Chapter 1

Executive Summary

Genesis of the Parish Plan

1.1       In September 2002, Shenley Parish Council approved a proposal to draw up a Parish Plan, setting out what could be done to address the concerns to local residents. A steering group was appointed to carry out a survey of all households, to identify what were the major concerns, and what residents would like to see done. Before a full survey was undertaken, the group devised a pilot survey which was tested in the following autumn. The results were used to construct a detailed Survey that was distributed to every household in the parish. The response rate was an impressive 74%. A summary of results was posted on the Shenley village website in autumn 2004, and analysis continued through the winter. Appendix 2 describes the process in more detail.

Key findings from the Survey

1.2       Shenley residents place a high value on the location of their community and its proximity to the countryside. Given that the village has already absorbed a significant number of new households with the development of Porters Park, residents are loath to see any further development. Indeed, the strains of the new development remain – almost as many feel that the community is divided as those who feel that it is united. There is considerable interest in a higher degree of participation in community activities, but residents feel that they lack the necessary information. There is general satisfaction with the facilities for the very young, but a widespread recognition that facilities for teenagers are insufficient.

1.3       Both teenagers and respondents generally are concerned about anti-social behaviour, and there is a strongly held view that policing in Shenley is inadequate. Traffic and transport issues are a significant concern, with many feeling that speeding is too prevalent and that too much through traffic uses Shenley’s relatively narrow roads. Views differ about the appropriate response, with more people favouring no action in most cases than seeking specific action. However, there is pressure for  measures to be taken to tackle congestion outside the village school during pick-up/drop-off times, and to restrict speeds on Porters’ Park Drive and approach roads to Shenley. There is also concern about the adequacy of winter gritting arrangements (whether self-help facilities or those organised by Hertfordshire Highways). A significant environmental concern is dog waste left on pavements and green areas.

Parish Plan themes

1.4       The Parish Plan seeks to address these and other issues of concern to local residents, and sets out the steps that the Council plans to take in conjunction with local bodies and authorities. These are explained in the following chapters on Community Development, Environment & Development, and Traffic & Transport, and are summarised in the Action Plan at Appendix 1.

1.5       The Council sees community building as a key task, but recognises that it is local groups and societies that can do most – the Council will seek to support their work through improved publicity, and continued financial support where appropriate. The Council plans to work with other bodies to improve facilities for teenagers, and to maintain and enhance its existing community activities for children and older people. The Council shares the strong views held by residents about the inadequacy of local policing, and will continue the uphill battle to restore a higher profile presence that will yield better response times, and continuity in policing to develop better local intelligence.

1.6       On environmental and development matters, the Council will work closely with the Hertsmere Borough Council (HBC), which is both the planning authority and in charge of waste management. In particular, it will seek the adoption of relevant Council policy on development issues as Supplementary Planning Documents by HBC. Changes in Government planning arrangements make this less easy than when the Parish Plan was first envisaged, but we shall do our best.

1.7       Traffic and transport issues represent some of the biggest challenges to quality of life in Shenley. It is clear that there is significant gap between what central and local Government say they want to achieve (e.g. reduced car use and improved rail and bus services) and what they are actually able and willing to do. In any case, the Council will seek to ensure that local feelings and knowledge are effectively represented to decision-makers in this area.

1.8       In their responses to the Survey, residents made clear that they do not want the measures in the Plan to be funded by any increase in the Parish Council tax. For 2005/06, the Council has set a budget on the basis that there should be no increase in the benchmark Band D tax, though the Council is not responsible for any elements of the Council Tax set by Hertsmere County Council (HCC), Hertfordshire Constabulary or HBC. So far as possible, the Council will meet costs arising from the Parish Plan from within its budget, and by working in conjunction with other bodies.

1.9       The Council proposes to establish a Parish Plan Implementation Group to oversee implementation of the Plan, drawing on parish councillors, members of the Parish Plan Working Group, and others as appropriate. The Council will publish a progress report in the Parish Plan section of the village website (www.shenleyvillage.org) in November 2005. A copy of the Parish Plan, including the Survey results, is available on the website.

Acknowledgements

1.10          The Council would like to acknowledge the considerable contribution of Councillor Jackie Reith, who led the project as Parish Plan Co-ordinator until her resignation from the Council in December 2004. She organised work on the design of the Parish Plan survey, coordinated discussions with the Countryside Agency and the Community Development Agency for Hertfordshire, and supervised the distribution and collection of the questionnaires, as well as the collation and analysis of the data.

