the current proposal which is the other side of town.  There are more than enough places for Harpenden children in the existing schools, the potential shortfall has been felt in villages/rural areas. It make no sense to build another school so close to others and make almost all potential pupils have the longest journeys of all the schools in the town - this continues to discriminate against village/rural families.  HCC data forecasts falling primary rolls which in turn do not lead to a need for significant additional places in the short or medium term  While there is a general understanding that more housing may be built over the next 20 years, the amount of potential new housing in the area does not add up to a complete new school even for Harpenden pupils (given standard housing/pupil yield data). It is therefore not sustainable spatial planning to create further school places when the location of new housing is unknown and which rely on out-of-area pupils.

The Building / Site

 Landscape considerations suggest minimum effect despite highly visible terracing and substantial buildings that will change the outlook for a significant proportion of Harpenden – it is a highly prominent site, visible from a wide area.  The height of both the terracing and buildings, with accompanying window locations, would make this highly visible and have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy, light available and quality of life for residents on Common Lane, Milford Hill and Tallents Crescent – these are the adjacent and secondary roads to the proposed site.  School opening hours are inconsistent within application documentation, and inconsistent with County Councillor statements to the effect that the proposed head teacher would seek to use the school extensively out of school hours (thereby threatening other community activities, locations and groups).  I have not been able to read all the papers, however if there is a suggestion of later night access or flood lighting to be placed on the site – particularly in halls and playing fields – this will have a significant impact on natural lighting and impact on the well-being of local residents who will be detrimentally affected by the inclusion of these. Should the school be located here – I would strongly object and would expect the council to add a clause that no out of school activities or flood lighting be allowed on the site  Parking facilities are inadequate for the even a 6FE school, yet expansion to 8FE is already within the design  Inadequate on-site parking will instantly mean a high number of cars attempting to park in neighbouring roads that are already narrow, restricted and dangerous.  Playing fields at the top of the site restrict access for those with a number of difficulties and also restrict access for emergency services  The proposed construction of the playing fields and buildings of dug out and re-used earthworks without properly ensuring these are shored up would make them hazardous as a longer term site – if they are to be placed at such heights, they should be adequately supported with proper infrastructure to hold them in place, particularly in periods of high rainfall and on site that experiences flooding.

Archaeological Significance  Architectural heritage (of potentially national importance) of the site has been ignored and would be irrevocably damaged by the proposed development. The district archaeologist has recommended refusal.  The height of the proposed playing fields could also be a significant problem from English Heritage perspective as it would infringe on the See of Mackereye End which is a listed status.

Other

 This is a build for school that should aim to be in place for at least 100 years, however there is only demand for this in the short-term and not in the medium-long term.  There is a higher demand for places forecast over the next 8 years, however this peaks in 2019- 2020 and then decreases to near supply available levels (+4 surplus according to HCC figures) – this demonstrates that there is only a short-term requirement for school places and that no significant medium-long term secondary schooling is required in the foreseeable future.  The Application has a lot of information, but the ability to view and digest it all has been extremely restrictive, as the Authority hearing the application (Hertfordshire County Council) has not provided adequate opportunity to review paper copy in locations close to the proposed site. This has denied local people, many of whom will be directly affected should this application be granted, the opportunity to make informed decisions.  The application being made on behalf of HCC as one of the partners in this venture and being heard by HCC as an application suggests that there will be significant bias and I am not confident that a fair and balanced view of the application can be made on this decision.  This is the most expensive option being considered for as a location for this school.  Other locations were turned down due to the proposed entry / exit onto busy roads and the need to establish pavements and cycle paths – these were considered too expensive and unviable as options, however the same reasons could be directly applied to the Batford Lower Luton Road / Common Lane location which would require cycle paths to be put in place, entry / exit onto a busier road and the creation of safe walking routes for pupils, particularly in the placement of crossings.

I strongly object to the location of this site for the reasons outlined above, particularly or the following reasons:  The area of demand confirms this to be the furthest from area of need  The impact on quality of life (privacy, lighting, etc) for residents would be highly detrimental  The impact on traffic and congestion would be negative – making the area even more congested and problematic to commuters journeys  The highly potential significance of the archaeological findings would make this a site of national importance  The increase in demand for school places is only for a short period of time and therefore does not demonstrate long term capacity needs that would warrant the building of a new 6-8FE school

The council’s approach to engaging with local residents has been appalling – the consultation was not undertaken properly and did, and still does not, provide residents with all the information to make an informed decision – particularly when documents are being amended and new additions being made with less than 2 weeks left on the consultation.

This proposed development would have a significant impact on Batford, Harpenden and the surrounding areas for a number of years to come and should be allowed to be considered properly and not rushed through.

I understand that further work is being undertaken by RSRP into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect

I strongly urge you to reject the application on multiple areas.

Please can you confirm receipt of this email.

Yours Sincerely

Hertfordshire Resident From: [mailto: ] Sent: 15 November 2017 09:59 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Batford School Planning submission

Dear Sirs,

Attached is a submission for the proposed school School in Batford, Harpenden.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 14 November 2017 23:08 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Objection Re: Objection to planning for the proposed secondary school for Common Lane, Harpenden

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to raise my concerns about the proposed new secondary school in Harpenden. , however I believe the cost of building the school, the effect on the community and the greenbelt are so significant, the decision to go ahead should be given more time to properly consider.

Traffic is a concern. Unfortunately when you are retrofitting a huge new development into an already existing infrastructure it will inevitably cause problems. The road network is simply not up to take the strain of the additional traffic which will cause delays to people in their commutes. A better road scheme needs to be put in place before the school is approved.

The loss of greenbelt is a big concern for me. Green belt is extremely precious and without careful consideration and long term strategy, this could easily be squandered.

Whilst the architect drawings include lots of green landscaping I have a concern that the school isn’t particularly attractive in design or fits the local architectural vernacular.

Finally I fear that in the haste to move into the construction phase, due process hasn’t been followed in the consultation phases. To me consultation materials has made it feel like the go ahead was a foregone conclusion and the questionnaire was terribly written.

Thank you in advance for considering my concerns

Kind Regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 16 November 2017 10:31 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Fw: Batford school Lower Luton Road

Apologies I failed to add the information required:- OBJECT TO THE SITING OF THE PROPOSED BATFORD SCHOOL

From: Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Batford school Lower Luton Road

Dear Sirs,

How can it be safe for school children walking along this road? – no child will walk in single file but in twos and threes with bags and satchels, pushing each other and probably with their ear phones plugged in. And no one in their right mind will allow a child to cycle along here.

This is a disaster waiting to happen on a road that is probably the busiest and most dangerous in Hertfordshire.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 14 November 2017 23:10 To: Spatial Planning Subject: 5/2017/2733 (HCC reference SLUP/CC0798 PL|0866|17)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to raise my concerns about the proposed new secondary school in Harpenden. I currently have primary school aged children, however I believe the cost of building the school, the effect on the community and the greenbelt are so significant, the decision to go ahead should be carefully considered.

In my opinion, the already busy roads in this area will not stand up to the influx of cars at drop off and pick up times. With Harpenden already served by three schools I believe it likely that a majority of students at Katherine Warington will come from neighbouring villages, which means more cars on the road. There does not seem to be a suitable footpath/cycle path from Wheathampstead, Southdown, Crabtree or Ox Lane, to the school. How are the children to make their way safely across the busy B653? The loss of greenbelt is a primary concern for me. Green belt is extremely precious and without careful consideration and long term strategy, this could easily be squandered. The historical site should be protected due to the archaeological findings.

Finally, I fear that in the haste to move into the construction phase, due process hasn’t been followed in the consultation phases. To me consultation materials has made it feel like the go ahead was a foregone conclusion and the questionnaire was terribly written. I am deeply concerned that processes and decisions have not been followed correctly by the Council.

I am concerned that 'Vincent and Gorbing Planning Associates', who were involved with the removal of the Wheathampstead school, have been involved in this application. How can we be completely assured that this is the right decision, when they recommended the closure of the school in Wheathampstead?

Thank you in advance for considering my concerns.

Kind Regards

From: mailto: Sent: 14 November 2017 10:42 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Harpenden Needs a Fourth Secondary School - Ref: PL/0866/17

It has become vital for Harpenden to have a fourth school for the following reasons:

 Although they live in Harpenden children are not able to receive secondary education in Harpenden.  New accommodation is being built in/planned for Harpenden, which means more children to be educated but without the fourth school no extra facility.  It is always better for a child to go to a local school and have local friends.

.  Local schools reduce traffic by a) enabling more children to walk and b) otherwise reducing the distance to drive.

Regards From: [mailto: Sent: 14 November 2017 11:40 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Subject: Planning Application PL\0866\17

To the Hertfordshire County Council

I urge you to approve this application as a fourth school for Harpenden is long overdue and it is vital for Harpenden to such a school for the following reasons:

 Local schools reduce traffic by both enabling more children to walk and also reducing the distance to drive for those who can't walk.

Regards

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 14 November 2017 12:50 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL/0866/17 - a 4th senior School for Harpenden

We are in TOTAL AGREEMENT for the necessity to get on with building the proposed school. It has long been necessary and all the time the planners procrastinate, some children living in Harpenden are being sent sent to schools outside of Harpenden as there are insufficient Senior School places. Further housing is still being proposed and there must be enough senior school places to accommodate current children and those needing places in the foreseeable future. Please do not let things be delayed by the views of a few.

It is a very sad state of affairs and one which needs remedying immediately.

Yours sincerely

Sent from my iPhone

From: [mailto: Sent: 13 November 2017 20:32 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Fw: Hertfordshire County Council - Online Representation Acknowledgement

Dear Mr Chay Dempster I have commented on the planning application for the Katherine Warington School application number: 5/2733-17. In addition, (which are attached) in support of the school application. I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt. Please note I could not find a way of uploading these directly onto the response page on the website directly.

Their details are as follows:

----- Forwarded message ----- From: " " < > To: " " < > Sent: Thursday, 9 November 2017, 9:19:06 pm GMT Subject: Hertfordshire County Council - Online Representation Acknowledgement

Dear , You have successfully recorded your comments online and these have been received by Hertfordshire County Council. Should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to email us on [email protected] or contact the office directly on 01992 556266

Please do not reply directly to this e-mail.

Please use this link to monitor the application: https://cloud1.atriumsoft.com/HCCePlanningOPS/loadFullDetails.do?aplId=26370

Kind Regards, Hertfordshire County Council Online Planning Team

The information in this message should be regarded as confidential and is intended for the addressee only unless explicitly stated. If you have received this message in error it must be deleted and the sender notified. The views expressed in this message are personal and not necessarily those of Hertfordshire County Council unless explicitly stated. Please be aware that emails sent to or received from Hertfordshire County Council may be intercepted and read by the Council. Interception will only occur to ensure compliance with Council policies or procedures or regulatory obligations, to prevent or deter crime, or for the purposes of essential maintenance or support of the email system.

From: [mailto: Sent: 13 November 2017 17:22 To: Spatial Planning Cc: [email protected] Subject: re : Hertfordshire County Council Consultation: Proposed new school - application reference 5/2017/2733 (HCC reference SLUP/CC0798 PL|0866|17)

Dear Sirs

I write to comment on the above planning application relating to the construction of school buildings and other associated works on land at the junction of Lower Luton Road and Common Lane, Batford, Harpenden Hertfordshire. I understand that during an archaeological evaluation of this site, 14 burials dating to the 7th century AD, the early Anglo-Saxon period, were discovered, at least one of them containing contemporary artefacts. It was clear to the excavators that other burials were likely to be present, which one would certainly expect, and that the full extent of the cemetery had not been defined by the trial trenching.

There is almost no evidence for early (5th-7th-century) Anglo-Saxon cemeteries and settlement in this part of Hertfordshire, and very little in Hertfordshire as a whole, which makes this exceptional site potentially extremely important for our understanding of the obscure history of post-Roman settlement in the area around St Albans, which from documentary and archaeological evidence, remained an important British centre well into the 5th century, and probably later. If this development goes ahead without proper excavation of this rare witness to the early stages of Anglo-Saxon settlement in West Hertfordshire, the shallow burials will be destroyed in the process, and information of great potential will have been lost for ever. I strongly urge the County Council to undertake full excavation of the burial site before commencing any development works. My credentials for making these comments are that I was,

I understand that the closing date for comments is tomorrow, 14th November. I would be most grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of my comments.

Yours faithfully,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 13 November 2017 22:57 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Katherine Warington School

I would like to add my support for this much needed school.

It is so advantageous for children to be in a school in their own neighbourhood. The anxiety caused by the under provision causes stress at a time in which children are adjusting to major change in their young lives.

Please give your approval to this new school so that building can begin for the intake in 2018

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 13 November 2017 20:35 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Katherine Warington School Planning reference number PL\0866\17

Fao Chay Dempster

I write on behalf of my family in support of the planning application for the Katherine Warington School.

