08/04/2026

When the System Fails to Check the Facts, Public Health Falls Apart

The BP Mitchell asphalt plant issue has become a clear example of what happens when different parts of the system all make mistakes at the same time. This has turned into a chain of wrong permits, wrong assumptions, and missing checks.

And the most worrying part is this:
Hertfordshire County Council’s Public Health team based their advice on information that wasn’t true.

​

Public Health Assessed the Wrong Thing

Public Health made two major errors:

 

They believed the plant would be inside a permanent building.
It won’t be.
 

There is no building, no enclosure, no acoustic housing, no filtration system; nothing that would reduce noise or emissions.

 

They also assumed the plant had the correct Environmental Permit.
It doesn’t.
The plant is operating under a mobile permit; the type used for equipment that moves from site to site. But an FOI request confirmed the plant has:

​

• never moved

• never been notified for movement

• never operated anywhere else

 

Public Health assessed a cleaner, safer, more controlled plant than the one that actually exists. That means their advice to decision‑makers is based on the wrong starting point.

​​​

The Permit Failure Is Serious

A mobile permit avoids the strict environmental tests required for a permanent industrial plant. If the correct permit had been used, the operator would have needed:

 

• full air‑quality modelling

• odour and fume assessments

• stack height calculations

• proper emissions controls

• public consultation

• planning permission from day one

​

None of this happened.

By issuing the wrong permit, East Herts Environmental Health has created a situation where both they and Hertfordshire County Council are now scrambling to work backwards and defend a process that never aligned with the facts.

​

Planning Policies Were Not Properly Applied

Several important planning rules were overlooked:

 

• The National Planning Policy Framework requires planning authorities to prevent both new and existing communities from being exposed to unacceptable levels of pollution - a test this asphalt plant cannot meet.

• Cumulative impacts (noise, traffic, emissions) must be assessed.

• Local policies require protection of residential amenity.

 

The 2,650‑home Birchall Garden Suburb would sit just 150 metres from the asphalt plant, current affected residents over 650 metres away, and yet we find key assessments are still missing.

 

A System That Didn’t Catch Its Own Mistakes

When:
 

• the permit is wrong

• the health advice is wrong

• the planning tests are incomplete

• and the obvious conflict with future housing is ignored

 

.....the public is left unprotected.

This isn’t about blaming individuals. It’s about recognising that the system didn’t correct itself when it should have. The FOI disclosure didn’t just reveal a technical detail; it exposed a chain of errors that now affects thousands of current and future residents.

If the authorities want to rebuild trust, they need to go back to the beginning, look at the facts again, and assess the plant based on what it really is - not what was assumed.

 

Because when regulators get the basics wrong, it’s communities who feel the impact.

26/03/2026

FOI Bombshell: Council Confirms BP Mitchell’s “Mobile” Asphalt Plant Has Never Moved

A new Freedom of Information (FOI) response from East Herts District Council has revealed something extraordinary and deeply troubling about BP Mitchell’s asphalt plant at Birchall Lane.

Despite having an Environmental Permit for a “mobile” asphalt plant, the operator has never once notified the council of moving it, never sought approval for a new site, and never demonstrated that the plant has been used as mobile equipment at all.

This matters far more than it sounds.

 

It goes to the heart of whether the plant is being operated lawfully, whether the correct Environmental Permit was issued, and whether the current planning application is based on a false premise.

​

What the FOI Asked

The request focused on Conditions 34 and 35 of the Environmental Permit EP/2023/00003, which require:​

 

• 14‑day advance notice before moving the mobile plant, and

• written approval from the council before operating at a new site.

​

These conditions only apply to mobile plant - equipment that moves from contract to contract.

 

The FOI asked:

​

• How many times the plant has been moved?

• How many notifications were submitted?

• Whether any approvals were issued?

• Whether any breaches were recorded?

​​​

What the East Herts County Council Said

The council’s response was blunt:

​

• Notifications received: None

• Approvals issued: None

• Recorded moves: None

• Recorded breaches: None

• Enforcement action: None

 

In other words:

**There is no evidence the plant has ever moved.

There is no evidence the operator has ever treated it as mobile.
There is no evidence the council has ever regulated it as mobile.**
 

This is a major revelation.

​

Why This Is a Serious Problem

A “mobile” asphalt plant that never moves is not mobile.