1.11          Councillor Reith was ably assisted by members of the Parish Plan Working Group, including Councillor Denise O’Connor, Valerie Bordell, Ross Broadbent, Mary Button, Peter Clark, Linda Crocker, Bob Dearden, Annette Edel, James Hulme, Muriel Simpson, Steve Smith and Mark van Twest. A flavour of the considerable amount of work they undertook can be seen in the Parish Plan timeline in Appendix 2. The Council would like to pay tribute to their work, as well as to invaluable contribution of Anthony Lovatt of O-PRO (who scanned the Survey data into a database which he designed himself), and Andy Manly, who analysed and interpreted the data.

1.12          The Council would like to acknowledge the generous financial support and advice of The Countryside Agency, as well as advice and guidance from Gary Sage and Jo Stephens of the Community Development Agency of Hertfordshire. The Council would also like to thank Councillor Reith’s successor, Councillor Peter Bourton, who prepared the draft Plan. It goes without saying that the policies and opinions set out in this Plan are solely the responsibility of the Parish Council.

1.13          Finally, the Council would like to thank the many residents who contributed their ideas and opinions, as well as providing practical help and offering assistance to local groups – we have passed these details on to the groups concerned. The very high response rate to the Survey illustrates the level of commitment in the community to keeping Shenley special and making it an even better place to live.

Chapter 2

Community development

2.1       While the physical environment is important to people’s quality of life, a sense of belonging to the community is even more important. A network of friends and acquaintances, participation in community social events, and membership of social and voluntary groups all contributes to that sense of belonging. This takes time to develop, and may not be easy for people leading busy work and family lives.

2.2       Not surprisingly, the influx of new residents to Porters Park has had a substantial impact upon the community. The 1991 census recorded 2390 people living in Shenley, but by 2001 this had increased to some 5647 people, a 236% increase over ten years[1]. The strains of this rapid increase continue to echo - indeed, during the design stages of the Survey, one anonymous commentator suggested that the demolition of Porters Park would be a positive move! These attitudes may help to explain responses to the Parish Plan survey, which indicate that, of those expressing an opinion, roughly half consider Shenley to be a united community (31%), while half (32%) do not[2]. Encouragingly, most (60%) are agreed, however, that a united community is desirable – a view that the Council firmly shares.

2.3       It is not the job of the Parish Council to tell people how to spend their spare time, or to supplant the work of the many local organisations that make concrete contributions to community building. But the Council does feel a responsibility to support their efforts, and to make sure that residents are aware of the wealth of social and other organisations that exist in Shenley. And the Council does consider that specific intervention is justified in the case of vulnerable groups, such as older and younger people. The Council also considers that it should continue to advocate better policing for Shenley.

Community building

2.4       Shenley is fortunate in the wide array of social and community organisations available to residents - contact details for many groups are available on the village website. The Survey revealed that, while not all residents are interested in participating in local activities[3], 45% do, and that, in all, 70% either do participate, or would be interested in doing so.

2.5       Groups for pre-school children are most popular – 109 households said that they participated in one of the Tots & Toddlers groups, while 35 took part in Tumble Tots, and 27 and 20 in Honky Tonks and Under Fives respectively. There was also a good deal of interest in these activities amongst those who did not take part – an additional 12% of households said that they would be interested in joining a Tots & Toddler group; the respective figures for Tumble Tots were 7%, for Under Fives 6% and Honky Tonks 4%.

2.6       Dance for children and adults is also relatively popular. Ballet-related groups attracted participation by 7% of households (with a further 18% interested in taking part). About 4% of households took part in Salsa, Line and Irish dancing, and a further 26% expressed interest.

2.7       A significant number took part in sporting and outdoor activities. Cricket was most popular (8% of households, with a further 12% interested), followed by one of the two football groups (3%, with a further 14% interested), and archery (1% and 8% respectively). 4% of households took part in horse riding lessons (and a further 16% were interested). 4% said that they took part in organised village walks, while a further 16% professed interest. When asked specifically if they would like to join a Health Walk[4], 44% of households were interested, with support highest amongst families with children, and ‘post-children’ families.

2.8       43% of households said that there was insufficient information about what is going on in Shenley. Although the questionnaire for the Survey was drawn up before the village website was launched, 58% of households said that they would use one if it existed, with the greatest propensity evident amongst pre-retired households. This proportion could grow over time, as only 13% of households say that they have no Internet access. Retired households show the greatest tendency to read the Parish News. 48% of residents said that they would also benefit from additional notice boards. The Borehamwood Times, which is distributed free-of-charge to many (but not all) households in Shenley, was seen as an important source of information by 41% of households.

2.9       The Council notes that The Link (29%) is seen as less useful than most other formal channels, including posters (33%) and group newsletters (31%), but believes that its main function is to report on issues of local significance rather than to provide information about local events – the quarterly distribution makes it unsuitable for this purpose.