. We are firm believers in quality local schools for all children - something Hertfordshire County Council can be proud of. As matters currently stand due to the growing number of families living in central Harpenden and therefore the shrinkage of the 'catchment area'. (which we would be extremely happy with but which, due to the lottery nature of allocations, we may stand little chance of being awarded) or a non-ranked allocation anywhere in Hertfordshire.

Our careers would also be impacted should a school outside Harpenden or St Albans be allocated.

I have seen each twist and turn of this project pan out.

No one can deny the educational proposition put together by the Harpenden Secondary Education Trust and the EFSA. The planned Head Tony Smith is dedicated and passionate. This school will be a credit to the town. I have no doubt it will hold its own with the best state comprehensive schools in the country - in line with Sir John Lawes, Roundwood Park and St George's.

There is a vocal minority who oppose the location. I do not question their right to to do so. I do however question the basis for the opposition.

Transport and traffic concerns will not go away if there is no new school. Indeed they will be increased due to th number of children being driven or bussed around for the county. If a school opens in Harpenden, children will be able to walk. Secondary aged children do not want to travel to school in their parents' cars unless there is no alternative! Finally, a sensible transport plan is proposed with the use of existing local buses and cycle ways.

The site is on green belt land, but the need and demand means there are exceptional circumstances to justify its release.

The buildings will be modern and environmentally friendly and the campus like design is future proof.

Children of Harpenden and the surrounding priority area need to start their secondary school career at Katherine Warington School in September 2018. There have been too many unnecessary delays causing unknown stress to young people and their families. In order that the school can open as planned, I urge you to grant the planning permission sought.

Yours sincerely From: [mailto: ] Sent: 14 November 2017 14:17 To: Spatial Planning Cc: [email protected] Subject: HCC reference SLUP/CC0798 PL|0866|17 Objection

Dear Sir, I write to object to the proposed new school at Harpenden.

The reason for my objection is the flawed process used to select the site.

HCC & SADC are legally obliged to preserve Green Belt unless there is an overriding reason to build on it. Given this why were only green belt potential sites assessed since 2011 ? As a Harpenden resident I know that most of the current schools in Harpenden are under developed i.e. could easily be expanded to increase capacity. 1. Most have large quantities of old single storey school buildings which could easily be re-built as modern multi-storey buildings. 2. Most have overly large playing fields which are under used & a small amount could be used to accommodate more school buildings. Some could even share playing fields e.g. John Lawes & Manland schools. So why was this cheaper, more environmentally & green belt friendly option not in the site assessment ?

Given it was not explored properly HCC & SADC should be careful they do not open themselves to a legal challenge.

I would additionally object to the HCC investment cost, which could be better used on other priorities, especially as HCC would have no control over the proposed Free school. As a Council Tax payer I expect HCC to re-consider any investment, especially as there are less expensive options.

Yours faithfully,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 13 November 2017 22:03 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Objection to Proposed new school (5/2017/2733) To whom it may concern,

We strongly object to this proposal on the following grounds

 Traffic on Lower Luton Rd. Living close to Lower Luton Rd and using it everyday for commuting into St Albans we have first-hand experience of how unbearably busy it already gets. Adding all the traffic required for the new school on top of this will take the road past breaking point, add to the already dangerous accident hotspots and become even more environmentally unfriendly for those who live in close proximity.  Green belt. One of the primary purposes of Green Belt is to stop urban sprawl and merging of settlements. The development of the proposed land would narrow the gap of continuous development between Harpenden and Wheathampstead to within a region of 100 metres, effectively joining the two settlements.

Kind regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 10 November 2017 14:13 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Objection letter

Ref. PL/0866/17; 5/2733-17. Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Herts. Re proposal to build The Katherine Warrington school on the B653

Dear Mr. Dempsey,

We write to make our objections to the proposed building of The Katherine Warrington School which is to be built on green belt land off the B653 north off the Lower Luton Road.

Our first objection to this 4th Secondary school in Harpenden is that the intention of creating another secondary school in very close proximity to Sir John Lawes School and also to St Georges school is truly quite remarkable. It is our understanding that the new school will take many pupils from outside of Harpenden.

The Lee Valley area has been green land from time immemorial and the new layout proposed for this school will impact, severely, on the visual landscape. The schools playing field, by all accounts, are to be raised 6mtres, terracing and dominating the view. With its elevated position this will bound to create extra noise and light pollution. Another point to consider is that the field contains Wheathampstead Parish boundaries and therefore a coalescence will have been created - it is our understanding that this is not permitted by the NPPF.

The noise pollution will be beyond what is redeemed as acceptable and reasonable to the local residents. It is difficult to comprehend how this B road will accommodate the melee of new traffic brought about by another secondary school in this area. Consideration needs to be taken not only for drop off and pick up times but also extra curricular activities along with hiring out the school during holiday times, weekends and evenings. All this contributes to the unhealthy levels of noise which is compounded by traffic to and from Luton Airport and by the drone of aeroplanes and helicopters that already dominate our skies.

Yours most sincerely

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 13 November 2017 12:39 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17

Dear Sirs ,

, I would like this email to be taken as my support for the 4th school to be built in Harpenden, namely the Katherine Warington.

Yours sincerely

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 11 November 2017 17:24 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Support for Katherine Warrington School in Harpenden Dear Spatial Planning Office,

Please hereby receive our strong support for the new Harpenden school Katherine Warrington, which we believe is necessary to ensure that all children have an opportunity to go to their local school.

Best regards,

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 13 November 2017 10:25 To: Spatial Planning Subject: ref PL\0866\17

To whom it may concern I would like to register my support for the above planning application as Harpenden desperately needs another secondary school.

Regards

Dear Sirs ,

, I would like this email to be taken as my support for the 4th school to be built in Harpenden, namely the Katherine Warington.

Yours sincerely

Dear Mr. Dempster,

I have learned that the land which is the subject of this planning application is a nationally important burial site which will fill a gap in archaelogists’ knowledge about the end of the Roman society and the beginning of the society we recognise today. Another firm reason to deny planning permission. Apparently the site is sensitive for a variety or reasons and is potentially of national significance. The planning applicant’s heritage statement completely misses the detail of the archaeological significance. In my view this is another reason to refuse planning permission. I would also ask you to consider the reputational risk to HCC of building a blot on the landscape in a green belt field of significant archaeological interest and naming the school after a botanist. I am sure Kate Warrington would find the whole contemplation abhorrent.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 12 November 2017 12:34 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Ref: P/L0866/17 Re: Proposed new 6FE school buildings on Lower Luton Road/Common Lane

Chief Executive and Director of Environment - John Wood

Team leader, Development Management – Brian Owen

Chay Dempster

Spatial Planning and Economy Unit

CHN216, County Hall

Hertford, Herts SG13 8DN

Dear Mr. Wood, Mr. Owen and Mr.Dempster,

Re: Proposed new 6FE school buildings on Lower Luton Road/Common Lane

Ref: P/L0866/17

I would like to state my concerns and objections to this proposal for the issues below:

The volume of traffic on the Lower Luton Road and Station Road (plus other adjoining roads) is immense at peak times of day, the congestion is terrible now. To add more traffic to this is insanity and will lead to a gridlocked area plus the safety issues that would arise from yet more traffic. The Lower Luton Road is used for through traffic to Luton Airport; accidents will increase if a school were to be built in the location suggested, lives could be at risk. When the Lower Luton Road was repaired a few years ago there was total utter chaos with traffic including large lorries driving around residential road, past Batford School, up on the pavements to try and get past the road works. To say it was dangerous this is an understatement; there was a local outcry about this. What will happen when this over used road needs repairing again if even more traffic were to use it (thus needing more frequent repairs). How would children actually get to the proposed school? The suggestion of using Cherry Tree Lane/Leasey Bridge Road poses a potential death threat if school children were to use it. Have any of the councilors/people pushing this location actually walked, driven or ridden a bike down that lane? If they had I do not think they would be in their right mind suggesting this option. They are suggesting getting rid have the historic ford and putting a road there. It seems the field opposite the Mariqus of Granby pub may have been purchased for reasons other than extending Batford Springs Nature Reserve If they were to do this Crabtree Lane would become a rat run.

. Every day on this dangerous corner, I frequently see near misses, sometimes-actual accidents and that’s only the ones I happen to see. Cyclists for example, come speeding down Crabtree Lane straight over into the ford with out even looking to see if there is any traffic coming around the corner from Marquis Lane, someone will be hurt or even killed there if no ones sorts out the priority of these roads. Cars have driven straight down the hill into the Allotments hedge without stopping, straight across the path of traffic.

No one seems to know which road has priority. Parking is far too near the corner; this causes a constant hazard (I have requested double yellow lines on the corner to prevent this and white lines that show which road actually has priority). Large lorries constantly drive along Marquis Lane to and from the sewage works. Some lorries get stuck, many on the corner by the pub. It would be insane to increase the traffic here. There is also a huge amount of traffic problems with all the building work in Crabtree Lane, parked lorries, deliveries, workmen’s traffic from all the alterations, knocking down and re building of properties. This is another area that seems to have got out of control. I have contacted my local MP recently about all this. She has been very concerned about it for a long while and has tried addressing these issues. It’s the usual though no one takes any notice, addresses the problems or does anything about it. Will they when someone dies there?

There is also the conservation issue of the historic ford, the local beauty spot - the park and Batford Springs Nature reserve. Many people park their cars at the side of my house in Marquis Lane to access the park, nature reserve and ford, all of which are very well used. There is insufficient parking as it is, let alone if there were to be more cars parked dropping children off to go to school plus the danger/safely issue to the children.

To my understanding there is no factual evidence to show that a fourth school is needed for Harpenden. The birth rate I undersatand is on its way down again with many people have/are returning to their homelands due to Brexit. The proposal itself appears to be founded on s dubious premise of need for a school, with the forecast from the HCC having to be “adjusted” to generate the number of children deemed necessary and with no indication of where the majority of children of the school live. If Harpenden children all went to Harpenden schools and other children out of the area/vicinity were not accepted into Harpenden schools there would not be an issue. There is more of a problem with parents who will not accept places at other schools close by, as the Harpenden Schools have good reputations they are oversubscribed. Townsend School nearby for example when I called them, they have plenty of places as do other schools in the area, yet St Albans Girls School (very close by to Townsend School) I understand is oversubscribed due to its reputation. Parents often will not accept places in the less popular schools, they want/demand the favored schools of the area and are the type of people who just will not accept anything else. As a practical suggestion why don’t St Georges stop taking boarders, use the facilities to make more classrooms and take only local children? Why cant a few mobile class rooms be added to our local schools for a while as happened when I was at school. There is plenty of room on all three- school sites for this.

Redbourn has a part of the old senior school building available that Harpenden Free School recently vacated. Wheathampstead School was knocked down and houses built for profit making, not for the good of the community. Markyate is as close to Dunstable, as Harpenden, so the children from there could go to Dunstable Schools, as could the Flamstead children. The Redbourn children could go to St Albans schools (utilise the space in Townsend School). What guarantee do we as residents have that once the new school were built, Sir John Lawes were knocked down to build houses? They would be more valuable than houses built on Common Lane/Lower Luton Road. This rumor has been around for a quite while now. I have also heard that some of the people who have been driving the new school issue have never even been to the site/area of the proposed school so are in no position to give their opinions or make life changing/environment changing decisions about our area. I would like to see them trying to get out of Station Road onto the Lower Luton Road during peak times of the day.

The land is green belt and surely this is protected from this application? This all appears to provide a very unconvincing case for the ‘Very Special Circumstances’ tests to take the land out of green belt

Please decline the application for a school in this location.

Kind Regards From: [] Sent: 13 November 2017 10:30 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Proposed application for constuction of new 6FE school Batford

Mr. Brian Owen

Thank you for your letter of 28th September 2017 regarding planning permission for a school to be built on farm fields in Common Lane, Batford. I am submitting my objections to the school being located here because of the proposed road improvements to combat congestion are inadequate. The Lower Luton Road is highly congested in the mornings now so adding more cars, coaches and bicycles to this would be a disaster. Your councilors have said children could walk and cycle to school, but even from Wheathampsted this would be so dangerous, no parents would let their children travel this way from anywhere in Harpenden. Pupils travelling from Kimpton and Whitwell will be in danger of accidents because of the narrow lanes with normal traffic travelling that way to get to Lower Luton Road. People living in Common Lane (as I do) could have problems getting out, too, as there are two proposed entrances in Common Lane to the school. The proposed removal of the the roundabout at the Common Lane/Lower Luton Road junction is liable to create the safety problem the roundabout was first introduced to correct, resulting in frustrated motorist trying to get to work, thereby greater risk of accidents happening!