 

It is a permanent industrial installation.

​

And permanent asphalt plants require:

• a completely different type of Environmental Permit

• full air‑quality modelling

• odour and fume assessment

• noise impact assessment

• stack height calculations

• public consultation

• planning permission

​

None of that has happened here.

 

Instead, it would appear that the operator has been running a permanent asphalt plant under a mobile plant permit, which avoids all of the above requirements.

​

A mobile plant permit is only appropriate for equipment that is moved between contract sites and operates temporarily at a single location.

 

This raises serious questions about:

• regulatory oversight

• permit suitability

• planning compliance

• public health protection

 

Why This Undermines the Planning Application

The current planning application claims:

 

“The asphalt plant is mobile and does not require planning permission.”
 

But the FOI response shows:

• the plant has never been moved

• no moves have ever been notified

• no moves have ever been approved

• the council has no record of it operating anywhere else

 

This means the central justification for avoiding planning permission is factually unsupported.

If the plant is permanent, then:

• it does require planning permission

• the application description is misleading

• the County Council cannot lawfully determine the application as written

• the operator may have been operating without proper planning control

 

This is exactly the kind of issue that forces councils to pause, seek legal advice, or refuse an application outright.

​

Why This Matters for Residents

A permanent asphalt plant brings:

• continuous noise

• odour and fumes

• diesel emissions

• dust

• HGV movements

 

These impacts should have been assessed when the asphalt plant was first installed into it's current location, but weren’t, because the plant was treated as “mobile”.

Residents have effectively been living next to a permanent industrial operation that was never assessed as one.​

​

What Happens Now

This FOI response is a turning point.

It raises fundamental questions about:

​

• whether the correct permit was issued?

• whether the plant is operating lawfully?

• whether enforcement action is required?

• whether the planning application is valid?

 

Speak Up WGC will continue to follow this closely and will publish further updates as more information emerges.

16/03/2026

Hertingfordbury Parish Council Joins Growing Opposition to BP Mitchell Expansion

Hertingfordbury Parish Council has become the latest authority to formally object to BP Mitchell’s proposed expansion at Birchall Lane, adding yet another authoritative voice to the rising concerns over air quality, public health and industrial intensification along the Cole Green corridor.

​

Air Quality and Public Health at the Centre of Their Concerns

The Parish Council warns that the introduction of a concrete batching plant and mobile asphalt plant will release a cocktail of pollutants, including:

 

• PM2.5 and PM10

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

• Dust, odour and combustion by‑products

• Increased diesel emissions from HGVs

 

They highlight that these pollutants are linked to serious health impacts, particularly for vulnerable groups; and that the application fails to demonstrate how these risks will be mitigated.

This aligns closely with the concerns raised by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council, the Birchall Garden Suburb developers and local residents.

​​

Traffic and HGV Movements: A Missing Cumulative Assessment

The Parish Council also points to the likely surge in:​

​

• aggregate deliveries

• bitumen tankers

• waste imports

• outbound asphalt and concrete loads

• on‑site vehicle activity

 

They note that no cumulative traffic or air‑quality assessment has been provided, despite the clear increase in HGV movements. This omission is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which requires evidence‑based decision‑making.

​

Industrial Intensification in the Wrong Place

Hertingfordbury Parish Council emphasises that the site sits close to:

 

• residential communities

• public rights of way

• Green Belt land

• ecologically sensitive areas

 

They argue that an asphalt plant is a heavy industrial use, typically found in established industrial zones, not in rural or semi‑rural settings like Cole Green.

They cite several NPPF policies that the proposal conflicts with, including:

 

Para 130 - developments must be sympathetic to local character
Para 180 - protect biodiversity and habitats
Para 185 - prevent harm to health and quality of life

 

Their conclusion is clear: the proposal is incompatible with the area’s character and environmental sensitivity.

 

A Growing Consensus - Except at East Herts District Council

With this objection, Hertingfordbury Parish Council joins:
 

• Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

• Birchall Garden Suburb developers (Tarmac & BGS LLP)

• local residents and community groups

 

…all of whom have raised serious concerns about the application’s environmental, health and amenity impacts.
 

The only outlier remains East Herts District Council, whose one‑line response of “no comments… no objection” now looks increasingly isolated.