2.10     When asked what measures would serve to further unite Shenley, 41% of respondents suggested more social events, while other suggestions included better communications (31%) and a local football or rugby team to support (35%). Other suggestions included a befriending service for the isolated (23%) and environmental activities, such as tree planting (24%). For those who did not consider Shenley to be a united community, better communications and more social events were considered to be the most effective way of community development.

2.11     Households were also invited to offer their views on whether they would like to attend shows, plays and films in Shenley, in the Walled Gardens, in the Old Chapel or the Village Hall. There was a high level of interest generally (74%), with marginally more interest in the Walled Garden (52%) than the Old Chapel (46%) or the Village Hall (43%). There was relatively little support for a new Community Centre - 47% of households considered existing facilities to be adequate, while only 23% said that a Centre was needed. A significant number of households (predominantly those with older people) expressed interest in using a bowling green if there was one in Shenley (20%).

2.12     The Council considers that social and community groups play an important part in community development, and is committed to supporting them in various ways. To improve publicity, it has erected an additional notice board and established a village website. In addition, the Council will:

(a)               explore with local groups and organisations such as the Shenley Park Trust the scope for co-organising community-wide activities such as barbeques, concerts and treasure hunts;

(b)               publicise the activities of community groups on the village website and in The Link, and urges such groups both to make use of this facility, and to keep their contact and other details up to date;

(c)               discuss with the Borehamwood Times the scope for extending free delivery of the newspaper to all households in Shenley;

(d)               produce a Shenley Directory of services, facilities and community groups, and distribute it to all households, as well as placing copies on the village website and in local libraries and clinics;

(e)               maintain funding support for the Parish News[5], which provides a valuable platform for publicising local events and organisations; and

(f)                 provide practical support to groups as appropriate, such as the provision of the Harris Lane playing fields for the Shenley Fete, and funding support as appropriate to groups in need of support.

Youth facilities

‘Facilities need to cater for older children, such as a cycle track or skate park, as there are no facilities for older children’ – Shenley resident

2.13     There are few facilities specifically for young people in Shenley, apart from the playgrounds in Shenley Park for young children. It is clear from responses to the Survey that both parents and young people would like more facilities, particularly for teenagers. There were 143 responses from young people aged from 11 to 17, of whom 83 were boys, and 60 were girls. When asked what facilities they would like, they were particularly keen on a basketball pitch or netball hoops (73%), a football pitch (76%), an off-road cycle loop (69%) or dirt bike track (54%). There was comparatively less support for a youth club (50%) or dance and drama club (45%).

2.14     Interestingly, the adult perspective was somewhat different. There was strong support for local youth groups - 81% thought local Scout and Guide groups would be a good idea, 80% wanted a dance / drama club, and 74% wanted a youth club. Basketball pitches / hoops (74%) and football pitches (70%) were popular. However, there were more opponents (55%) than supporters (30%) for a dirt bike track, and support for a skate park was lukewarm (45%).

2.15     The Council already operates two football pitches at the Harris Lane playing fields, and HBC has a football pitch at Pursley Recreation Ground. While these are not so convenient for the many youngsters living in the north and north west of the Parish (Bell Lane, Porters’ Park, North Avenue and Shenleybury), it does not seem practicable to create more football pitches in these areas. There are informal football areas in Shenleybury and Porters’ Park. There was a football pitch on land leased by the Shenley Park Trust to the Cricket Centre (on the nursery ground), but this is no longer maintained.

2.16     The Council notes the strong community and youth support for basketball facilities, and agrees that these should be pursued. It favours using a small part of the open space adjacent to Andrews Close for a basketball area, while retaining the remainder as informal parkland. The Council notes that 23% of respondents would like the area to be used for children’s or youth facilities, others would like to see the area become a village green (34%) or kept as it is (23%). The Council considers that allocating a small area for basketball would be a reasonable compromise, bearing in mind its central location, and the consensus that such a facility should be provided somewhere in Shenley. This site is owned by the Hertfordshire County Council but is subject to a management agreement with the Shenley Park Trust until 2007. The Council cannot pay for such a facility outright as it does not own the land, but it can contribute towards the cost. Notwithstanding the uncertainty of its use after 2007, the Council considers that it would be worth the relatively modest cost of basketball nets (which could be relocated subsequently if necessary) to provide a badly-needed facility for young people.

2.17     The Council is also prepared to consider making use of underutilised land adjacent to the Green Street allotments for an off-road bicycle track facility, subject to consultation with plotholders and local residents. However, the Council does not consider that it would be appropriate to provide a dirt bike track, given the hazardous nature of the pursuit, and the noise that it would generate.