There are other safer sites that would be more suitable for the school, even if slightly smaller. The Batford site was also green belt land and there are Roman remains in the fields which should have heritage preference. The residents in Common Lane would lose their views as proposed buildings would be close to and higher than the small trees already along the road. The fields are sloping so buildings would have to be tiered, what about subsidence in the future?

Building permission should not be granted!

Yours sincerely

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 12 November 2017 12:40 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Ref: P/L0866/17 Re: Proposed new 6FE school buildings on Lower Luton Road/Common Lane Chief Executive and Director of Environment - John Wood

Team leader, Development Management – Brian Owen

Chay Dempster

Spatial Planning and Economy Unit

CHN216, County Hall

Hertford, Herts SG13 8DN

Dear Mr. Wood, Mr. Owen and Mr.Dempster,

Re: Proposed new 6FE school buildings on Lower Luton Road/Common Lane

Ref: P/L0866/17

I would like to state my concerns and objections to this proposal for the issues below:

When the Lower Luton Road was repaired a few years ago there was total utter chaos with traffic including large lorries driving around residential road, past Batford School, up on the pavements to try and get past the road works. To say it was dangerous this is an understatement; there was a local outcry about this. What will happen when this over used road needs repairing again if even more traffic were to use it (thus needing more frequent repairs). How would children actually get to the proposed school? The suggestion of using Cherry Tree Lane/Leasey Bridge Road poses a potential death threat if school children were to use it. Have any of the councilors/people pushing this location actually walked, driven or ridden a bike down that lane? If they had I do not think they would be in their right mind suggesting this option. They are suggesting getting rid have the historic ford and putting a road there. It seems the field opposite the Mariqus of Granby pub may have been purchased for reasons other than extending Batford Springs Nature Reserve If they were to do this Crabtree Lane would become a rat run.

If Harpenden children all went to Harpenden schools and other children out of the area/vicinity were not accepted into Harpenden schools there would not be an issue. There is more of a problem with parents who will not accept places at other schools close by, as the Harpenden Schools have good reputations they are oversubscribed. Townsend School nearby for example when I called them, they have plenty of places as do other schools in the area, yet St Albans Girls School (very close by to Townsend School) I understand is oversubscribed due to its reputation. Parents often will not accept places in the less popular schools, they want/demand the favored schools of the area and are the type of people who just will not accept anything else. As a practical suggestion why don’t St Georges stop taking boarders, use the facilities to make more classrooms and take only local children? Why cant a few mobile class rooms be added to our local schools for a while as happened when I was at school. There is plenty of room on all three- school sites for this.

Please decline the application for a school in this location.

Kind Regards

From: [mailto: Sent: 12 November 2017 14:41 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Re: Ref: PL/0866/17; 5/2733-17 Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire

Dear Mr. Dempster,

I have learned that the land for this proposed school is a nationally important burial site which will fill a gap in archaelogists’ knowledge about the end of the Roman society and the beginning of the society we recognise today. Apparently the site is sensitive and is potentially of national significance. The planning applicant’s heritage statement failed to disclose this important information.

In my view this is another reason to refuse planning permission.

On 5 Nov 2017, at 17:34, < > wrote: 5 November 2017

Mr Chay Dempster, via email [email protected] and by post at: Spatial Planning & Economy Unit County Hall CHN216 Pegs Lane Hertford SG13 8DN

Dear Mr. Dempster

Ref: PL/0866/17; 5/2733-17 Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire

Proposed application for the construction of new 6 FE school buildings, vehicular access/egress onto the Lower Luton Road, vehicular access onto Common Lane, two pedestrian accesses/egresses onto Common Lane, car parking, cycle storage, coach parking, playing fields, tennis courts / multi-use games area, surface water attenuation measures, hard and soft landscaping and other associated development

I object to the proposal to build the Kate Warrington School on the B653. It is not part of the county’s strategic local plan.

I understand that in order to build this school, the land will have to be removed from the Green Belt. Locating the school in the Green Built would be an inappropriate development according to Section 9 of the NPPF. Schools and housing are not considered to be exceptions within the legislation.

I outline below my reasons for objecting to the building of this school in the Green Belt:

Detrimental visual impact: from the material I have seen the building and terracing are not at all sympathetic to the Lea Valley. There will be an adverse impact on the visual impact for residents living on both sides of the valley.

The excavation at the foot of the site to make way for the school will dump the spoil at the top of the hill, apparently making the field 6m higher. This will introduce an imbalance to the Lea Valley in the Green Belt.

I understand the games pitch will be situated on top of the deposited spoil. I note that floodlighting is not yet contemplated but I would imagine that it is just a matter of time until this becomes a planning request and a further blight on the landscape.

I have read that HCC’s “very special circumstances” argument to lift the site out of the Green Belt relies on the need for school places. However, within the planning application, in the document ‘Education Needs Statement’ in sections 3.9 and 3.10, the Council has identified that it has departed from its normal forecasting practice by applying different trend data. As this is, by definition, unproven data. The version that had been displayed for over 12 months and was originally expected to be published in June/July 2016 was live at the time of HCC’s presentation to SADC’s PPC in September 2016. The new version, declared (at 27 October) as Summer 16-17 forecast contains different information from previous publications by HCC. The forecasts are produced in areas, which are different to Priority areas that are used to guide the allocations process. There are therefore three sets of current figures relating to the Planning Application that are in circulation – the Rising Demand forecast – as published at time of submission of Application to HCC; the Interim forecast – as published on or about 27 October. There are significant variations in the forecast information provided. In practice HCC has therefore amended the forecasts for the planning application for the Kate Warrington School.

There is no supporting evidence for the scale of the adjustment proposed by HCC. In essence what appears to be an unspecified number of pupils have been added to this forecast. This represents a departure from accepted practice. This is not a sound basis upon which the decision to eliminate part of the Green Belt can be taken.

In section 3.7 of the Needs Assessment HCC identify a move of pupils from Harpenden to St Albans as a major contributory factor to change of dynamic. In practice there is an underlying factor for children who attend particular types of school – single sex, particular Faith etc – which are only available in St Albans and serve the whole Priority Area, including Harpenden, e.g. St Albans Girls School. I am aware that short term places were provided at Sandringham School for Wheathampstead and Harpenden children.

This highlights another issue – how much of Harpenden is in Harpenden Town? In practice HCC’s Planning Area includes two out of District areas – Hemel Rural North (Dacorum) and The Waldens (North Herts). HCC directs pupils from these areas towards Harpenden for schooling, yet Harpenden Town accounts for around 400 - 450 pupils, including applicants who choose go go outside of Harpenden’s three existing secondary schools. HCC figures indicate over 700 pupils from these areas are directed towards its Harpenden Schools Planning area, i.e. that more than half a school comes from out of District. In the Harpenden planning area nearly 40% of pupils are resident outside the Town, either in villages in St Albans District or in villages in adjoining districts / boroughs. The larger share of these are in the two main villages in the North of the district – Redbourn and Wheathampstead. It soon becomes clear that the demand for the proposed school is not in the location proposed on Lower Luton Road, Harpenden.

The pattern of demand in reality and the fact that HCC has varied its data prove that there are no “very special circumstances” to indicate that this field should be removed from the Green Belt.

The roads around the proposed school (B653, Common Lane, Station Road, Leasey Bridge Lane, Cherry Tree Lane, Sewer Lane, Piggotshill) cannot possibly cope with the traffic movements associated with a secondary school. The B653 connects the M1 and the A1, often accommodating traffic overflows from the A1 or M1. It is the road taking significant traffic flows to Luton Airport. The road is not a safe route to school. It is busy from 6am on a Sunday and 4am on weekdays. It is congested during rush hour and the presence of a school will serve to exacerbate this with pupils being driven to and from school and given that teaching and support staff, as well as deliveries, will mean increased vehicle movements on the B653.

Moreover, I echo Wheathampstead Parish Council’s concern about shunt accidents especially given the entrance to the school will be near to a blind summit on the B653.

The B653 is an integral part of the road network, not just a connection between Luton and Welwyn Garden City. I ask HCC to consider the adverse impact on the local economy because the traffic using this road serves local businesses and clients. I believe the planning application fails to take adequate account of the flood risk. This part of the B653 always has significant surface water after limited rainfall. Building on this site will increase the accumulation of water on the Lower Luton Road and in Common Lane. In fact, I have concerns about the adverse impact on the chalk streams in the course of the river Lea at Batford Springs. Chalk streams are one of the rarest habitats in the UK.

I am concerned about noise pollution. The traffic noise now is audible from Manor Road, at some distance from the Lower Luton Road. This with noise from the school (associated traffic, playground, sports) and Luton Airport (take-off and in-flight noise overhead) goes beyond the acceptable. The building works are also bound to cause noise at an irritating level.

My final point relates to cost and the waste of public funds. I believe the EFA estimate of £30m underestimates the true price of a building of this nature and the money could be better used elsewhere in the country, where investment in education is of greater need. I believe the pupils in this district could be accommodated by more innovative thinking about accommodation in the existing schools in Harpenden. I understand pupils are already travelling between the schools to use the facilities relevant to the curriculum.

I urge you to protect the Green Belt and reject this planning application with a message to the educational authorities that they think more creatively about admissions policies, use of existing facilities and a wiser use of public funds.

Yours sincerely

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 08 November 2017 21:06 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Application Katherine Warrington School PL\0866\17

Dear sirs, I am writing to support the above planning application. As a community we are desperately short of secondary school places

We need to start building this school before we are in a situation where there is again a shortfall of places. I therefore support the application.

Yours faithfully

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 06 November 2017 12:56 To: Spatial Planning; Subject: Planning Ref PL\0866\17

Dear Sir/Madam

I wholeheartedly support the go ahead and building of the new Katherine Warrington School in Harpenden.

Our town desperately needs a new secondary school to accommodate the current population and the future population growth, we need this school now.

After considerable investigation, the right site has been found. Children of Harpenden should have a choice in their secondary education and not be forced to go further afield than their own hometown due to lack of current secondary school places (which has been a problem for many years).

Yours sincerely

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 07 November 2017 13:20 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Subject: Planning Ref PL\0866\17 Dear Sir/Madam

I wholeheartedly support the go ahead and building of the new Katherine Warrington School in Harpenden.

Our town desperately needs a new secondary school to accommodate the current population and the future population growth, we need this school now.

Yours sincerely

)

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 06 November 2017 22:51 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning reference number PL\0866\17

Dear Sir/Madam

I write to express my support for the above planning application for the proposed new Katherine Warington School.

I have been extremely impressed by the powerful and enthusiastic campaign orchestrated by the Harpenden Parents Group to bring this much need project to fruition, and by the reports I have heard of the excellent presentations to promote the proposed school within the community and the infectious enthusiasm generated amongst the future pupils who would make up some of the first few intakes to the school

I believe a fourth secondary school is needed for the following reasons

 There are not enough school places in Harpenden. Over 100 children from Harpenden were allocated a St Albans school in 2017, an increase on each of the previous two years when more than 80 children were offered similar places  The demand for school places within St Albans is also increasing - Harpenden children cannot rely on this provision for the future, as the St Albans schools will be full.  The demand for places from Harpenden significantly increases over the next few years and is then sustained at a higher level than previously.  Since the current year 6 pupils started reception, 105 permanent primary places have been created in Harpenden (and more in the villages). All these children need secondary places and the existing secondary schools are already full  Hundreds of houses are likely to be planned for Harpenden in the next few years, as St Albans District needs to increase its housing targets. It is inevitable that even more school places will be required  All these data and facts, demonstrate that additional places are urgently required (i.e. now, in 2018) and on a sustained and permanent basis after this, confirming the need for a new school in Harpenden.

The Lower Luton Road site is an appropriate location

 Several detailed studies into possible locations for the school were undertaken by professional advisors. The site chosen was deemed the best option available having regard to all considerations.  The site is in Green Belt but due to the urgent and sustained need for a new school, the very special circumstances required to justify building in the Green Belt have clearly been fulfilled, justifying building on a site in the Green Belt.  It is clear from pupil data that the majority of the increase in demand is from children in Harpenden rather than the villages; this supports the location of the school on a site which is as central in the Harpenden Planning Area as possible, enabling ease of access.  The site also allows for ease of movement of staff and students between the Trust schools creating a true educational partnership.  The site is on existing bus routes supporting opportunities for children to travel by public transport and reduce individual journeys in parents’ cars. In addition many pupils will live within reasonable walking and cycling distance.

The proposal involves a range of highways improvements which are shown in a series of documents attached to the planning application which demonstrate that the proposals will not impact highway or pedestrian safety. The proposed improvement measures have been developed to enable safe access to and from the school, and include Toucan crossings for use by pedestrians and cyclists so as not to compromise the free flow of non-school traffic.

