The local council have to carry out a 'Water Cycle Study Review' of the Thames Water, Water Cycle Study of 2009/2010 for Welwyn & Hatfield, because there is no supporting infrastructure for Panshanger. In the new year we begin the last year of AMP5 and the following year is the beginning of AMP6, which would extend past the councils build date.
The responses I received after my Sewerage Report that I handed in to the local council are quite revealing or in other words back up my findings. See Below:
12 November 2013
Our Ref : 33090700
2009 WCS Question
Dear Mr McBride
Thank you for your patience regarding this matter.
Please find response to your enquiry from our Asset Management Team below:
'The 6,400 new dwellings/homes figure refers to the whole of the Rye Meads catchment.
This was the capacity of the STW, less current loading and then divided by an estimated annual house completion rate.
The Water Cycle study was undertaken 2007/9. The 4 years was based on the estimated housing completion rate at a time when house building was buoyant. The number was not spread equally over all the local authorities in question as some had more advanced development plans than others and some local authorities do not drain 100% to Rye Meads STW.
The 6,400 was an estimate to advise how quickly available capacity could be utilised. In hindsight the reduction in trade flows has been more significant than estimated and also customer water use has declined. None of this can be identified in specific numbers as we are only able to report the volumes of effluent discharged to the watercourse by Rye Meads STW. This volume includes PCC, Occupancies, Trade flows and seasonal discharges'....
The Sewerage Report and my Appeal to the Conservation Area have both Not Been Acknowledged by the council, infact no-one has been in touch.
I asked my Final Public Question to the Cabinet Housing and Planning Panel on November 21st (in response to recent revelations); my memorable moment from asking the very long question was that a member of the panel either gasped or nervously laughed at the content; I was too focussed on getting the message across. I am not known for wearing suits, but I went along in one to show the importance I placed on the question.
I have also (by asking the question to the council) withdrawn from all local community activity, which also signalled my departure,(Holwell Hyde Heritage, may or may not stay).
What I want to do in the new year is push the Conservation area issue (as a matter of personal interest) past all recorded boundaries, (if possible). I will probably update the King of the Netherlands and the Crown Prince of Bosnia, having received their kind responses.
I have been in touch with Viscount Trenchard regarding any WW1 connections to Panshanger and other WW1 groups but so far only a POW camp was at panshanger in WW1 and WW2.
I don't own or rent Panshanger Aerodrome, and if the owner wants to sell the land, then that is his right but if that same land is placed in to a core strategy public consultation, and we the public are allowed to have a say, and the weight of evidence (now revealed) against development, should be listened too or followed. I hope this consultation does not turn out to be a 'Token Gesture' or a sign that 'We let the public know'.
If I was to do this all again, I would go straight for Infrastructure.
I would like to thank all the local councillors and planners for responding to my emails and letters over this last year, and wish them well. I hope Panshanger Can Be Saved.