2.18     The Council will look into the feasibility of establishing a youth club in Shenley. In the meantime, the Radlett Youth Club has agreed that Shenley young people who would like to join are welcome to do so[6], for which the Council is very grateful.

2.19     As with Shenley residents in general, it is important that youngsters are able to find out about local groups and events that may be of interest. The Borehamwood Times and local posters were the main sources of information for the youngsters surveyed. A very large majority had access to a computer connected to the Internet (87%), and 54% said that they would use a village website, a figure that climbed to 72% if the website had a section for young people. The Council considers that it would be beneficial if the website could include content aimed at young people, and hopes that volunteers can be found to help provide this.

‘There needs to be more to engage and interest the youth (particularly teenagers). The youth should own and solve this challenge themselves. Perhaps this could be steered by a Youth Council’ – Shenley resident

2.20     One way of encouraging volunteers might be to convene a Youth Council. Over 60% of households surveyed considered that convening a Youth Council two or three times a year to discuss issues of particular interest to young people to be a good idea; only 6% did not. While there was similar support for the same idea in response to the Youth Survey, only 44 commented on the proposal, of whom 31 supported the idea. The Council considers that it would be worth convening a meeting when its plans for youth facilities are more advanced, but would like to see how many people are interested before supporting a Youth Council.

2.21     In summary, the Council would like to see more facilities made available for young people. In particular, the Council:

(a)        has offered to co-fund a basketball pitch on land managed by Shenley Park Trust adjacent to Andrews Close;

(b)       has made available football pitches at Harris Lane for use by youth football clubs open to Shenley youngsters, and will publicise both the availability of these facilities and the clubs that use them;  

(c)        is willing, subject to consultation with plotholders and local residents, to develop an off-road cycle track on land adjacent to the Green Street allotments;

(d)       will explore the scope for erecting a climbing wall on a suitable site within Shenley for use by local youngsters;

(e)       is pleased to note that a drama club has been established in Shenley, and has attracted a number of young people as members (contact details on the village website);

 (f)        will continue to provide financial support for existing youth organisations;

(g)       will look into the feasibility of establishing a youth club in Shenley, and in the meantime, welcomes the opportunity for Shenley youngsters to use the youth club facilities in Radlett; and

(h)       will use its website and The Link to help publicise youth activities organised by other bodies, including the summer youth activities off the Hertsmere Borough Council. The Council invites interested young people who would like to advise on the content of the website or to contribute to it to contact the Council.

Community safety

2.22     According to the 2001 Census, crime levels in Hertsmere are lower than the national average in almost every category (violence, sexual offences, robbery, burglary and theft of motor vehicles) except theft from vehicles (see Table 13 in Appendix 2). This picture is generally supported by figures released from time to time by Hertfordshire Constabulary. Nonetheless, there is a high level of dissatisfaction amongst Shenley residents with policing in the community. Just over 5% are either satisfied or very satisfied with the current level of police coverage in the village, while just under 17% consider it to be adequate. By contrast, over 60% feel that policing is either poor or very poor.

‘We had a police officer walking the beat until 3 years ago when Herts took over.’

‘What police presence? The only time I see a police car is when an officer is going shopping in Tesco Express!’  - Shenley residents

2.23     Young people are also concerned about aspects of anti-social behaviour. 60% of young people responding to the Survey cited anti-social behaviour as a problem, 56% were concerned about violence, and 46% about vandalism. Young people felt that, in Shenley, about drug abuse (43%), violence (44%), and theft (40%) were less significant problems.

2.24     The Council notes that this is a long-standing issue, and that community concern reflects factors such as the low profile of police in Shenley since the closure of its police post, and the perceived difficulty of securing a timely response to calls for police assistance in cases deemed by the Police to be low priority. In response to previous requests for better policing, both the Metropolitan Police and now Hertfordshire Constabulary have pointed to the relatively low incidence of crime in Shenley. The Council remains concerned that Shenley’s relatively low crime rate should not be taken for granted, and will continue to monitor the situation through participation in the local Crime Reduction Partnership, alongside other local bodies such as the Shenley Village Society.  

2.25     While Shenley has a single police officer assigned to the ward, no replacement is available when this officer is ill, on leave, or is withdrawn to undertake other duties (which appears to be relatively frequent). The addition of a Police Community Support Officer is welcome, but the limited powers of a PCSO are not, in the view of the Council, an effective substitute for those of a police officer. The Council notes that over 55% of residents would not be willing to pay additional Council Tax to increase the existing Police presence in Shenley, and is not surprised. Residents already pay a substantial and rising amount towards policing costs, and have not seen this reflected in improved coverage in Shenley. Moreover, the Police have made clear in the past that, even if communities were to fund additional police posts, operational requirements would dictate whether they would be deployed in the communities that paid for them. 