​

A Clear Call for Refusal

Hertingfordbury Parish Council concludes by urging Hertfordshire County Council to refuse the application, citing:

 

• unacceptable risks to air quality and public health

• significant industrial intensification in an unsuitable location

• non‑compliance with national planning policy

 

Their objection adds further weight to the growing argument that the BP Mitchell expansion is not appropriate for this sensitive part of the Cole Green corridor.

08/03/2026

Birchall Garden Suburb Developers Issue Strong Warning Over BP Mitchell Asphalt Plant Plans

The developers behind the future Birchall Garden Suburb (BGS), a major scheme proposing 2,650 homes and three new schools, have issued a powerful objection to BP Mitchell’s plans to expand operations at Birchall Lane, including the controversial mobile asphalt plant.

In a detailed letter to Hertfordshire County Council, David Lock Associates on behalf of Birchall Gardens LLP and Tarmac Trading Ltd say the application is “wholly insufficient” and should not be approved in its current form.

This is the strongest institutional challenge yet and it comes from the very organisations responsible for delivering the new Garden Suburb.

 

“Future residents must be protected”

The developers warn that the BP Mitchell site sits close to the centre of the planned Garden Suburb. Both Local Plans (East Herts and Welwyn Hatfield) require that noise, dust and other impacts from the waste site must be properly mitigated to allow new homes and schools to be built safely.

 

But according to the BGS team, the updated BP Mitchell application fails to assess:

• noise impacts

• fumes and odour

• air quality

• effects on future residents

• effects on school sites

​

They highlight that a key section of the air quality report - Appendix C, covering fumes and odour, has been omitted entirely.

​​

Tarmac have brought in their own air‑quality and noise experts

In a move that underlines the seriousness of their concerns, the BGS developers confirm that Tarmac’s own specialist consultants are now reviewing BP Mitchell’s updated noise and air‑quality assessments.

 

These are independent experts with deep experience in:

 

• industrial noise

• low‑frequency noise

• asphalt plant emissions

• odour and fume dispersion

Their findings will be submitted separately, meaning even more technical scrutiny is on the way.

 

This is a clear signal that the developers do not trust the assessments provided by BP Mitchell and believe the impacts may be far greater than the application suggests.

​

Noise not controlled by the Environmental Permit

The developers also point out a major gap:
The Environmental Permit issued by East Herts does not regulate noise from the asphalt plant.

 

This means the planning system must deal with noise, yet the applicant has not provided the necessary assessments.

 

Given the proximity of future homes and schools, they argue this is unacceptable.

 

Is the asphalt plant even allowed here?

One of the most striking points raised by David Lock Associates is that the BP Mitchell site is not allocated for mineral operations in any adopted planning document.
 

This matters because:
 

• Asphalt production is legally classed as a mineral operation, not a waste activity.

• The site is only allocated for waste uses in the adopted 2014 Waste Site Allocations Plan.

• Mineral operations are not permitted under the current allocation.

 

BP Mitchell’s planning statement leans heavily on the Draft Minerals & Waste Local Plan (MWLP), which proposes allocating the site for both waste and minerals. But the developers point out that this draft plan:

 

• was published in draft form back in 2022

• has not progressed to examination

• has no timetable for adoption

• has an uncertain future

• carries very little weight in planning decisions

In plain terms:

A draft plan that may never be adopted cannot be used to justify a mineral operation today.

This means the asphalt plant, as a mineral activity, is not supported by the current planning framework, and the County Council cannot rely on the draft plan to approve it.

​

The developers argue that this is a fundamental policy conflict that must be addressed before any decision is made.

​

Call for legal advice and possible Environmental Impact Assessment

The letter urges the County Council to seek legal advice on:

​

• what parts of the asphalt plant and its infrastructure actually require planning permission

• whether the intensification triggers the need for a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

​

They note that the applicant has not referenced EIA screening at all, despite the potential for significant environmental effects.

​

Backing WHBC’s concerns about missing plans and unauthorised hardstanding

The developers also support Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council’s earlier criticisms, including:

​

• missing elevations and floor plans for new buildings

• extensive hardstanding appearing on land meant for landscaping

• inconsistencies and omissions in the submitted documents

 

They urge the County Council to probe these issues thoroughly.

​​

Their conclusion is clear

“The application is wholly insufficient… and should not be approved in its current form.”

