Example Letter - 2
Important: Avoid copying messages word-for-word. Identical submissions will only be counted once.
For example, if 20 people send the same text, it will still be treated as a single response.
To make sure your perspective is recognised, take a moment to personalise your message. Explain how this issue has affected you or your household, describe its impact on your daily routine, and share your thoughts on the risks of Asphalt production so close to homes, schools, and sensitive wildlife habitats.
Your individual story carries weight, so ensure it comes through clearly in your response.
Example Email/Letter to - Hertfordshire County Council Spatial Planning department spatialplanning@hertfordshire.gov.uk
Dear Planning Officer,
I am writing to object to the inclusion of the mobile asphalt plant within the planning application (PL/0112/19).
The impacts of this operation have already been felt widely across the community, and the evidence shows that this is not an appropriate use for this location.
The most immediate concern is the spread of strong fumes and odours far beyond the site boundary. These emissions are regularly detected along well‑used public routes such as the Cole Green Way, Rolls Wood, and Moneyhole Playing Fields. These are places relied upon by families, walkers, cyclists, and children, yet the air quality has noticeably deteriorated since the asphalt plant began operating.
Noise is another major issue. Early‑morning activity has repeatedly disturbed residents, with operations often starting from Monday to Saturday before 7:30am. This has affected sleep, work, and general wellbeing.
The level and frequency of disturbance are incompatible with a site so close to homes and primary schools.
It is also clear that the asphalt plant represents a significant change from the original 2019 proposal. Residents were never consulted on asphalt production, and the impacts associated with it; emissions, odour, noise, and increased HGV movements are far greater than those of an inert waste recycling operation. This is not a minor amendment but a fundamentally different industrial activity that requires full and transparent public consultation.
Planning policy provides further grounds for refusal. The National Planning Policy Framework requires development to protect health, residential amenity, and the natural environment. Local and Waste Plan policies also state that noise, odour, dust, and disturbance must not harm nearby communities. The asphalt plant clearly conflicts with these principles.
Additionally, the operator’s history of breaching permitted hours raises serious concerns about future compliance. Persistent non‑compliance is a material consideration and should weigh heavily against granting permission for an intensified or expanded operation.
The level of public concern is substantial. Hundreds of residents have submitted objections and petition responses, all highlighting the same issues: unacceptable noise, harmful fumes, and the loss of enjoyment of local green spaces. These are not isolated complaints but a consistent pattern of harm.
Given the clear evidence of environmental impact, the incompatibility of the use with its surroundings, and the strong conflict with planning policy, I respectfully request that planning permission for the asphalt plant is refused.
Yours faithfully,