‘Why pay more, the police presence still would not improve?’

‘The level of policing is not acceptable and does not represent service consistent with council tax paid’…. and man

y more comments from Shenley residents in the same vein!

2.26     In the view of the Council, the Police policy of focusing resources almost exclusively in higher crime areas risks pushing criminals out to previously safer areas, and is unfair given the significant and rising contribution made by Shenley residents through their Council Tax[7]. The Council considers that a sensible and just policy would be to maintain a permanent and visible Police presence in Shenley, in order to maintain deterrence against crime and anti-social behaviour. The Council will continue to lobby for better policing for the community.

2.27     In recent years, both the Metropolitan Police and Hertfordshire Constabulary have encouraged the formation of Neighbourhood Watch schemes, largely run by local residents, but provided with telephone support by the Police. Most streets in Shenley are covered by the scheme, although the Survey indicates that only about half of those who responded know that their house lies within an active Neighbourhood Watch Scheme. As with many schemes around the country, recruiting and retaining volunteers to co-ordinate local Neighbourhood Watch schemes can be a problem.

2.28     The Council:

·                     (a)        will continue to lobby for better policing, including a permanent and visible presence in Shenley;

·                      

·                     (b)       commends the volunteers who have helped to ensure that most streets in Shenley are covered by the Neighbourhood Watch scheme, and encourages residents of streets not yet in the scheme to join;

·                      

·                     (c)        will use The Link and its website to provide additional publicity about the schemes;

·                      

·                     (d)       will publish crime statistics provided by the Crime Reduction Partnership in The Link and on its website.

Chapter 3 

Environment & Development

Introduction

3.1       A large part of Shenley’s attraction for residents lies in its pleasant and peaceful environment. Asked why they had chosen to come to Shenley or decided to remain here, 801 households said that the reason was Shenley’s location, while 772 said that it was because of its proximity to the countryside. Like other organisations such as the Shenley Village Society, the Council will seek to use its influence to maintain Shenley’s favourable environment.

Residential development

3.2       While a large number of households surveyed felt that no further housing was needed in Shenley (551), some felt that any additional housing should be aimed at those be least able to afford to buy their own homes – younger and older people. A significant number suggested that any additional housing should be made available to older people, in the form of rental (174) or shared ownership housing (80), as well as sheltered accommodation for rent (176) or shared ownership (69). There was also sympathy for the needs of young people. A significant number wanted young people to benefit from any additional housing, with opinions as to the appropriate form of tenure split fairly evenly between rental (124), sale (122) and shared ownership (116). Those who felt that the needs of families should also be considered favoured housing for sale (154) rather than rental (82) or shared ownership (74).

‘No more houses please, this is a village, not a town’ – Shenley resident

3.3       Since the redevelopment of the hospital site and adjacent greenfield agricultural land, Shenley’s housing stock has more than doubled in size. This represents a substantial contribution to the housing needs of the south east of England, and has used most if not all of the available brownfield sites in Shenley. In addition, it has placed an understandable strain on the community and its facilities. Shenley now needs a period of stability, in order to consolidate the community, and to address the remaining deficiencies in community facilities.

3.4       Against this background, the Council considers that there should be no further significant housing developments in Shenley, and that any further residential development or redevelopment should:

(a)        be restricted to brownfield and infill sites. The Council does not wish to see any development of any further greenfield sites in the vicinity of Shenley;

  (b)       be very limited in scale, given the significant impact upon Shenley of the redevelopment of the old hospital;

(c)        reflect the character of neighbouring development; and

(d)       aim to meet the needs of smaller, middle and lower income households, in order to provide opportunities for the children of residents to form new households, and for older people to move to more manageable housing.

Commercial development

3.5       Commercial development is currently concentrated in two areas:

·         on London Road in the south east of the village (the White Horse pub & restaurant, the garage and second-hand car dealership, the post office and general stores, the garden nursery and the bonsai tree nursery); and

·         around the junction between London Road and Porters Park Drive between the south eastern and north western parts of the village (the Black Lion pub and restaurant, glassworks, private dentist, private nursery, and shops).

3.6       The Council considers that any further commercial development or redevelopment should:

 (a)        be concentrated in the two main existing areas of commercial development;

 (b)       be limited to small and medium-sized enterprises, in order to maximise employment opportunities for residents, rather than drawing in significant numbers of commuters;

(c)        be unlikely to generate significant additional traffic to, from or through the village; and

(d)       have a small-scale footprint and mass, consistent with the scale of other buildings within the village.