The school will be housed in brand new, modern buildings designed for a 21st century education and the design has been carefully devised to allow the buildings to be adapted to suit the growth in pupil numbers in the first few years. There will be no compromise on sports facilities, and there will be excellent use of WiFi and other technological facilities which can be incorporated into the construction, rather than retro fitted into existing buildings, which happens all too often when existing facilities are enlarged

If the proposal is not approved or is delayed and the school does not open in time for the 2018- 19 academic year, yet another year group of Harpenden children will have to travel outside the town for their education, creating unwanted journeys, traffic congestion in St Albans and elsewhere and associated pollution. Furthermore, the uncertainty of future school provision can only have a negative effect on the education and well being of the current generation of junior age children and their families with knock on effects on housing and general development of the town. The impact on my family of the delays to date has been to create an atmosphere of uncertainty which affects so many aspects of family life. Approval of this application and subsequent construction of the new school will bring stability to the community and the opportunity for Harpenden to develop and offer an excellent range of secondary school provision within the town.

I wholeheartedly support this application. The provision of much needed secondary education facilities in expanding residential areas is essential for the future well being of future generations - education is key to prosperity and development of the highly skilled workforce required to enable the UK to continue to compete on the world stage. Harpenden has needed this school for many years and its provision and development has been actively pursued by a dedicated group for some time and I urge the planning committee to reward their hard work by granting this application without further delay

Kind regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 06 November 2017 21:01 To: Spatial Planning Subject: School-lower Luton Road, batford ref: PL/0866/17. Mr Clay Dempster and Mr Brian Owen, team leader

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter regarding the proposed school in Batford. Firstly let me say that I believe that this is not the right place for a school - right on a very busy road.

This leads me on to my second point that the Lower Luton Road (B653) is one of the busiest roads in the county and also quite a dangerous road. In fact this evening I was coming home along this road and I got to the stables, opposite the Lea Valley estate, and Valley Rise and a white van overtook a car because it was doing the speed limit. This happens all the time along this road whether going towards Wheathampstead or batford, it makes no difference. There has also been several very nasty head-on crashes where persons needed to be cut out of vehicles. Also drivers do not do the speed limit.

Having seen the plans for this proposed school, I understand that there are entrances and exits routes onto the Lower Luton road for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, and if this is not the case and they are for vehicles only, this will not stop children using the shortest route out of any gate. You are putting children’s lives at huge risk crossing the Lower Luton road as the entrance and exit is met one way with coming off a roundabout where you will be accelerating up the hill towards Wheathampstead and from the other direction, towards batford, coming over a brow of a hill not knowing who will be running across the road. I can’t believe you all (at the Council) think that this is acceptable. I have written to Councillors and they agree that the Lower Luton road is a very dangerous road. So, are children going to cycle on the pavement, which is not legal, and put pedestrians at risk also.

The third point is the volume of traffic on the Lower Luton road. At present if there is an accident or roadworks on this road the traffic backs up for almost the whole length of the Lower Luton road in both directions. So when we have extra cars, I can’t even imagine how many cars extra there will be, especially if it is cold and raining, what will happen when the road is grid locked. The poor local home owners who live and work, how are they going to get about. Or just anyone trying to get from one place to another using the Lower Luton road. We need to be able to use this road.

What are u going to do about pollution that these extra cars and coaches - let’s not forget all the coaches that will be arriving - are going to emit along with noise and stubbiness from drivers not using provided car parks and pulling up on the verges. And this will happen.

My last point is the visual impact of this building and the erosion of the green belt. WHY has this almost been given the green light when a proposed residential development in the next field was rejected. Surely we are still talking about buildings.

To conclude, the whole issue of safety for the children should be your first consideration and putting a school on this very busy road is a recipe for tragedy. So, I hope Councillors, that you can live with yourselves knowing that one day a child will be killed trying to come or go home from school which has been built next to this very busy road, the Lower Luton road.

I look forward to an acknowledgement of my email and that the points raised will be used when considering this application.

Yours faithfully

Sent from my iPad

From: Anne James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 November 2017 11:22 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Katherine Warrington School PL\0866\17 Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to object to this application. I am a chartered town planner and an Independent Town Councillor for Harpenden East Ward. These are my own views and not those of Harpenden Town Council.

The location of this school on the Metropolitan Green Belt would lead to coalescence with Wheathampstead. Should the scheme be approved HCC would be breaking this sacrosanct rule of the most enduring land use policy since the Town and Country Planning Act was first established? For years SADC has advocated the protection of this slim buffer between the two conurbations of Harpenden and Wheathampstead and I feel confident that SADC will continue to uphold the purpose of the Metropolitan Green Belt and recommend refusal of this application on this basis.

Twenty years ago when Property Spy bought and enclosed areas of the adjoining field there was a hue and cry and they were told to remove the fencing. There has been containment of part of this field for months and this area is to provide housing for enabling development. Why is this allowed to occur? Surely this should be removed until a decision has been made, I consider this fencing should be removed immediately.

The SADC Local plan is now obsolete and there is no structure plan. Therefore the application would need to be assessed against the policies of the NPPF. In particular, Para 14 of the NPPF states there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that new development should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or, specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. Specific policies in the Framework relate to land designated as Green Belt and valued landscapes. This site comprises a METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT, VALUED landscape. Valued by members of the public but more importantly because of its crucial role in preserving the integrity of existing settlements. There are no special circumstances that could outweigh the legacy that this site would have. It is therefore contrary to paras 89 and 109 of the NPPF.

All development in the MGB should preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and yet the drawings indicate a massive car park fronting on to the Lower Luton Road, the design of the school building fails to enhance its agricultural setting and is just an early indication of what is to come here. Clearly this part of the East Ward is to see the future urban extension of Harpenden and this is just the beginning.

Many thanks

Anne James MRTPI

Virus-free. www.avast.com

Dear Sir/Madam

I wholeheartedly support the go ahead and building of the new Katherine Warrington School in Harpenden.

Our town desperately needs a new secondary school to accommodate the current population and the future population growth, we need this school now.

Yours sincerely

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 08 November 2017 11:59 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Application Katherine Warrington School PL\0866\17 - in support of

Dear Sir or Madam - I'm writing in support of the new Katherine Warrington School. As the mother of a year 6 pupil in Wheatheampstead, we're in desperate need of a new secondary school as we do not stand a chance of getting into the Harpenden schools, which are all close to breaking point with student numbers.

I'm aware a petition is circulating to stop the school but would urge Councillors not to heed this. The well attended open days for the Katherine Warrington school show the level of support for the school, and unfortunately I do not think that people realise that you can go on to planning applications and 'support' a bid, hence there might not be as many 'supports' for the plans as there are 'objections' precisely because we feel we have supported the new school for years now.

I hope the parents of school-age secondary children can rely on your support.

Many thanks for your time and consideration. Kind regards

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 05 November 2017 15:00 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Support for the Katherine Warington School Planning Application - ref PL\0866\17

Dear Planning,

Please accept this email as confirmation that I support the planning application for Katherine Warington School ref PL\0886\17.

Regards, Sent from my iPhone

From: On Behalf Of Spatial Planning Sent: 06 November 2017 11:16 To: Chay Dempster Subject: FW: Ref PL\0866\17

From Spatial Planning's inbox. Will add to Atrium, not the web. Regards,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 03 November 2017 16:10 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Ref PL\0866\17

I agree with this proposal for a new school in Harpenden.

Sent with BlackBerry Work (www.blackberry.com)

Capgemini is a trading name used by the Capgemini Group of companies which includes Capgemini UK plc, a company registered in England and Wales (number 943935) whose registered office is at No. 1, Forge End, Woking, Surrey, GU21 6DB. This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 03 November 2017 16:30 To: Spatial Planning Subject: school objection

Rothamsted Research is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England at Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 2JQ under the registration number 2393175 and a not for profit charity number 802038. From: [mailto: ] Sent: 05 November 2017 11:23 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Proposed school at Batford

Dear Mr. Dempster- Having read most of the planning documents relating to the KW school and as a local resident for many years I would like to record the following comments :-

!. The land is Green Belt - what is the point of designating land as such if its status can subsequently be disregarded for the sake of convenience.

2. The sheer amount of site levelling needed surely makes this site an expensive option. And yet an alternative site on the road between Wheathampstead and South Harpenden, a fairly level site on a less busy road and far more easily accessed from both places, was rejected.

3. The school access arrangements, with an entrance and exit only a few yards apart on to Lower Luton Road don't seem sensible. The road is very busy at the times of school opening & closing and the slightest impediment to the traffic results in a jam. School traffic is going to be turning in from both directions and on leaving turning in both directions. This will undoubtedly result in stationary tailbacks of traffic in both directions. The natural increase in traffic plus that resulting from the planned expansion of Luton Airport will mean the situation will only have got worse by the time the school is finished.

4. At the position where the entrance and exit are to be located the road is about 6 feet lower than the school site, which may result in an unacceptably steep gradient at each end of the access road and the existing bank will have to be cut away. What arrangements will be made for relocation of the services that run through this bank, and for the footpath to remain usable for the many people who use it every day? It seems likely the Lower Luton Road would have to closed during this work, which apparently will also involve road widening to create a right turn lane.

5.The number of local modifications to footpaths, crossing road junctions etc. all over the area seem to amount an admission by the planners that access to the site is going to be a problem.Regardless of all the plans to encourage travel by other means, the fact is that the majority of pupils will be driven to school by car. Buses will be an expensive option and not door to door, Many parents are not very happy for their children to cycle or walk, particularly in the dark and/ or bad weather.

6. As for the school arrangements to open with the first intake in temporary accommodation seems unsuitable. Presumably availability of e.g laboratory and sports facilities would be limited, and I certainly would not want any child of mine to start their secondary school career under such conditions and on a building site as well.

Thank you for reading these comments,

Regards,

From: [mailto: Sent: 05 November 2017 15:32 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL/0866/17; 5/2733-17 Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire

Mr Chay Dempster, via email [email protected] and by post at: Spatial Planning & Economy Unit County Hall CHN216 Pegs Lane Hertford SG13 8DN

Dear Mr. Dempster

Ref: PL/0866/17; 5/2733-17 Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire

I object to the proposal to build the Kate Warrington School on the B653. I am surprised that this is even a prospect given that it is not part of the county’s strategic local plan.

I understand that in order to build this school, the land will have to be removed from the Green Belt - a delicate decision not to be taken lightly given the far reaching, detrimental implications of building in the Green Belt. Placing the school in the Green Built would be an inappropriate development according to Section 9 of the NPPF which sets out the Green Belt policy. I understand that exceptions may be possible. However, schools and housing are not considered to be exceptions within the legislation.

Even with this in mind and knowing that HCC is intent on ploughing on, I outline below my reasons for objecting to the building of this school in the Green Belt:

Detrimental visual impact: from the material I have seen the building is not at all sympathetic to the Lea Valley. The terracing required will ruin the aesthetics of the valley. The school itself would be a blot on the landscape, adversely impacting the visual impact for residents living on the same side of the valley as well as for those residents living on the opposite side of the valley. The view from the top of Crabtree Lane, for example, will be impaired. The view across the whole valley from Mackerye End will be destroyed. I find it incomprehensible that another secondary school can be built within such a short distance from Sir John Lawes School.

I have read that the excavation at the foot of the site to make way for the school will dump the spoil at the top of the hill, apparently making the field 6’ higher. This will introduce an imbalance to the Lea Valley in the Green Belt.

It would be disastrous if this decision were to be taken with scant regard for the purpose of the Green Belt.

I have read that the application to remove this parcel of land from the Green Belt under Very Special Circumstances is driven by an assessment of Need (for school places). These assessments are provided by Hertfordshire County Council and only by HCC. I understand that HCC has declared that its principal source of information is Forecasts produced by Schools Planning, usually produced in early Summer each year and updated in Autumn. These are published on HCC’s website and until recently the current version has been ‘Summer 16-17 Forecast’, however a new version was added at the end of October 2017 (around 27 October). This forecast also appears to have the same file title as previous version, but it shows 2017-18 interim. The ‘current version’ that had been displayed for over 12 months and was originally expected to be published in June/July 2016 was live at the time of HCC’s presentation to SADC’s PPC in September 2016. The new version, declared (at 27 October) as Summer 16-17 forecast contains different information from previous publications by HCC. The general practice for these forecasts (at Secondary level) is to produce 11 years forward information. The previous forecast followed this format – the interim forecast has only 4 years forward data for most of the County – the exception being Harpenden Planning Area for which 10, rather than 11 standard, years are shown. The accompanying ‘Meeting the Rising Demand’ reports retain the 2016/17 Summer planning data – these outline HCC plans and recent changes.

The forecasts are produced in areas, which are different to Priority areas that are used to guide the allocations process. In this instance the Schools Planning area is HCC reference 11, which is centred on Harpenden; the priority area for residents is larger and is based on St Albans District, and includes the ‘St Albans’ Planning Area, which effectively is the Southern half of the District. There are therefore three sets of current figures relating to the Planning Application that are in circulation – the Rising Demand forecast – as published at time of submission of Application to HCC; the Interim forecast – as published on or about 27 October. There are significant variations in the forecast information provided. In practice HCC has therefore amended the forecasts for the planning application for the Kate Warrington School.