​​

If the County Council does consider approving it, they insist that:

    

• existing conditions must not be weakened

• new conditions must fully protect future residents

• planning controls must complement the Environmental Permit

 

This is a direct warning that the Garden Suburb, a major strategic development, could be compromised if the asphalt plant is permitted.

06/03/2026

New Noise Readings Raise Serious Concerns for Birchall Garden Suburb

Fresh sound measurements taken near the BP Mitchell asphalt plant have revealed noise levels far higher than anything normally considered acceptable for residential living. 

​

A recent reading taken 200 metres from the plant recorded 75–82 dB(C) outdoors; levels comparable to a construction site or a heavy diesel truck passing close by. These are not the sounds of a peaceful neighbourhood; they are the unmistakable signature of a large industrial operation running at full power.

The proposed Birchall Garden Suburb places its closest homes just 150 metres from this plant. At that distance, noise levels would barely reduce at all. In fact, low‑frequency industrial noise, the deep rumble produced by burners, dryers and conveyors, travels long distances with very little drop‑off. This means future residents would likely experience the same intrusive noise, not just outside but inside their homes, even with windows closed.

National planning guidance is clear: new housing must not expose people to significant adverse noise impacts. Yet the readings now shows that the Birchall site would do exactly that. With noise levels exceeding recognised health‑based limits by 20–30 decibels, the question practically asks itself: how can homes be approved in a location where industrial noise already overwhelms the environment?

As things stand, the sound data suggests Birchall Garden Suburb is simply not a suitable place for families to live while the asphalt plant continues operating in its current form.

​

(note: measurements were limited to five minutes because the fumes from the asphalt plant were overwhelming, and we did not want to remain exposed for longer than necessary)

​

Click here for the raw data

02/03/2026

Noise Evidence - Real Measurements from a Welwyn Garden City Home

Over three consecutive days in February 2026, we carried out indoor sound measurements from a home approximately 650 metres from the plant.

 

The results show a clear, repeatable pattern:

 

The asphalt plant is generating intrusive low‑frequency noise that penetrates the building envelope and raises indoor noise levels by 10–15 dB(A) every time it operates.

​

Click here to read more

26/02/2026

Public Health Response Based on Incorrect Assumption About “Permanent Structure” for Asphalt Plant

A recent consultation response from Hertfordshire County Council Public Health has raised concerns about the accuracy of information being used to assess BP Mitchell’s amended planning application at Birchall Lane.

In its letter of 20 February 2026, Public Health states that it supports relocating the asphalt plant further from nearby homes. However, the response also claims that the proposal involves:

​

“relocating the asphalt plant within the existing site and building a permanent structure for it…”

 

This statement does not match the applicant’s own submission.

 

No permanent structure is proposed.

Iceni Projects, acting for BP Mitchell, confirmed in its 19 December 2025 letter that the asphalt plant remains a mobile unit. The only fixed elements are the existing storage bays and tented covers:

​

“given the permanent nature of its supporting infrastructure, including its storage bays and tented roofs.”

​​

The revised plans do not show any new building, enclosure or permanent housing for the asphalt plant. The only change is its relocation “to the south of its existing location”.

​

Shortfalls and inconsistencies in the noise and air quality assessments.

The updated Noise Assessment and Air Quality Assessment submitted by the applicant contain several notable gaps.

 

Both rely heavily on modelled data rather than real‑world measurements of the asphalt plant in operation.

 

For example, the noise report states that source levels for the asphalt plant were “assumed based on similar items of plant” and that the existing site noise was “noted” rather than measured at residential locations.

 

The air quality report similarly relies on the earlier permit modelling and concludes that impacts are “insignificant” because receptors are more than 350m away, despite not taking any actual measurements of emissions, odour or particulates from the plant in its current operating position.

 

These omissions raise an important question: if the asphalt plant has been operating since December 2024, why were no real measurements taken to verify the modelled assumptions? Without empirical data, the assessments cannot reliably reflect the true impacts experienced by residents.

​​​

Why the misunderstanding matters.

Public Health’s support appears to rely partly on the belief that the asphalt plant will be enclosed within a new structure. A permanent building could provide noise reduction, odour containment and better environmental control. If no such structure is being built, these protections will not exist. This risks giving decision‑makers a misleading impression of the plant’s likely impacts and may influence other consultees who assume Public Health’s assessment reflects the actual plans.