Mobile telecommunication masts

3.7       The issue of mobile telecommunication masts presents a dilemma for communities like Shenley. Most residents use mobile telephones, and see them as important for keeping in contact with friends, family and work. But none of us want a telecommunication mast in our back garden, or even within sight of the house. And despite Government-sponsored studies that indicate a very low level of risk from masts (far less than the risk created by radiation from the use of handsets), many people have more than lingering doubts about the long-term risks to our health of these masts. 58% of residents who responded to the Survey professed to be concerned about the erection of masts in Shenley, as against 24% who were not. Of those who were concerned, 26% were mainly worried about the health implications, 4% had environmental concerns, and 32% had worries on both scores.

3.8       Yet the likelihood is that there will have to be more such masts in future, particularly as mobile phone subscribers switch to so-called 3G (Third Generation) phones, capable of transmitting video and data as well as speech. The size of 3G ‘cells’ (the area covered by a transmitter) gets smaller as the number of subscribers using phone in that area increases, and so the number of transmitters needs to increase. The issue of masts was given a thorough public airing in Shenley during the debate in 2004 about whether the temporary mast at Green Street should be allowed to become permanent. While the feeling of residents near the mast was decidedly against this, public feeling generally (so far as it was possible for the Council to gauge) was even more opposed to the perceived alternative of more numerous smaller masts. At the time of writing, the HBC has turned down the planning application to erect a permanent mast at Green Street, but the mobile telephone companies have appealed against this decision.

3.9       Following extensive discussion and public consultation, the Council has concluded that it should seek to minimise the number of masts in Shenley by encouraging multi-user masts rather than a larger number of single user poles throughout the village. Wherever possible any masts should be sited as far away as possible from residential premises as practicable, and with a view to minimising the environmental impact.

Environmental standards

3.10     Responses to the Survey indicated that residents were broadly content with the standards of street cleaning, refuse collection and the number of litter bins. However, 510 households considered that dog fouling was a problem, and 318 were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the number of dog waste bins in Shenley. Of young people who responded, over 70% cited dog waste as a significant problem. Research indicates that about a half of dog owners (particularly men) are reluctant to pick up dog waste. Many may be unaware of the significant health hazard that dog waste can pose, particularly to young children - in extreme cases, contaminated dog waste has caused permanent blindness[8].

3.11     The Council recognises that both responsible dog owners and other residents are keen to ensure that dog waste does not remain a nuisance. Against this background, the Council:

(a)        has installed four dog waste bins on the recreational ground it manages at Harris Lane, and has arranged for these to be emptied every week;

(b)       will discuss with HBC the siting of additional bins in Shenley to deal with specific problems; and

 (c)        will work with the Shenley Park Trust to promote awareness of the risks that dog waste pose to local residents, and to encourage the use of the dog waste bins.

3.12     If this fails to yield results, the Parish Council will consult with HBC about the making of bye-laws that would make failure to remove dog waste on designated land an offence punishable by a fine of up to £500, and if necessary, will make the bye-laws itself[9]. 

Recycling and refuse disposal

3.13     Responses to the Survey indicated that residents were generally content with the arrangements for refuse collection. 669 households were satisfied or very satisfied, as against only 199 who were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. However, there was interest in greater opportunities for recycling. At present, most of the refuse collected in Hertsmere is buried in landfill sites, and is not recycled. A very high proportion of residents (73%) say that they make regular (39%) or occasional use (34%) of recycling facilities. A high proportion of Shenley residents say that they would recycle material such as cardboard, garden waste, plastic, metal and glass if more household collections were made and if more receptacles were made available. For example, 1055 households said that they would always, mostly or sometimes recycle cardboard if facilities were made available. The Council notes that facilities are available for individuals to recycle their refuse at Allum Lane, but set against the environmental impact of frequent car journeys to this facility, the benefits must be somewhat limited. In any case, this is not a convenient means of recycling for most people.

3.14     Against this background, the Council:

(a)        welcomes the move by HBC to provide bins for recycling garden waste, and urges the Council to provide recycling facilities for other materials;

(b)       suggests that, given the lack of space outside many houses in Shenley, that HBC give serious consideration to using commercially available stacked or segregated bins, which take up less space;

(c)        urges HBC to resume the collection of plastic waste from Andrews Close which was suspended in mid-2004; and

 (d)       would be prepared to make available land near the Green Street allotments for an additional recycling collection facility to serve the south-east end of Shenley provided that practical considerations such as safe access can be addressed.