There is no supporting evidence for the scale of the adjustment proposed by HCC. In essence what appears to be an unspecified number of pupils have been added to this forecast. This represents a departure from accepted practice and I see no reason for a change in modelling method, nor do I know of any formal approval for this change in approach.

This apparent manipulation of statistics leads me to believe that it is not a sound basis upon which the decision to eliminate part of the Green Belt can be taken.

This highlights another issue – how much of Harpenden is in Harpenden Town? In practice HCC’s Planning Area includes two out of District areas – Hemel Rural North (Dacorum) and The Waldens (North Herts). HCC directs pupils from these areas towards Harpenden for schooling, yet Harpenden Town accounts for around 400 - 450 pupils, including applicants who choose go go outside of Harpenden’s three existing secondary schools. HCC figures indicate over 700 pupils from these areas are directed towards its Harpenden Schools Planning area, i.e. that more than half a school comes from out of District. In the Harpenden planning area nearly 40% of pupils are resident outside the Town, either in villages in St Albans District or in villages in adjoining districts / boroughs. The larger share of these are in the two main villages in the North of the district – Redbourn and Wheathampstead. I can only deduce from this that the demand for the proposed school is not in the location proposed on Lower Luton Road, Harpenden.

Having seen the marketing material from the Kate Warrington School’s management team, it is clear that the plans for the school envisage lifting Harpenden based secondary capacity to 750 – essentially meaning 300 pupils per year will be required to travel into Harpenden. Over 7 years of schooling this equates to a net inward movement of 1,700 pupils per day.

Clearly the data and subsequent convenient adjustments do not demonstrate that “very special circumstances” exist to warrant a school on this field in the Green Belt in Harpenden.

The traffic infrastructure even with road enhancements cannot possibly cope with the traffic movements associated with pupil travel to and from the school as well as traffic created by the teaching and ancillary services. The B653 is apparently, according to HCC’s own advisors present at a recent exhibition about the school, the busiest B road in the county. This road connects the M1 and the A1, often accommodating traffic diverted from the A1 or M1. It is the road taking significant traffic flows to Luton Airport. As local resident, I am aware that the road is not a safe route to school and my own observations confirm that the B653 is busy from as early as 6am on a Sunday morning, has a constant traffic flow throughout the week and is usually at a standstill during commuting times. Regardless of the traffic flow on the B653, I fail to see how the routes connecting with it near to the location of the proposed school (Leasey Bridge Lane, Common Lane and Station Road) can possibly withstand the additional traffic the school will bring. I understand the school’s ethos is that pupils will walk and cycle to school. This is obviously a fallacy. In wet weather, this will not happen. Students carrying schoolbooks, sports kit and musical instruments will not be walking or cycling to school. Moreover the B653 and interconnecting roads are not safe for pedestrians or cyclists.

I note from HCC's notification to local residents that the road opposite the site proposed for the school appears to be a road. In fact it is a tarmac area, leading to a footbridge over the river Lea. Even if pupils use this as a path to school, the junction cannot cope safely with the potential volume of students on foot.

Moreover, I echo Wheathampstead Parish Council’s concern that the road entrance to the proposed school cannot be accommodated on the B653 on the incline towards the Lea Valley Estate. Already blind overtaking is an issue here. It it is my view that the risk of road and pedestrian accident, perhaps fatal, will be increased by the road layout for the school and the increased traffic volumes.

It is clear that HCC has not considered the traffic using the B653 to access local businesses, nor has it taken into account entrepreneurs driving to their clients. the B653 is an integral part of the network, not just a ‘rat run’ between Luton and Welwyn Garden City. I ask HCC to consider the adverse impact on the local economy, including by increasing the volume of traffic on the B653, thereby re-routing traffic to pinch points elsewhere in Wheathampstead and Harpenden. I understand that most of the junctions in Harpenden will need to have 20 mph speed restrictions if the school is built. While the safety value is evident, Harpenden will come to a standstill, as Wheathampstead is already.

I believe the planning application fails to take adequate account of the flood risk. This part of the B653 is prone to significant excess surface precipitation after a short period of rainfall. Building on this site will serve to exacerbate the accumulated water on the B653 and in Common Lane. It is a vain hope to estimate that the the basin in the planning application and the river Lea will cope with the necessary drainage. In fact, I have concerns about the adverse impact on the chalk streams in the course of the river Lea at Batford Springs. Chalk streams are one of the rarest habitats in the UK.

My penultimate point concerns noise. Combined with the current traffic noise on the B653 (starting now at 4am Monday - Friday), air traffic noise emanating from Luton Airport (the sound of take-off from the runway carries as far as the Lea Valley Estate coupled with in-flight noise and planes circling overhead) I believe the building works and the school itself once built bring noise pollution beyond what is acceptable. The vehicular and pedestrian arrivals and departures at the school, along with sports events, playground activity and the drone flying advertised in the school’s marketing material goes beyond what is reasonable for residents to tolerate.

My final point relates to cost and the waste of public funds. The Education Funding Agency’s representative at a recent exhibition informed me that the budget for the school is in the order of £30m. This may be the case for the budget. It is my view that the actual cost will exceed this amount by a long way. It is impossible to countenance that the cost of buildings, excavations, highway adjustments etc will come in at £30m. This project is an egregious misuse of public money, which could be used for education elsewhere in the country where it is most needed rather than in a wealthy commuter town such as Harpenden. The solutions for Harpenden school places are multiple. St. Georges School in Harpenden would be well advised to adopt a more inclusive admissions policy, or the Old Library in Harpenden could be turned over to accommodate surplus students or 6th formers, or Roundwood/ Sir John Lawes could expand its classrooms. Surely the need for sports fields are waning when Harpenden and St. Albans have more than enough sports facilities, leisure centres and (ironically) green spaces for physical activities. I understand that Harpenden pupils are already travelling between the local schools to use the educational facilities accordingly. In fact, although I completed my education a number of years ago, I did cycle between Wheathampstead School and St. Georges to complete my A’levels because one of the subjects, not on offer at Wheathampstead, was available at St. Georges.

Yours sincerely

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 05 November 2017 14:16 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Teresa Heritage Subject: PL/0866/17

Dear Sirs

I would like to add my strong support for a fourth secondary school in Harpenden. If the application is rejected, I consider the only alternative is to stop allowing children from the villages to take places in Harpenden schools in priority to Harpenden children, and specifically the sibling rule that allows children from outside Harpenden to take precedence over local children must be removed. There is a real and material problem with parents moving into the area to get their first child into a Harpenden school and then moving out to the villages. This gaming of the system must be stopped. - this is absolutely unacceptable when so many children within Harpenden cannot access these schools. It is clear there are not enough school places in Harpenden. Over 100 children from Harpenden were allocated a St Albans school in 2017 (and more than 80 children in each of the previous two years).

The demand for places within St Albans is also increasing - Harpenden children cannot rely on this provision for the future, as the St Albans schools will be full.

The demand for places from Harpenden significantly increases over the next few years and is then sustained at a higher level than previously.

Hundreds of houses are likely to be planned for Harpenden in the next few years as St Albans District needs to increase its housing targets. It is inevitable that even more school places will be needed.

Whilst I do not think that the lower luton road site was the best option - as it leaves Southdown children at a continued disadvantage and will cause huge travel problems trying to cross the lea river, given the urgent need for a new school now I do support the site.

The site was chosen after many detailed studies by professionals. It was deemed the best option available having regard to all considerations and we therefore support this conclusion.

The site is in Green Belt but due to the urgent and sustained need for a new school, the very special circumstances required to justify building on the Green Belt have clearly been fulfilled and this justifies building on a site in the Green Belt.

The site also allows for ease of movement of staff and students between the Trust schools creating a true educational partnership. The site is on existing bus routes supporting opportunities for children to travel.

The documents attached to the planning application show that the proposals will not impact highway or pedestrian safety as proposed improvement measures will be put in place. We support these measures and believe that they will enable safe access to and from the school, and will not compromise the free flow of non-school traffic.

The proposals include Toucan crossings for use by pedestrians and bikes.

I support the diagnosis for the school.

If the school does not open, as a resident of Southdown and with a child in the bulge year (2015 entry to infant) I have little hope of receiving a Harpenden school place. In 2015, I understand not one child in my neighbour’s Grove class was allocated a Harpenden secondary school place unless they already had a sibling there.

. The local bus network is also woefully inadequate to support such travel requirements.

Yours faithfully

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 06 November 2017 10:20 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Katherine Warrington School

Dear Harpenden Council. , I would like to support the parents and children who live in Harpenden and want to school them in Harpenden too. We are becoming more populated and the need for a new school is apparent with children from this area being sent to schools further away. For children to be brought up in their community and be less reliant on transport, when they can get themselves to school, makes for a happier healthier child. Kind regards )

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 05 November 2017 17:35 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Ref: PL/0866/17; 5/2733-17 Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire

5 November 2017

Mr Chay Dempster, via email [email protected] and by post at: Spatial Planning & Economy Unit County Hall CHN216 Pegs Lane Hertford SG13 8DN

Dear Mr. Dempster

Ref: PL/0866/17; 5/2733-17 Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire

I object to the proposal to build the Kate Warrington School on the B653. It is not part of the county’s strategic local plan.

I outline below my reasons for objecting to the building of this school in the Green Belt:

Coalescence: The site incorporates Harpenden and Wheathampstead. The field contains Wheathampstead’s parish boundary. Building on this site would bring about coalescence. Again, the NPPF does not permit coalescence. I understand the same legislation envisages that boundaries must last for a long period. This planning application would make the boundary into an indefensible Green Belt. I have read that HCC’s “very special circumstances” argument to lift the site out of the Green Belt relies on the need for school places. However, within the planning application, in the document ‘Education Needs Statement’ in sections 3.9 and 3.10, the Council has identified that it has departed from its normal forecasting practice by applying different trend data. As this is, by definition, unproven data. The version that had been displayed for over 12 months and was originally expected to be published in June/July 2016 was live at the time of HCC’s presentation to SADC’s PPC in September 2016. The new version, declared (at 27 October) as Summer 16-17 forecast contains different information from previous publications by HCC. The forecasts are produced in areas, which are different to Priority areas that are used to guide the allocations process. There are therefore three sets of current figures relating to the Planning Application that are in circulation – the Rising Demand forecast – as published at time of submission of Application to HCC; the Interim forecast – as published on or about 27 October. There are significant variations in the forecast information provided. In practice HCC has therefore amended the forecasts for the planning application for the Kate Warrington School.

The pattern of demand in reality and the fact that HCC has varied its data prove that there are no “very special circumstances” to indicate that this field should be removed from the Green Belt.

Moreover, I echo Wheathampstead Parish Council’s concern about shunt accidents especially given the entrance to the school will be near to a blind summit on the B653.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 05 November 2017 17:37 To: Spatial Planning Subject: CORRECTION: Re: PL/0866/17; 5/2733-17 Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire

Dear Mr. Dempster,

Correction :

I have read that the excavation at the foot of the site to make way for the school will dump the spoil at the top of the hill, apparently making the field 6m higher. This will introduce an imbalance to the Lea Valley in the Green Belt.

I did not mean to write 6'

On 5 Nov 2017, at 15:32, < > wrote:

Mr Chay Dempster, via email [email protected] and by post at: Spatial Planning & Economy Unit County Hall CHN216 Pegs Lane Hertford SG13 8DN

Dear Mr. Dempster

Ref: PL/0866/17; 5/2733-17 Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire

I object to the proposal to build the Kate Warrington School on the B653. I am surprised that this is even a prospect given that it is not part of the county’s strategic local plan.

It would be disastrous if this decision were to be taken with scant regard for the purpose of the Green Belt.

There is no supporting evidence for the scale of the adjustment proposed by HCC. In essence what appears to be an unspecified number of pupils have been added to this forecast. This represents a departure from accepted practice and I see no reason for a change in modelling method, nor do I know of any formal approval for this change in approach.

This apparent manipulation of statistics leads me to believe that it is not a sound basis upon which the decision to eliminate part of the Green Belt can be taken.

This highlights another issue – how much of Harpenden is in Harpenden Town? In practice HCC’s Planning Area includes two out of District areas – Hemel Rural North (Dacorum) and The Waldens (North Herts). HCC directs pupils from these areas towards Harpenden for schooling, yet Harpenden Town accounts for around 400 - 450 pupils, including applicants who choose go go outside of Harpenden’s three existing secondary schools. HCC figures indicate over 700 pupils from these areas are directed towards its Harpenden Schools Planning area, i.e. that more than half a school comes from out of District. In the Harpenden planning area nearly 40% of pupils are resident outside the Town, either in villages in St Albans District or in villages in adjoining districts / boroughs. The larger share of these are in the two main villages in the North of the district – Redbourn and Wheathampstead. I can only deduce from this that the demand for the proposed school is not in the location proposed on Lower Luton Road, Harpenden.

