IN the morning of Feb 28 HCC Development and Control Committee met and approved a plan to move Southfield School to temporary buildings this summer, even if, as is very likely, planning permission for an incinerator at New Barnfield has not been approved by then. However, by the afternoon a letter arrived from the Department of Communities and Local Government, saying that the Secretary of State directs the council not to grant permission on the application without his specific authorisation. He will now consider whether the application should be referred to him to decide.

So campaigners are now very hopeful that this application to move the school prematurely will not be approved. The Secretary of State might now also look at the whole incinerator application.

Hatfield Against Incineration are totally opposed to the proposed premature move, which is a blatant attempt by Herts CC to remove one of the many obstacles in the way of planning permission being granted for an incinerator. If the incinerator is not approved, the school would have to move back after just one year, causing massive unnecessary disruption to these vulnerable children. It would also waste the £3.9 million cost of the temporary school, paid for by Herts council-tax payers.

In the morning’s debate, Herts CC officers and some councillors claimed that they want to move the school early for the sake of the children. In reality, they aimed to increase the chances of Veolia gaining Planning Permission for the incinerator.

HAI are opposed to Southfield School moving before planning permission for the incinerator is decided. There is no need for the children to be moved this summer. Veolia’s Planning Application will not even be looked at by HCC Dev and Control Committee until June 19th or July 18th. If they approve it, the plan then has to be looked at by the Secretary of State. He may hold an inquiry. After that there could be a Judicial Review. Also, Herts CC has not yet had its Waste Strategy approved, and the Waste Sites Allocations plan is still out to consultation at the moment. So even if the incinerator does eventually go ahead, it would be a year or more before the children need to be moved to get away from construction works.

The governors and staff of the school, who are under extreme pressure from the situation created by HCC, have said that if a move is to happen, they want to move in a long holiday. So HCC should wait until summer 2013, when the situation regarding the incinerator will be clearer. Yes, if an incinerator is granted planning permission, then the children must be moved during the building of it and the widening of the road. But why move them unnecessarily? The answer is clear, HCC want to move them in order to help Veolia to build their incinerator when they want to, without any possible delay.

Of course, if the majority of Herts County councillors really cared about the children they would never have proposed that an incinerator could be built next to them. An incinerator next to the school would cause noise and vibration by its operation and by the HGV traffic going right in front of the school on a newly-widened road. The incinerator proposed by Veolia is so large that it would overshadow the school and its outdoor areas.

If the majority of councillors cared about the children they would not want to move them for up to five years to a temporary building, and then move them back, within five years, once incinerator-construction is complete.

The debate on Feb 28th mainly avoided these issues, except in speeches against a premature decision on a school move by Paul Zukowskyj of Hatfield Against Incineration and by Stuart Pile, county councillor representing Hatfield South. Some councillors, Lib/Dem and Labour, after saying they wanted the debate to be deferred until a later date, left the chamber and did not participate in the debate because they knew that it should not have been held before the incinerator planning application has been decided.

Paul Zukowsky outlined the important points against the premature move. It is potentially unlawful, because the sole need for the move is the building of an incinerator. The two planning applications, for school move and for incinerator, should be part of the same scheme. No reasons have been given for HCC’s claim that there is “need to resolve the position of the school”. There is no over-riding need to move it this summer, apart from the contractual need of HCC.

In addition, there are reasons why the old Howe Dell School site is not a good site for the temporary building for Southfield. Firstly, Traffic on Woods Avenue is already extremely congested and dangerous at certain times because of all the school entrances, and a new traffic entrance for Southfield would exacerbate this. Secondly, at the time of housing being built on most of the site, assurances were given by HCC that the remaining open space would be maintained and wildlife habitats protected. The agreement also includes protection of the playing fields.

Stuart Pile also spoke strongly against the premature move, including the points that the start of any work on an incinerator is far away, and that the move is not cost effective or a good use of money. He wanted to see evidence that parents had been properly consulted. He questioned the sense of a double move in one year. He asked for Planning Permission to be rejected or at least deferred.

HCC officers spoke in favour of the premature move. Kate Ma, an HCC officer, spoke of the needs of the Southfield children, who are particularly sensitive to noise, vibration and disruption, to avoid the negative impact of construction on an incinerator. Chay Dempster, another HCC officer, also spoke of the children’s sensitivity to noise. We agree entirely. So why build an incinerator next to their school? HCC, please remember this noise sensitivity when the incinerator application is considered.

The debate by the nine members of HCC Development and Control Committee remaining in the chamber avoided the key point, the early date of what could be a totally unnecessary move. One councillor said “the most important thing is the kids”. We hope the “kids” will be remembered when the Development and Control Panel consider Veolia’s application to build a noisy, smelly dangerous incinerator next to them; to overshadow their school and play areas with a huge dome and chimneys; and to bring hundreds of extra HGVs, carrying rubbish and toxic ash, roaring past their entrance and school frontage.

But now perhaps the incinerator decision itself will not be in the hands of Herts County Council. It may be that the Secretary of State will decide.

The objectors to Veolia’s Planning Application have shown their opposition loud and clear, and now we are on the way to defeating this incinerator plan.

But it is still essential to oppose the inclusion of New Barnfield in the HCC Waste Site Allocations document, which is being consulted on until March 19th, so don’t forget to fill in a form and send it to Spatial and Land Use Planning at County Hall. (Use an official form from hertsdirect.org, or one of HAI’s simple response forms.)