Chapter 4 

Traffic & Transport

Introduction

4.1       Mobility is an essential feature of modern life - for employment, for access to leisure, medical and educational facilities, and for keeping in touch with friends and family. Shenley’s location gives it many advantages – it is well-connected to Britain’s main road and rail networks – the M25, A1(M) and M1 are all within a few miles of the village, and the rail network can be reached by the train station at Radlett, which lies a couple of miles away on the Thameslink / Midland Mainline routes. In consequence, Shenley is popular with commuters. Indeed, 310 households cited ease of communications as a reason for living in Shenley in their response to the Survey.

4.2       But mobility is not without disadvantages. It leads to significant traffic which creates hazards for road users, and disadvantages for the minority (often the young and the old) which does not have ready access to a car. Public transport is mediocre at best and (despite the largely unfunded aspirations of central and local Government) seems to be getting slowly worse.

Road safety & traffic management

4.3       Shenley’s excellent connections – it is close to the M25, the M1 and the A1 - are both an advantage and a disadvantage. Several thousand cars a day pass along London Road, which is often used as a ‘rat run’ by drivers travelling between North London and the M25. Partly in response to this, and to the extra traffic expected from the development at Porters’ Park, a series of traffic-calming humps was installed along London Road in the older part of the village. While these have reduced speeds on that section of London Road, they do not appear to have affected the speed of traffic on the approaches to the village. Speeding traffic was the most frequently cited problem - 70% of households saw it as a problem, a view endorsed by similar proportion of young people responding to the Survey. Despite this, opinion on what should be done was divided – most households understandably see both the benefits and disadvantages of traffic, since most have the use of one or more cars.

“Speeding traffic on Porters Park Drive and Radlett Lane is a problem that will lead to a serious accident at some point.  Needs urgent attention.” – Shenley resident

4.4       Given that the existing speed humps already pose a problem for ambulances and other emergency vehicles serving Shenley, the Council does not consider that further speed humps would be appropriate. Nor does it consider that reduced speed limits would necessarily help much, given that existing speed limits are ignored by some motorists. Neither does the Council consider that additional or repainted road markings would have much impact on driver behaviour.

4.5       However, it does consider that some traffic calming measures are necessary, particularly on approach roads. To this end, it has helped to convene the Shenley Travel Plan Working Group, which is discussing with Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) what measures would be appropriate. Without wishing to pre-empt the outcome of this dialogue, the Council attaches particular priority to traffic calming measures on Green Street and Porters’ Park Drive. As some drivers appear to ignore speed limits, road markings and warning signs, the Council favours physical traffic calming measures in these locations, such as the one-way priority system on the approaches to South Mimms. Regrettably, from the initial discussions that the Working Group has had with the HCC, it seems unlikely that HCC will give any priority to these measures.

“Double yellow lines in London Road especially opposite the school and someone to enforce it.  A fatal accident is waiting to happen.” – Shenley resident

4.6              Residents expressed significant concerns at the congestion caused by parking outside Shenley Primary School at the beginning and end of the school day. The Council acknowledges that inconsiderate parking and standing to drop children off and pick them up does have the effect of creating congestion – though it might also help to reduce speeds along London Road, and discourage drivers from using it as a through-route. Responsibility for dealing with parking offences rests with the Police (unlike controlled parking zones such as Borehamwood, where it is the responsibility of HBC). However, only police officers have powers to enforce traffic legislation, not Police Community Support Officers (they are not designated traffic officers, although there are proposals to change this). 

4.7       In order to promote road safety and reduce congestion, the Council:

(a)               will work with the Shenley Travel Plan Working Group to promote the introduction of physical traffic calming within the parish, particularly on approach roads to Shenley;

(b)               will encourage Shenley Primary School to renew the attempt to establish ‘walking buses’ to and from the school;

(c)               will ask the Highways Authority to consider marking double yellow lines on the street-side opposite the school;

(d)               will publicise the School’s ‘drive and drop’ scheme, and encourage parents to use this if walking to school is not an option; and

(e)               will ask Hertfordshire Police to task the police with regular visits to the vicinity of the school during pick-up and drop-off times.  

Public transport

4.8       Buses are the only form of public transport available within Shenley, and are vital to those without access to a car. There are three bus services that serve the village operated by Universitybus. Two of the services run from Hatfield Business Park to Watford Town Centre and the third from Hatfield Business Park to Borehamwood.  However the services provided do not service all parts of the village and it is necessary for older and disabled people and parents with young children to walk distances that some of them might find difficult due to health difficulties or heavy shopping. Services to Borehamwood do not start until 0830 in the morning, so commuters who use that station have to find alternative means of transport. 

4.9       Of individuals in households responding to the Survey, 233 used buses as their main means of transport, as against 1097 who used private cars as their main source of transport. Young people are the largest demographic group using public transport – of 160 travelling each day to school, college or work, about a hundred travel by some form of transport other than a private car - school bus (40), public bus (34), train (9), walking (9) or cycling (11).