Clearly the data and subsequent convenient adjustments do not demonstrate that “very special circumstances” exist to warrant a school on this field in the Green Belt in Harpenden.

The traffic infrastructure even with road enhancements cannot possibly cope with the traffic movements associated with pupil travel to and from the school as well as traffic created by the teaching and ancillary services. The B653 is apparently, according to HCC’s own advisors present at a recent exhibition about the school, the busiest B road in the county. This road connects the M1 and the A1, often accommodating traffic diverted from the A1 or M1. It is the road taking significant traffic flows to Luton Airport. I am aware that the road is not a safe route to school and my own observations confirm that the B653 is busy from as early as 6am on a Sunday morning, has a constant traffic flow throughout the week and is usually at a standstill during commuting times. Regardless of the traffic flow on the B653, I fail to see how the routes connecting with it near to the location of the proposed school (Leasey Bridge Lane, Common Lane and Station Road) can possibly withstand the additional traffic the school will bring. I understand the school’s ethos is that pupils will walk and cycle to school. This is obviously a fallacy. In wet weather, this will not happen. Students carrying schoolbooks, sports kit and musical instruments will not be walking or cycling to school. Moreover the B653 and interconnecting roads are not safe for pedestrians or cyclists.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 05 November 2017 08:34 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Subject: PL\0866\17 - Support for Katherine Warington School Harpenden

To whom it may concern,

We would like to give our support to the planned Katherine Warington School plans for Harpenden.

Thanks

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 03 November 2017 16:59 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning ref PL\0866\17

Dear Sirs,

I felt compelled to write to you to show my support for the planning application for the Katherine Warrington School.

The opening of the 4th Harpenden school in September 2017 is vital to support the growing community immediately, so that Harpenden children can be schooled in their home town. leading to an additional stress on finances, time and general well being.

I trust that the decision the planning department makes will be the right one.

Yours faithfully

-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Spatial Planning Sent: 06 November 2017 11:04 To: Chay Dempster Subject: FW: PL\0866\17 Katherine Warrington Secondary School planning application

From Spatial Planning's inbox. Will add to Atrium, not the web. Regards,

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 03 November 2017 13:58 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17 Katherine Warrington Secondary School planning application

Dear Madam or Sir,

Although the site itself is not the best out of those original considered (south Harpenden towards Wheathampstead would have been far better for various reasons) we have no luxury of time anymore due to all the delays.

Harpenden / Wheathampstead need another secondary school. We owe this to the children in the area.

The options for the planning are well considered and I believe the argument for the site outline of buildings and facilities to be well made. The suggested preferred solution does make most sense.

May I kindly ask you to support this and enable a fast process such that the yr 7 pupils for Sept 2018 will have options locally?

We are not personally effected yet, but there are many children that will be. Thank you.

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

From: - [mailto: ] Sent: 05 November 2017 14:46 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning Application Katherine Warrington School PL\0866\17

Objection to KWS 22/10/2017 part 2

This chiefly concerns missing information from the application;

1) Hertfordshire County Council own a school site in Wheathampstead (the former secondary school site now used as playing fields). This site has never been considered so all options for a school have not been considered. In fact it has been deliberately excluded from the analysis. So release from Green Belt of the Common Lane site cannot be considered unless this site is evalauted and this analysis should not be considered by Vincent and Gorbing due to their interest in this site and past history.

2) It is common practise to include views from a 3 D model of what the site will look like from key view points. In view of the large amount of development and the highly visible nature of this site such views must be provided from all the roads adjacent to the site, the footpath and Crabtree Lane. Better still provide a model with a freely available viewer (most 3 D Cad software has this feature) or provide a video fly view showing the true site topography (unlike the one currently being used by promoters of the school). Without these details members of the public are not able to assess the impact of this development

3) There are no requirements to add lighting to this application for sports fields, footpaths etc.in the Northern and Eastern section of the site. Therefore this necessarily should be a condition of planning permission and must be prevented from being added as a variation post planning approval due to the highly visible nature of this site. Please provide a 3D model or views showing the night time light leakage from vantage points in the area of the school (as in 1 above).

4) In the Waste Assessment only the lower part of the site is considered surely this should be for all the site? 5) In order to asses the damage to the Green Belt it is necessary to know how much material is being moved to terraform the site?

Without the above information being provided no objective assessment of this application can take place therefore it must be rejected.

Rgds

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 01 November 2017 18:41 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Proposed new school – application reference 5/2017/2733 (HCC reference SLUP/CC0798 PL|0866|17)

I have a number of concerns over the proposal:

1. I do not believe the pupil number projections are accurate. I see many pupils arriving and departing at Harpenden railway station who must be living out of the area as the nearest stations are at St Albans and Luton. Has any attempt been made to assess the out-of-area numbers ? This can be reduced by better control of the school admission procedure to allocate the existing school places to local students within the catchment area. 2. The chosen site is badly located for the ‘centre of gravity’ of the need i.e. south Harpenden and the rural areas to north-east and west. Harpenden already has 3 secondary schools located in west, central and east areas. Another school located in the east area will increase the travel requirement. 3. Road access to the chosen site is poor and the proposed access onto the Lower Luton Road will produce an accident ‘black spot’. Much school traffic will be tempted to drop off and pick up at the bottom of Crabtree Lane causing traffic problems there. In the long term there will be pressure to construct a new road crossing of the River Lea, possibly replacing the existing ford, and Crabtree Lane and feeder roads will suffer from increased vehicle traffic. If the school does get constructed at the chosen site, what assurances can be given that Crabtree Lane will not become a main thoroughfare ? From: [mailto: ] Sent: 01 November 2017 06:44 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Subject: Proposed application for new school buildings

Dear Mr Dempster

Re: Proposed application for the construction of new 6FE school buildings, etc. at Land to the north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire

We are residents of Lamer Lane in Wheathampstead. We have always been primarily concerned that this application, if allowed to go ahead, will have a dramatic adverse effect on the already over congested local traffic. We do not believe that sufficient notice has been taken of this concern nor do we accept that any evidence could possibly disprove what is blindingly obvious. The whole road network in this area is already near saturation point and the inevitable increase in traffic resulting from this application must result in a breakdown of flow on the Lower Luton Road itself and a likely 'snarl up' in traffic on surrounding roads, lanes, etc. for many miles around.

In short, our view is that if a new school is required then the wrong site has been chosen.

From: , [mailto: ] Sent: 01 November 2017 12:48 To: Spatial Planning; David Williams; Teresa Heritage Cc: Subject: SUPPORT for Katherine Warington School, Harpenden - planning reference numberPL\0866\17 - SUPPORT

Dear David, Teresa and the Spatial Planning department,

Support for Katherine Warington School, Harpenden - planning reference number PL\0866\17

I write in relation to the above planning application relating to the proposed new secondary school in Harpenden.

I wish to express my support for this application in the strongest possible terms. As you will be aware, Harpenden is already in desperate need of a further secondary school. The existing schools are significantly oversubscribed. There are simply not enough secondary school places for the Harpenden population. The continuing residential development in Harpenden means that the pressure is only going to increase further. It is critical for the wellbeing of the town that the planning permission is granted so that the development of the school can continue promptly, and to enable the school to open as soon as possible in 2018. The proposed site has been carefully selected following extensive professional consultation and represents the best available location.

I fully and strongly support this application. I would urge, for the long term good of the town and the education of its young people, that you do whatever you can to ensure this application is approved.

With kind regards,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 02 October 2017 21:29 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning ref number PL\0866\17

Dear Sir / Madam

I am writing to express my support for development for the new Katherine Warington School in Harpenden. It is essential that a new secondary school is built in Harpenden to ensure we can provide sufficient school places for our children in the town and the surrounding areas. Places are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain in the town, resulting in children having to travel to school, and to lose contact with the friendships they have developed in their first years at primary school.

I live in Southdown which has seen children from this area struggling to get places in the local town secondary schools. The Katherine Warington School will provide more opportunities for school places and will be developed with the input of the existing schools.

I have seen the plans for the school and am aware of the proposed location and give this my full support and urge you to ensure planning is granted and funds secured as speedily as possible.

Kind regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 02 October 2017 20:49 To: Spatial Planning Subject: re planning ref number PL\0866\17

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to express my support for the new Katherine Warrington School in Harpenden. , this new secondary school is absolutely essential if we are not to have to move house again. The Southdown area of Harpenden is not well served by secondary schools and I feel my children should have the right to attend secondary school in the area in which they live, rather than trekking across the borough aged 11. I have seen the plans for the school and am aware of the proposed location and would like to give this my full support and urge you to ensure planning is granted and funds secured as speedily as possible.

Kind regards From: [mailto: ] Sent: 01 October 2017 13:19 To: Spatial Planning Subject:

Dear , I am against these plans sent to me regarding this new School. It will create a major disruption to me and my family. Many thanks,

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: Sent: 02 October 2017 13:51 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Harpenden School

I welcome The opportunity to write to you to say that it is our considered opinion that the school is in entirely the wrong situation. the traffic is nose to tail every morning and every evening as it is. We consider the entry and ex it that will be necessary to the school to be completely on the safe and hazardous to children. We understand the necessity to have another school in our area that we do not think this is the right situation. We also have to take into account that Luton airport is due to expand massively and this will also have an impact on the traffic along the lower Luton Road Yours sincerely

Sent from my iPhone From: [mailto: ] Sent: 02 October 2017 10:28 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17 - Proposed School

Dear Mr Dempster,

Would you please take some action to have the correct road titles on the application drawings and description for this Planning Application. i have asked David Williams on numerous occasions as the current, incorrect nomenclature is confusing local residents and thus our abilities to make objections. It is also a fundamental mistake.

IT IS NOT CRABTREE LANE that joins Lower Luton Road ant the junction with common Lane IT IS LOWER LUTON ROAD.

The only reference to this is the incorrect webpage of the Environmental Agency. highways, the Street Naming Department of St Albans District Council, the Post Office and Utility Companies, plus HCC itself entitle this LOWER LUTON ROAD (Nos. 1 - 13). I speak on behalf of the local residents who, seeing this error anticipate that unless corrected it will cause further confusion as the construction commences.

If it is not intended to change the drawings then we, the residents, will use the data to demand a road name change with SADC and its road naming department. Two authorities cannot continue to ignore such an error.

P.S. I am currently in discussion with SADC planning department who insist I call the road Lower Luton Road and have printed its Call For Sites using the correct title!

Please acknowledge receipt of this email

Regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 02 October 2017 18:57 To: Spatial Planning Subject: PL\0866\17 - proposed school

Just starting to wade through the information, some quite old, nevertheless, my letter is dated the 28th September with a return required by the 14th November. Surely major developments (and this is most definitely one) demand a 13 week period, not the 7 weeks this seems to be. Please clarify so that proper consideration can be given to the plethora of planning information.

Reference; The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 Time periods for decisions

34.—(1) Subject to paragraph (9), where a valid application or a non-validated application has been received by a local planning authority, the authority must within the period specified or referred to in paragraph (2)(1) or (3) give the applicant notice of their decision or determination or notice that the application has been referred to the Secretary of State.

(2) The period specified or referred to in this paragraph is—

(a)in relation to an application for major development, 13 weeks beginning with the day immediately following that on which the application is received by the local planning authority;

(b)in relation to an application for development which is not major development, 8 weeks beginning with the day immediately following that on which the application is received by the local planning authority; or

(c)in relation to any development, unless the applicant has already given notice of appeal to the Secretary of State, such extended period as may be agreed in writing between the applicant and the local planning authority.

Regards

Virus-free. www.avg.com

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 03 October 2017 11:38 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning application for new school on Lower Luton Road

Dear Mr Dempster

Having attended numerous meetings and public consultations about the proposed new secondary school to be built on the Lower Luton Road, it has been very clear that this was a foregone conclusion from the very beginning. Therefore, I shall not bother voicing my opinion again about how totally unsuitable the site is that has been chosen.

My main concern now is how the Lower Luton Road is going to cope with the huge volume of traffic that the new school will bring. I travel along the road everyday. There have recently been roadworks for a water leak, road resurfacing and a gas leak. Temporary traffic lights were put in to control the traffic. This resulted in traffic backing up both ways all the way back to Wheathampstead and Harpenden!! Please,please,please consider carefully how traffic is going to travel to and from the school. Otherwise, the Lower Luton Road and other adjoining roads will be gridlocked on a daily basis.

Yours sincerely

From: Enquiries - MJ Taylor King Ltd [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 October 2017 14:45 To: Spatial Planning Cc: Enquiries - MJ Taylor King Ltd Subject: PL\0866\17 - new school on Lower Luton Road

Dear Sirs

Thank you for your letter of 18th September 2017.

