PUBLISHED: 12:19 08 October 2009 | UPDATED: 14:30 06 May 2010
SIR — I have been following the saga of Helioslough and their attempts to get this project passed since it began. I have written my letters of objection and, like many others, been incensed by the constant appeals by this company after the project had bee
SIR - I have been following the saga of Helioslough and their attempts to get this project passed since it began.
I have written my letters of objection and, like many others, been incensed by the constant appeals by this company after the project had been denied.
I am 100 per cent behind the efforts of STRiFE. However, I have always thought that there is something fishy going on, on the part of Helioslough, especially when I read that there is a better site (Luton, on an industrial estate, and where the locals would welcome it as a much needed employer), and when Network Rail has consitently raised its doubts as to its capacity to accommodate the proposed increase in rail traffic.
I've wondered how Heloslough could possibly equate the huge sums of money it would have to pay out regarding possible railway upgrades, slip roads, etc., with the money it would make out of the depot.
Now, reading in this week's Herts Advertiser, I think I may have it. STRiFE cites the site in Huntingdon where planning permission was granted for a similar interchange, only to find there was no capacity, and therefore the plan had to be dropped.
Of course, by then, the land had been taken out of Green Belt status. This made it easier for a planning application for housing to be passed.
So, has this been Helioslough's plan all along? To have the Green Belt status removed, so that a housing estate can be built?
This way there is no big financial outlay by them, but a big fat reward for their directors.
Stanley Avenue, St Albans