4.10     Although many residents use private cars, some are also interested in using bus services, particularly if they can be improved. 26% of households said that they would use a shuttle bus to commute, while others were interested in links to local shopping centres. A significant number of households surveyed sought improvements in bus services, with the highest number seeking an increase in frequencies (38%). Many wanted better timetabling (28%), more routes (23%) and improved reliability (26%), while cost (20%) and accessibility (14%) were also concerns.

‘We need some kind of transport for commuters, to tie in with train times during the rush hours’  - Shenley resident

4.11     Both central and local Government would like us to use buses more, and cars less. In accordance with Government policy, HCC has produced a Local Travel Plan which set outs strategic objectives within each area. For Hertsmere (which includes Shenley), these include reducing the length and number of motorised journeys, encouraging alternative means of travel which have less environmental impact, and reducing reliance on the private car. To this end, HCC has a modest budget for subsidising bus services, instituting traffic calming measures, encouraging walk to school schemes and so on.

4.12     But the actual impact of the current travel plan (which has been running since 2001) is difficult to discern. There has been no apparent increase in the frequency and reliability of bus services to and from Shenley in recent years; indeed, there appears to have been some deterioration with the withdrawal of one bus operator (Sovereign). Anecdotal evidence would appear to indicate that, if anything, the number of motorised journeys is increasing, and with it, reliance upon the private car. This is scarcely surprising. For commuters, bus services are not sufficiently frequent and are not co-ordinated with train departures and arrivals, and in any case, are not sufficiently reliable. For longer journeys, journey times are unattractive by comparison with the car.

4.13     Although the HCC is preparing a new travel plan to cover the period from 2006-07 to 2010-11, and has invited the Parish Council and the community to contribute their views, it is clear that the County Council does not have the resources to fund improvements to local bus services. Without these, there is little prospect that car usage will be contained within present levels, let alone reduced. The Council therefore urges the HCC to seek additional resources so that they can make some progress towards achieving their strategic objectives.  

4.14     Against this background, the Council:

(a)        concludes, with regret, that although both central and local Government encourage people to use public transport rather than their cars, they will not take concrete measures in the near future to improve bus services so that they provide a realistic alternative to private cars;

(b)       nonetheless urges the HCC to seek additional resources in order that it can improve the reliability and frequency of bus services, particularly at peak times;

(c)        will support efforts by the Shenley Travel Plan Working Group to explore with the HCC practicable measures to promote the use of public transport;

(d)       in the meantime, advises local residents to keep their cars well maintained; and

(e)       encourages neighbours to establish car pooling arrangements (e.g. for predictable journeys to and from rail stations) so as to reduce costs, pollution and congestion.

4.15     Many Shenley residents make use of the Thameslink services between Radlett, Borehamwood and London both for work and leisure. Nearly 400 households have at least one member who commutes to work by rail, most from Radlett, but some from Borehamwood. Many also use the train for shopping and leisure trips. In consequence, the rail network is an important facility for Shenley residents.

4.16     While the performance (time-keeping) and reliability (whether services operate or not) of Thameslink services have only declined slowly, the potential improvements that were identified in the central Government’s ten year rail strategy in1997 (such as new rolling stock) have been shunted into a siding. In particular, the Thameslink 2000 project for upgrading rail services to and from London appears to be in the deep freezer, despite the funding that was provided by central Government to Railtrack for this purpose. Although the project continues its glacial progress through the planning process, it seems doubtful that the Government will be able to find money to carry it out. This despite the fact that, unlike most train operators, Thameslink pays a significant sum to the Government each year, so its passengers help to subsidise other less commercially successful parts of the rail network.

4.17     In any case, the Council considers that the original project was flawed, in that it failed to provide for a twelve-car station at Radlett, and therefore condemned passengers using that station to service frequencies that would be no better (and possibly worse) than at present, since twelve-car services would not be permitted to call at Radlett.  By contrast, there are plans to lengthen the platforms at both St. Albans and Borehamwood to accommodate twelve-car trains.

4.18     The Council will join other local authorities in lobbying the Department of Transport to reverse this decision, and to bring forward plans to upgrade the Thameslink line. The Council considers that, unless this is done, congestion on services between Radlett and London will continue, and that some commuters will choose to drive further to connect with rail services at St. Albans or Underground stations at High Barnet or Stanmore, thus contributing to peak-time traffic congestion.

4.19     But Shenley residents should not expect miracles – so much money has been spent to so little effect on the railways in recent years, that it is doubtful that the Government can afford to make good on the original Thameslink 2000 plans for many years to come, let alone make the changes to those plans that the Council considers prudent.

Appendix 1

Action Plan