My concerns regarding the siting of this development is that the Lower Luton Road is extremely busy at times and especially at 8.30-9am when the mini roundabout at the junction with common lane can cause tailbacks as far as the Tesco garage and to the mini roundabout (junction with station road). The traffic in both directions at this time is often at a standstill and ingresss/egress out of Batford Mill Industrial Estate is extremely difficult.

Also I am concerned that, depending on where the access/egress is to be sited onto the Lower Luton Road, that there may be cause for danger as cars come over the brow of the hill (from Wheathampstead) and suddenly run into a car turning right into the school site. Protection or road widening would be advisable here. I also feel that major traffic calming measures should be in place here to keep the overall speed of the cars going through this area to a minimum (eg making it a 20 mph zone, speed cameras, happy face/sad face units). Having a lower speed limit as far back as castle Rise would be advisable.

Also currently, it is often very difficult to get out of Common Lane (turning right) onto the Lower Luton Road towards Batford as the speed at which the cars travel along the Lower Luton road at this point is too fast to ensure a safe exit and also and the visibility to the right, for the driver from Common Lane, is restricted.

Also, as it will presumably be of concern to the school that the students are independent in their travel to school, that SAFE provision of cycle lanes or walking lanes and crossings (at places that do not encourage children to cut across the road in a different place) be put in place to ensure child safety. The balance between the need to keep the traffic flowing along the lower luton road (for those people who are travelling onto Wheathampstead and WGC) and to keep it slow to keep the children safe, is going to be a difficult one to get right. It will also be a balance to ensure that traffic coming out of side roads gets the opportunity to escape !!!

Kind regards

Taylor

M J Taylor King Ltd Unit D Batford Mill Lower Luton Road HARPENDEN Herts AL5 5BZ 01582 763 430

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 09 October 2017 20:55 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning application

Dear Mr Dempster I am emailing to register my objections to planning application for new school on the lower Luton road, Harpenden. 1. The lower Luton road is already heavily congested. 2. Already have a secondary school in close proximity. 3. Object to losing historic Ford to become a road. 4. Losing roundabout at common lane junction is dangerous. 5. Changing pelican crossing to zebra crossing is absurd on such a busy road. 6. Object to losing greenbelt. 7. Historical artefacts have been found on site. 8. Area of need for school is not Batford. 9. Predicated number of pupils has fallen. 10. Milford Hill will become a cut through with no parking or speed slowing measures. 11. Most expensive site to build on. 12. Loss of farm land. 13. Pupils will travel from villages via lanes that will not cope with additional traffic. 14. Noise levels and traffic increase particularly for the old people's complex next to site. Given that the school is needed in the south of Harpenden the problems this planning will cause far out weights any benefits it will bring to Batford area. The transport plan linked to this application is ludicrous and extremely dangerous. Yours sincerely Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

From: [mailto: Sent: 11 October 2017 09:49 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Concerns regarding Katherine Warrington School proposal

Dear Sir,

and writing in response to the planning application for the new secondary school in the area.

Having read the road and transport proposals, I am disappointed that there is no mention as to how this school will affect residents in the immediate vicinity. The school will no doubt increase the amount of cars travelling to the area during drop off, pick up times along the Lower Luton Road. At the moment when there are road works or a traffic incident on the LLR between Common Lane and Station Road, drivers use Southview Road, Salisbury Road, Batford Road and Common Lane in both directions to avoid this section. When this happens street is normally heavily congested due to the amount of parked cars on both sides of the road.

The new school will no doubt lead to drivers using our residential street as a cut through to avoid the LLR during congested times. I would not have bought my house if the school already existed as I have experienced living near a school in the past. I note that the proposals state that most journeys will be made by bus, on foot or bicycle. However the reality is, people prefer to use their cars as a convenience as most parents drop their children at school before driving to work. The other reason for this is that some parents do not like their children using buses due to the bad behaviour of other school children while travelling by bus.

I would like to know what is being done to avoid this impact on the local residents. I know of problems that exist for other residents in Batford who live next to schools who have to deal with inconsiderate drivers blocking their driveways and parking inconsiderately in their streets during school start and finish times. Residents living next to Sauncey Wood Primary school have constant problems with this behaviour of some drivers.

I look forward to your response.

Regards From: [mailto: @stalbans.gov.uk] Sent: 12 October 2017 09:16 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Harpenden Secondary School SLUP8CC0798 PL/0866/17

Dear Chay,

I have been looking at the letter consulting us on the application and note that it asks that the Screening Opinion adopted HCC is placed on our Register. I have looked at the EIA Regulations 2017 to see if we need to place this on our register and the only relevant part of the Regs I can find is to the ‘relevant Planning Authority’, which is yourselves. We have placed the consultation on the planning register. I am hoping you would be able to assist me and point me to the part of the Regulations that requires us to place the screening opinion on our register.

Many thanks for your help with this.

Regards,

Sarah

Deputy Planning Team Leader (East) Planning and Building Control St Albans City & District Council

Working Pattern: Monday to Thursday

Switchboard: 01727 866100 Council general home page: www.stalbans.gov.uk Council contact details and address: www.stalbans.gov.uk/contact-us

-- Your vote matters; don’t lose it

St Albans City & District Council has sent an annual canvass form to every household within the district.

Anyone added to the form not already registered to will need to register individually. Visit www.gov.uk/register-to-vote. Alternatively, a paper application form will be sent upon request. For further information visit www.stalbans.gov.uk/elections or call 01727 819294

****Disclaimer****

Please note that the Council does not accept service by e-mail

Dear Mr Dempster,

Thank you for your letter dated 28th September, concerning the vehicular access/egress onto the Lower Luton Road, and access on to Common Lane, connected with the construction of the new 6FE school buildings.

The Lower Luton Road, is a very busy road, particularly in the rush hour going towards Wheathampstead, with traffic backing up from the Mill near the sewage works at East Hyde. There is 70 foot difference between the bottom of the hill at Common Lane and the top of the field that is intended for the school. The traffic then stops again past Marshalls Heath Lane for all the children going to the Wheathampstead junior High School. From the plans I have seen that the access/egress on to the Lower Luton is near the top of the hill, which is a very dangerous place to have it, particularly with vehicles coming from Wheathampstead, which will come over the brow of the hill and then have to stop suddenly. Even with traffic lights this will be dangerous, and put children’s lives at risk. In the rush hour coming from Wheathampstead, the traffic backs up to beyond Marshalls Heath Lane.

As regards the Common Lane access, a lot of the time there are cars parked in Common Lane for those working/visiting Leaside Springs residential property. Quite often this means that the bus is unable to get next to the kerb to drop off/pick up passengers as the space is already full. Further along Common Lane, several of the residents do not have enough driveway to park their cars, so there are cars parked in the street, and the road is not wide enough for two way traffic for a lot of the day. There is already a car parking problem outside Sauncey Wood School. Are buses for the new school going to up Milford Hill, and cause more problems? As the school is at the edge of Harpenden, the extra traffic for the school is going to cause enormous problems, as there will be very few who will be able to walk to it. The only access for those driving to the school from Harpenden, and the villages to the west, will be down Station Road, or Westfield Drive, which will become another bottleneck.

All in all, the access seems very unsatisfactory particularly from the Lower Luton Road and appears to be quite dangerous. It would be better to make Common Lane wider and have access from there.

Yours faithfully,

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 16 October 2017 18:40 To: Spatial Planning Cc: David Williams Subject: In support of the Katherine Warington School planning application. Ref: PL\0866\17

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to express my support for the proposed new Katherine Warington School in Harpenden, planning reference PL\0866\17.

The problem will worsen in the future as the current overspill schools in St Albans fill up with local demand and more homes are built within and around Harpenden, many of them attracting young families who want their children to attend one of our wonderful schools.

The cost to them must be enormous and it has created bad feeling amongst peers. We know this means the SJL catchment area will shrink even more than the population growth predicts and we are really stressed about the prospect of the new school not being built in time. As far as I can tell, There is no perfect site for the new school but this site adjacent to Common Lane and the Lower Luton Road is the most suitable site available. but that loss is insignificant compared to the benefits of the new school and the proposed traffic management measures which will benefit the wider Crabtree community every day as well as children travelling to and from Crabtree and Katherine Warington schools.

incredibly excited about the fantastic teaching and facilities promised by this school and the impressive Head Teacher Tony Smith who I have heard speak on the subject several times now, most recently at the Open Day at Rothamsted on Saturday. and I firmly believe that families will be flocking to it once the site is complete and the teaching reputation established.

For your information I have included below the text of an email I sent to Right School Right Place on 11th October upon receiving their latest leaflet through the door. I have yet to receive a response from them.

“Dear Sir/Madam,

I have just received your leaflet through the door about the proposed new Katherine Warington School. Whilst I respect your right to protest and to disagree with any number of aspects of the proposal I ask you to also remember and appreciate the negative impact on the Harpenden community if you succeed in delaying the project even more than it has already been delayed.

There are hundreds of families in the same position as us for the next few years who are extremely anxious at that prospect and have seen the very real emotional and financial stress on other families who have found themselves in that position in the last couple of years due to delays on this project.

We are proudly putting our efforts into supporting an on-time delivery of this project which also has the potential to be a fantastic asset to the town for the next generation.

Yours respectfully,

“ I sincerely hope that planning permission is granted on time and that the Katherine Warington School build progresses smoothly so what would be an excellent local secondary education experience.

Regards,

Virus-free. www.avg.com

From: [mailto: Sent: 16 October 2017 15:01 To: Spatial Planning Subject: School development at Lower Luton Road/Cross Lane, Harpenden

Please find my objection to the development of a school at this site. I live on Salisbury Road and this development will compromise the quality of our residential experience based on the following issues:

The road and parking system around this area (including salisbury road, batford road and lower luton road) is already seriously compromised with heavy traffic and parking issues (residents find it difficult to park without the added burden of school parents, pupils, visitors i.e. sporting fixtures which take place at weekends too - this can be seen around the other local schools and no matter what restrictions you put in place, the volume of people/vehicle traffic will increase even further). The impact of the school traffic for a school this size would be unacceptable with a negative impact on noise levels, pollution levels, compromised accessibility to parking and our homes, as well as the level of activity from pupils walking past our homes including littering and behaviour issues (a far from uncommon situation around secondary schools).

This side of Harpenden is well served by 2 secondary schools and the demand for schools in this area of harpenden is low compared to the other side of harpenden (southdown/east common) where children are often given St Albans schools. This school would serve children from the villages, the other side of harpenden and potentially Luton and therefore is this fair to inflict this development on residents and contributors to the council's funding where there is no benefit but impacting negatively with increased traffic flow across the town and through countryside as well as the other issues cited above. This is a poorly situated site for the pupils who are effected. In addition, the council seem to be reacting to a few huge boom years, rather than a consistent issue with places and therefore I question the development based on this aspect too.

I also object to this on the grounds of green belt erosion and the effect of this on the surrounding countryside, reasons why people buy around this area. A school site would negatively impact this beautiful area. I would be grateful if you could please acknowledge receipt of my email.

Regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 16 October 2017 14:32 To: Spatial Planning Subject: planning reference number: PL\0866\17

Dear Sir We support the planning request to construct a new school at Common Lane, Harpenden under the above reference

Yours sincerely

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 16 October 2017 15:01 To: Spatial Planning Subject: School development at Lower Luton Road/Cross Lane, Harpenden

I would be grateful if you could please acknowledge receipt of my email.

Regards

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 19 October 2017 10:01 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning application

Ref : Planning application PL/0866/17

I write in support of the above planning application for the new secondary school in Harpenden.

There is currently HUGE pressure for places on the present schools and a new school is urgently needed.

It is very important that children go to school in their communities –building social relationships and social cohesion- walking for the betterment of their health and for the good of the environment, cutting down on harmful emissions, reducing time- wasting and frustrating traffic delays.

Our grandchildren live locally – one currently in year 6. The pressure on the whole family this year regarding a secondary school place for him in Sept 2018 is huge.

PLEASE approve this application as soon as is possible.

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 20 October 2017 18:41 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Representation to HCC re Planning Application PL/0866/17

Objection

The following is my representation on the above matter:

 The Very Special Circumstances required for removal from Green Belt have not been demonstrated.

 The suggested traffic mitigation measures are wholly inadequate for the circumstances. Where specific measures are shown in any cases they reduce the safety provisions for all users.

 Landscape and visual impact reviews have only been given for extremely limited circumstances and conclusions are unrealistic

 The case for justifying a school on this site has not been made. There is no demonstration of a local need when taking other nearby schools into account.

 There has been insufficient community involvement in the process from the outset.

