11 Jan 2024
One year ago this week, a group of concerned residents held a public meeting to discuss plans by Herts county council to sell 300 acres of valuable Green Belt land south of St Albans to developers proposing to build a huge rail freight terminal.
Even though planning permission had been granted in 2013 by then-Secretary of State Eric Pickles, many residents were unaware that such a vast terminal was due to built in the heart of their community.
The meeting in Greenwood Park on that cold, wet Sunday afternoon saw the launch of a robust, forensic and relentless campaign that, 12 months on, could see the sale of the land overturned by a judicial review.
Along the way campaigners from Fight the Freight have fought with developers, the county council and Lord Verulam. They have held protests at county hall, on the A414, in St Albans city centre and outside the Verulam’s Gorhambury estate.
They have spoken at public meetings in local community centres, launched a petition against the sale of the land that gathered 10,000 signatures, raised thousands of pounds to fund a legal challenge and hunted through council archives to uncover evidence that shows not only that Herts CC were not obliged to sell the land but that in doing so they were breaking local covenants that determined the land should be permanent open space and not be developed.
“It’s been an incredible 12 months,” said Cllr Nuala Webb, one of the Fight the Freight campaign leaders.
“When Herts CC tried to slip through notice of their intention to sell just before Christmas in 2022, I’m pretty sure they didn’t expect the level of opposition to be what it is.
“But the whole scheme is inappropriate for this area. It will bring thousands of extra vehicles every day to already congested local roads that just won’t be able to cope.
“Eric Pickles only granted planning permission on Green Belt because he believed a rail freight terminal would shift freight off the roads. But all the evidence points to this site becoming a road to road distribution terminal with little or no rail freight . And it is highly unlikely Mr Pickles would have approved a freight terminal on that basis.
“It soon became clear that Herts CC were ignoring legal advice that they were not obliged to sell the land if they felt there were significant changes in freight transport movement since 2013 that showed planning would not be approved today. Despite Brexit, the development of alternative rail freight sites and the challenges and problems upgrading the busy commuter rail network Herts did nothing to investigate the viability of this site. They didn’t even ask the Department for Transport about predicted rail freight use.
“We believe the council have acted appallingly throughout this process. We did our own research and presented them with evidence to show this site was not viable. they ignored it.
“They have carried out no traffic impact assessments, even though there is no direct access to motorways from the site. All traffic entering and leaving the site will be forced onto local roads. They have failed to secure any funding from the developers to pay for improvements to the road network that will be needed to cope with the extra traffic.
“The council’s disregard for local opinion can be summed up in the way they tried to ignore our petition calling for the sale of the land to be stopped. Firstly, they blocked us from putting the petition on their website. Then, when we had around 10,000 signatures on change.org they changed their rules on considering petitions and said they would only discuss petitions from their own website.”
But it’s not only the county council who have ignored local opposition say the campaigners. The council own one third of the site on the old Radlett airfield, with the rest owned by Tarmac and the Verulam estate. And campaigners say Lord Verulam has questions to answer over his decision to allow the developers, Segro, to dig a trench on his land in 2019.
“That allowed Segro to say work had begun, “ said Cllr Webb. “If Lord Verulam has refused to allow that trench to be dug, planning permission would have expired.
“We have asked Lord Verulam to explain his decision, to explain what he feels the benefits of this development will be for St Albans and whether he would like a similar development to be built on his Gorhambury estate but so far he has refused to answer.”
A few weeks after campaigners had staged a protest outside the Gorhambury estate, Herts confirmed the sale of the land late one Friday afternoon in June. But that only galavanised the campaign.
“Not only did Herts sell the land for way less than its market value, but by then we had also found covenants relating to the land that showed it was deemed to be permanent open space and could not be developed, “ said Terrie Smith, another of the Fight the Freight campaign leaders.
“Indeed, Herts bought the land for £1 in the mid 1980s for the benefit of Hertfordshire residents and to protect the Green Belt. No landowner is going to sell for that little if they suspected it would be worth much more with development potential.”
The discovery of covenants around the future use of the land forms the basis of the group’s submission for a Judicial Review to overturn the sale. A judgement is due later this month.
“There is precedent,” said Terrie. “A plot of land in Shropshire that was sold to developers was found to be subject to similar covenants. Campaigners there fought a long battle but eventually the courts ruled that the development could not go ahead even though the land had been sold.”
“There are so many unanswered questions about the sale, the process and the way Herts have behaved,” added Cllr Webb.
“We know we have a strong moral argument and our lawyers say we have a strong legal argument. This whole proposed development would have a terrible impact on people’s lives, many of whom live just yards from where these huge warehouses will be built.
“The next few weeks will give us a clearer direction on the next steps for the campaign, said Cllr Webb.
“A year ago, none of us thought we would be where we are.
“But if Herts County Council refuse to the defend the rights and lives of their residents then someone has to and I’m proud of and grateful to all the people who’ve supported us and glad we’ve been able to give them a voice.”
