You cannot fight the big boys (From St Albans & Harpenden Review)

You cannot fight the big boys

4:21pm Monday 23rd March 2009 in

• Skip social links
• Print
• Email
• Comments(2)

YOU paid nearly £400,000 to ensure that Helioslough’s ghastly railfreight terminal would not destroy our precious greenbelt land.

However, it was money well spent when, at the end of the seven-week public inquiry, the original planning application was rejected last year.

Were we certain that would be the end of it? Sadly not.

I have long been of the opinion that, when something as major as this is rejected by the local authority, there should be no way back.

Why is Helioslough able to lodge appeal after appeal or submit proposal after proposal until it gets what it wants?

During the initial enquiry no stone was left unturned and inspector Andrew Phillipson’s detailed 101-page report outlined every reason for dismissing Helioslough’s immediate appeal, which was backed by Secretary of State Hazel Blears.

So why is this monstrosity now likely to go ahead?

Why is Helioslough able to lodge appeal after appeal or submit proposal after proposal until it gets what it wants?

Those with a good knowledge of the case will remember that Mr Phillipson was quite complimentary about the application.

He said there should be no fear of light pollution and concluded that the air quality would not deteriorate.

The terminal, he said, would not affect current commuter trains adding that the extra traffic on the A414 could be countered with the addition of several improvement schemes.

Mr Phillipson even suggested that the scheme was, in principle, “desirable” – his words not mine.

But Helioslough got its application wrong.

To build on greenbelt land you are required by law to show “very special circumstances” which should outweigh the damage.

The company argued – and still does – that there was/is nowhere else in the north-west area of London to base the terminal.

That might be the case, but it can be built anywhere in the east of England, so why does it constantly refer to our neck of the woods?

After hearing Helioslough’s location argument, Mr Phillipson told the company it was “materially flawed” and “wholly convincing”. His summing up was backed by Blears.

Fast forward to March 2009 and the company’s big boys are back.

It staged its very own exhibition at the Noke Hotel earlier this month as it prepared its second application.

Helioslough knows where it went wrong.

Those preparing the application know where they have to improve and know what to say.

That is why, this time, the application will get the go-ahead and why our £400,000 plus the cost of this application will, eventually, be deemed a waste of money.

And all of the above is why, I believe, our planning system is flawed.

No matter how much public money is spent, how much public fury is vented and how many inspectors, secretary of states and local politicians tell them to sling their hook, these big companies will keep coming back until they get their wish.

Why?

Because they are allowed to.

Why worry about a denied application when you can appeal?

And why worry about losing an appeal when you are able to submit a second application almost immediately?

It is like sitting your school exams, getting them horribly wrong, taking a look at the answers and then re-sitting exactly the same exam the following week: child’s play.

Similarly, down the round in St Albans, in London Road to be exact, the Tesco application will take the same route. The system almost works as a safety net for these multi-billion pound companies.

Hazel Blears, who last October backed Mr Phillipson to the hilt – or at least so we thought – left Helioslough a small bone.

While dismissing fears over increased traffic, noise and the threat to wildlife, she suggested the proposal could be beneficial.

She is probably correct. It will be beneficial to those who use the terminal and the Government, which needs to get goods transport shifted from road to rail. The only people I can see being put out by it are those who live and work in the district, but apparently our voices are not loud enough.

No doubt the action group STRiFE, which mounted a superb fight during the inquiry, will do the same again.

However, as revealed in this newspaper last week, a district council source has told us that he expects it go through this time.

Like most people with connections in this city, I hope it is rejected again and the proposal is finally laid to rest.

Sadly, I do not think our planning system will surprise me.

The recession has hit the country hard, but in amongst the record unemployment figures and redundancy count, a story emerged that brought a smile to my face.

Ben and Nicola Cameron’s mortgage payments were £1,500-a-month with Cheltenham & Gloucester when they signed a two-year tracker deal in 2007.

Today that figure has fallen to 1p because the deal on their £400,000 London home was set at 1.01 per cent below the base rate.

Admittedly it is an interest-only deal, but how nice would it be to be mortgage-free for a couple of years?

Rather than blow the money, the Camerons are wisely saving £1,499.99 a month with a baby on the way.

Apparently there are a further 30,000 homeowners currently on zero interest loans but are on repayment schemes so are instead paying hundreds of pounds a month.

I bet they wish they had spoken to the Camerons’ mortgage adviser first.

Martin Buhagiar, Editor