SIR, — I would like to correct any misunderstanding that your readers may have gained following your report (Herts Advertiser, December 11) headlined Battlers meet on rail-freight threat . As St Albans District Council s chief executive, I briefed a numb
SIR, - I would like to correct any misunderstanding that your readers may have gained following your report (Herts Advertiser, December 11) headlined "Battlers meet on rail-freight threat". As St Albans District Council's chief executive, I briefed a number of people on Friday on the implications of the first stages of a possible further application for a rail-freight interchange at Park Street, accompanied by the council's head of legal and democratic services.
There were two briefings, one for the council's elected representatives and one for those local residents or organisations who gave evidence to the last inquiry. Minutes have been taken and will be placed on the council's website shortly. Contrary to the impression readers might be under, this was not a meeting to agree a campaign but a briefing to ensure that the council's current position is understood. Its purpose was simply to set out the processes that the council will follow if it receives a planning application, not as might be inferred from your report, to arrange a campaign or to set out the district council's reaction to the proposal.
As a planning authority the council will only be able to respond if it receives a new application, to date we have not received one, but are currently preparing a response to a proposed scope of environmental statement submitted by Helioslough.
I trust that you and your readers will be aware that the council has a duty to consider all planning applications on their merits and in accordance with its legal powers.
You may also want to watch:
Chief Executive, St Albans City & District Council.
- 1 Punch Taverns calls time on White Lion pub team
- 2 April 12: Your guide to what can open from Monday when COVID lockdown rules ease
- 3 Major redevelopment underway at listed former offices in St Albans
- 4 Drug users at Telford Court flats face tough police action
- 5 Quarter of tenants become owners at St Albans development
- 6 Police hunt man suspected of breaking into Cathedral collection boxes
- 7 What are the district's best pub gardens to visit from April 12?
- 8 Drive-in cinema arriving at London Luton Airport
- 9 Property Spotlight: An Edwardian home on one of St Albans' most prestigious roads
- 10 The latest court results for the St Albans area
n Editor's note: I'm at a loss to understand how our readers might infer from our report that Friday's "exercise" was to arrange any sort of campaign. Our report began: "A briefing about the prospect of a new application......" and later quoted Cllr Chris Brazier that the meeting "was a chance to be briefed on the current situation and what the council was doing".
As those invited included the action groups who had opposed the original proposal, then the headline that "Battlers meet on rail-freight threat" is perfectly accurate, especially as the sub-heading was "All groups to be briefed on district's reaction to new bid". As the developers have stated that the new application will be the same as the old one, one would naturally expect that all those who opposed the original proposal would oppose it again - hence they are still "battlers". The semantics of whether something is a briefing or a meeting seems a bit nit-picking.