 I understand that further work is being undertaken by Right School Right Place (RSRP) into the detail of this application. I wish to register that I endorse this work and the forthcoming submission(s) by RSRP in this respect

From: Planning Applications [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 27 October 2017 16:56 To: Spatial Planning Subject: FW: Comment for current planning Application (*)

SLUP/CC0798 PL\0866\17

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 27 October 2017 16:02 To: Planning Applications Subject: Comment for current planning Application (*)

Dear Sirs

Please find attached comment for Planning reference 5/2017/2733.

I note that this 'application' is in practice an application being handled by another Planning Authority to which St Albans is a consultee.

It is intended to make specific representations to that Authority, while the subject matter of this representation is specifically designed to address matters SADC are expected to consider in their consultee role.

The representation (attached as pdf) is made in name of an organisation . I fully subscribe to the content on a personal basis also.

If you would like the original word version fro ease of redacting addresses please let me know and I can forward to you.

As the timing is close to deadline it is likely that I will deposit a duplicate paper copy with reception - this will be signed and clearly marked on envelope as duplicate.

Regards

Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 October 2017 14:42 To: Spatial Planning Subject: HCC REFERENCE SLUP/CC0798 PL(0866)17 - PROPOSED SCHOOL AT JUNCTION OF COMMON LANE WITH LOWER LUTON ROAD.

Dear Sirs: we write to you to lodge our strong and serious objection to the proposed building of a new school at the above location.

Firstly, we have been utterly amazed and very disappointed at how this proposal has been dealt with right from the start. Approximately 2 or 3 years ago we found out quite by chance that this was in the pipeline during a chance conversation with a friend even though if this proposal went ahead we and many others in our area would be most adversely affected. Furthermore, with so many different councils, agencies and others involved, to say nothing of various "end of consultation dates" being quoted, it has been extremely difficult to know who to raise our objections with. It seems almost as if the whole project has been discussed, decided and furthered behind closed doors with little consultation but much confusion. Perhaps it was thought no one would notice it! The proposed school even has a name, The Katherine Warrington Scool, and a website even though there is no Planning Permission in place. We thought we lived in a Democracy! Our objections, apart from the content of this paragraph are as follows:

1. The site on the corner of Common Lane and Lower Luton Road is in our view totally wrong for a school in so many ways! The Lower Luton Road often comes to a standstill at peak times as it is and the chaos that the extra vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians etc the new school would generate would be horrendous! (

Many motorists would use the back lanes as a "rat run" to try and avoid the area - these lanes (including Sauncey Wood Lane/The Slype etc) are not built for such traffic and it has taken years to get even some of the potholes** repaired as it is!! ( .

2. Children walking or cycling along the Lower Luton Road to this proposed school would be put in a very dangerous position. (I seem to remember there being a report on the traffic flow in Lower Luton Road which said that in the last 5 years there had been no accidents at the mini roundabout - that is absolutely untrue as I ( ) had an accident there, I am wondering whether the report only counted fatal accidents - in our view there could be many of these involving cyclists, cars, coaches and/or pedestrians if the school was built!

3. On the subject of the mini roundabout there is talk that this would be removed - how on earth would any vehicle (including coaches, cars etc from the proposed school) ever get out of Common Lane at peak times or come to think of it, at any time of day if this happened?!

4. There is serious discussion as to whether the school is in fact absolutely necessary in that pupil numbers could fall in 2 -3 years, just when such a school would be up and running! Shades of the Secondary School in Butterfield Road all those years ago which, we were told was required, was built and then not required, resulting in its closure and the site is now housing! Potential waste of precious resources yet again, although the house builders probably made a good profit. Incidentally, if this current project did not go ahead we understand that housing would NOT be allowed. We hope this is true as the road infrastructure in this area is just not strong enough to cope.

5. The site is on Green Belt and previous applications, even to put just a hoarding on the site, have been rejected as inappropriate on Green Belt land or something like that! Who, then, thought it was a good idea to put a school on the site with the resultant increased traffic, pollution, danger for pedestrians and cyclists etc? Lower Luton Road is just not suitable for such increased traffic, it is bad enough as it is.

6 There are significant archeological findings on the site which we understand need to be further explored as part of our local heritage.

We do hope you have read thus far but if you wish to pass this email to other interested parties please do feel free to do so. We will also be lodging our objection with our MP and others as there is such strong feeling against this project that we want to ensure everyone is aware.

Thank you, we hope you will see what a disaster this project could be and be able to help ensure it does not happen.

Yours sincerely

-----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ] Sent: 28 October 2017 16:04 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Planning objection to new 6FE school buildings north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden

> Dear Mr Dempster > > I wanted to register my objection to the new school buildings north of Lower Luton Road, Harpenden. I live in Marquis Lane, Harpenden, almost opposite the proposes site, with the Batford Springs reserve, and am astonished a large school is planned there. The surrounding roads are not numerous, they are all narrow, and several mini roundabouts, and it is inconceivable that the planned school will not make the traffic horrendous, with effective gridlock twice per day. > > I hope the Council can be persuaded to change its mind and please consider this a formal objection. > > Yours sincerely > >

> > > > Sent from my iPad

From: [mailto: ] Sent: 29 October 2017 13:53 To: Spatial Planning Subject: FW: Katherine Warrington School

Dear Mr Dempster

I am writing to express concerns following the application. I support the school but acknowledge that there are some key traffic issues not being addressed. I raised my concerns initially in July before the planning application was submitted and answered the questions from the questionnaire posed at the time. I attach my responses again and realise from speaking to many other attendees of the meeting, that these are not just my concerns but those of the local community as well.

Q1what is good about the application  I like the low lying buildings that are cited away from the road. I think the sports facilities look really excellent. I like the fact that cars can exit the site in two directions and the road is widened to enable traffic to flow more freely.

Q2 what are the issues  Cars at 40 miles an hour, along the Lower Luton Road, will endanger cycling children and pedestrians trying to cross the Lower Luton Road by the KWS.

 Traffic noise will be worse for residents of The Lea Valley Estate.  Additional traffic along the Lower Luton Road and cars coming down Station Road will push cars to try alternative routes, like Leasey Bridge Lane, which already suffers gridlock at key times of the day.

 Once the school is full with pupil numbers, vehicle numbers will also increase and these could end up parking along Common Lane, Lower Luton Road (Slip Road) and other local roads because of insufficient parking on the KWS site.

Q3what suggestions are there to mitigate the problems  Flashing traffic calming digital displays, in both directions from the Lea Valley estate down to Common Lane.

 Also a blanket 30 mile an hour speed limit along the Lower Luton Road from Common Lane, would address the speeding and overtaking and reduce the impact to the Lea Valley Estate.

 Make Leasey Bridge Lane a one way street, to prevent complete grid lock.

 The number of parking spaces needs to be increased at the KWS site, beyond this to take into account sixth formers, visitors and outside contractors.

 An integrated travel plan for children from the villages should be introduced with buses catering for the masses, reducing traffic and pollution from additional vehicles.

 A cycle lane along the Lower Luton Road from Wheathampstead and from Southdown to the new school.

Q4 any other information

 Traffic queues along the Lower Luton Road from a hundred metres off of Common Lane, towards Station Road (past the new KWS). This traffic generally takes 5 mins to pass through between 8.15-8.45am in the morning to get onto Station Road. Cars are also queueing down Station Road, towards the Lower Luton Road at this time, typically from opposite All Saints Church. Cars are also queueing to get out of Cold Harbour Lane and onto Station Road, from near the entrance to the Jarvis building.

Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. I do hope that the school will get planning permission but with a better thought out travel plan. We need road traffic amendments that prevent gridlock, reducing danger to children travelling to and from school and also reducing the speed and access routes of vehicles travelling along the local roads. From: [mailto: ] Sent: 26 October 2017 15:57 To: Spatial Planning Cc: David Williams; Teresa Heritage Subject: PL\0866\17 - Katherine Warington School, Harpenden

To whom it may concern:

I feel it is important to put in writing how desperately keen I am for the new school to be built in Harpenden. It feels like a lot of hard work has gone into planning for a successful fourth secondary school in Harpenden and it has my full support.

. They attended the assembly at The Grove School hosted by Tony Smith recently and both of them came away expressing great excitement about attending the new school. I have often overheard them talking with their friends about how they would all like to attend the new school and how many of their friends are keen to go too.

I have seen many friends leave Southdown to live in other parts of Harpenden to be closer to a secondary school. This may seem like a small point but it has felt that it has been slowly breaking up the local community. We now see many parents driving their children to The Grove because they no longer live close enough to walk. It would be wonderful to finally put a stop to people feeling that they need to move out of Southdown which is a wonderful place to live because they are worried about local schooling.

I also feel that it is inevitable that Harpenden, like so many other areas of the country, will be tasked with building more houses. It is therefore imperative that we have the infrastructure in place to accommodate more residents of Harpenden so that their children can attend a local school.

I do appreciate that some local residents are unhappy with the location for the school however, my understanding is that a full and detailed analysis was done of all potential sites and that this one is considered to be the best option. On the subject of potential traffic problems, It is a local school and it is important that the children make their way there independently.

keeping everything crossed for a successful planning application. We can’t yet allow ourselves to be excited about the new school but I look forward to the day when we can finally do that. Thank you for taking the time to read my email.

With kind regards,

From: S [mailto: Sent: 29 October 2017 14:45 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Ref PL\0866\17 - Proposed school

Dear Mr Dempster

Ref PL\0866\17

We write in connection with the proposed new school adjacent to Common Lane Harpenden . We live in Sauncey Wood and have real concern in three areas , namely:

 Traffic congestion - During peak periods the lower Luton road is a virtual car park, with far too much traffic either heading towards Harpenden / Luton, or later in the day heading in the opposite direction . We have been led to believe insufficient / not appropriate testing of the current volume of traffic has been undertaken. Given the location of the intended school the road just will not be able to accommodate all of the school traffic, in addition to the normal peak volumes .  Access from Common lane - We have heard various proposals how access will occur by car from this lane onto the Lower Luton. One suggestion being removing the small roundabout making access nigh on impossible given the significant extra volume of traffic, and likely parking on Common Lane, this just will not be practical .  Noise - We are seriously concerned by the likely volume of noise from the proposed school and the impact on our environment .

Therefore, in conclusion we do not in anyway support the building of this school, we feel the whole planning and consultation process has been handled very poorly, and this is simply not an acceptable planning permission. Allied with this, the strong suggestion this is simply not the right area to build a school given other schools proximity . We look forward to your response

From: mike wakely [mailto: Sent: 28 October 2017 13:10 To: Spatial Planning Subject: Harpenden school Lower Luton Road

BELOW a posted objection sent via us as residents are confused with HCC doing the application notwitstanding HCC councillor at meetings indicating SADC would. For the attention of: ;

14 October 2017

Ref: 5/2017/2733 (St Albans City & District Council Planning Reference)

Dear Councillor

I have learnt of the above Planning Application, which I understand the Council is being consulted upon. I wish to register my concerns on this matter and ask that the Council takes these into account when reviewing this application.

The Application has a considerable volume of information provided, however the ability to view and digest the information has been extremely restrictive, as the Authority hearing the application - Hertfordshire County Council- has not provided adequate opportunity to review paper copy in locations close to the locality. This has denied local people, many of whom will be directly affected should this application be granted, the opportunltv to make informed decisions.

The proposal itself appears founded on a dubious premise of Need for a school, with the forecast from HCC having to be "adjusted" to generate the number of children deemed necessary and then with no indication of where in the area the majority of the children for the school live. This appears to provide a very unconvincing case for the Very Special Circumstances tests to take the land out of Green Belt.

The transport and traffic considerations are wholly inadequate. Mitigation measures appear to include removal of traffic measures originally introduced on safety grounds (roundabout removal at Common Lane and change of light controlled crossing to zebra crossing on widened carriageway at Station Road / Lower Luton Road for example), addition of crossings close to bends / junctions (Station Road at Coldharbour Lane; Station Road at Marquis Lane) and little or no measures for the Lower Luton Road to Wheathampstead.At the same time every railway bridge in Harpenden is scheduled for 20m ph speed limit! The 'Travel Plan' itself sees the inexplicable expectation of more pupils from Redbourn, Flamstead and Markyate expected at the school than from Wheathampstead - where the school will be the nearest school in the Priority area. This is apparently derived from a 'bespoke' model drawn up in 2014 by HCC before St George's changed its admission rules. It appears to suggest only 1 in 3 Wheathampstead pupils will attend the school- no explanation of where the majority are expected to go.

Landscape considerations suggest there will be minimum effect despite highly visible terracing and substantial buildings that will change the outlook for large numbers of homes on the South side of the River Lea (Crabtree, Aldwickbury).

I am aware that there are many people considering the information presented and uncovering many anomalies - I doubt that there will be sufficient time for anyone individual to properly review the material, which should have been presented publicly much earlier, and I urge you to take into account all the areas of concern and objection that are brought to your attention when forming your consultee response to HCC.

Yours Sincerely VIA. Mike Wakely Harpenden East SADC Councillor.