​

A consultation response built on a factual error.

The applicant does not propose a permanent structure. Public Health believes one is being built. The plans show no such building.

 

This discrepancy raises important questions about whether consultees are assessing the proposal on the basis of accurate information and whether the planning authority should seek clarification before progressing the application.

20/02/2026

Our Opinion: East Herts District Council Has Put Birchall Garden Suburb at Risk by Overlooking the Asphalt Plant Impacts

In our opinion, East Herts District Council has created a serious and avoidable problem by issuing an Environmental Permit for the BP Mitchell asphalt plant without properly considering what this means for the future Birchall Garden Suburb (BGS).

 

The Council appears to have assessed the plant in isolation, despite the fact that thousands of new homes are planned directly next door.

Residents living 650 metres from the plant already experience intrusive low‑frequency noise, strong odours, fumes, and emissions. Yet the BGS masterplan proposes new homes as close as 150 metres from the same industrial operation. If the impacts are significant at 650 metres, we believe they will be far worse at 150.

 

This raises a fundamental question:
How did East Herts approve this Permit without recognising the obvious conflict with its own flagship housing development???

​

In Our View, the Permit Was Issued Without Understanding the Real Impacts

From what we can see, nothing in the Permit decision demonstrates that East Herts understood:

​

• How loud and intrusive the plant is in real‑world operation

• How far odours and fumes travel beyond the site boundary

• How low‑frequency noise behaves over distance

• How much worse these impacts become when homes are four times closer

 

To us, it appears the Council issued the Permit as if Birchall Garden Suburb did not exist. But BGS is not a vague concept, it is a long‑established strategic allocation and central to the area’s future housing supply.

Ignoring it is, in our opinion, a major oversight.

​​

A Clear Conflict With National Planning Policy

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2024) requires planning decisions to:

 

• Prevent unacceptable noise impacts (para. 187)

• Avoid significant adverse effects on health and quality of life (para. 198)

 

In our view, the asphalt plant already causes significant adverse impacts at over 650 metres. At 150 metres, these effects would be impossible to ignore and impossible to justify under national policy.

By issuing the Permit without at least considering this, East Herts has, in our opinion, created a direct conflict with the NPPF and with its duty to protect future residents.

​

In Our Opinion, the Birchall Garden Suburb Masterplan Is Now at Risk

The success of BGS depends on creating a healthy, high‑quality living environment. But the asphalt plant’s:

​

• Low‑frequency rumble

• Tonal and intermittent noise

• Odour and hazardous emissions

• Early‑morning activity

​​

…are simply not compatible with homes 150 metres away.

 

In our opinion, this puts the entire masterplan at risk. It raises concerns about:​

​

• Viability and deliverability

• Environmental health compliance

• Long‑term quality of life

• The robustness of future Permit decisions

​

And crucially, this is a potential problem created by the Council’s own decision‑making.

​

A New Layer to the Problem: East Herts’ Own Letter Shows a Lack of Awareness

The situation is made even more concerning by East Herts District Council’s formal response to Hertfordshire County Council regarding the planning ammendments for the expansion of the waste and asphalt operations at Birchall Lane.

In that letter, East Herts stated that it had “no comments to make in respect of the planning merits of the proposal and raise no objection to the application.”

The letter also confirms that the proposal includes “a mobile asphalt plant” and other industrial expansions.

 

In our opinion, this demonstrates a striking lack of awareness, or lack of consideration, of the impacts that these operations will have on the future BGS community. The Council did not reference:
 

• The proximity of future homes

• The known issues of noise, odour, and emissions

• The NPPF requirement to avoid significant adverse impacts

• The long‑term deliverability of the BGS masterplan

By raising no objection at all, East Herts has, in our view, reinforced the very planning conflict it created when it issued the asphalt plant Permit. The Council is effectively endorsing industrial intensification in the same location where it expects thousands of people to live.

This, in our opinion, deepens the self‑inflicted nature of the problem.

​​

A Self‑Inflicted Planning Conflict

In our view, East Herts has permitted and supported industrial operations that directly clash with the housing development it is trying to deliver. Instead of coordinating the two, the Council has allowed them to collide.

 

The result is a planning contradiction:

• The asphalt plant cannot operate without causing significant harm

• The BGS homes cannot be built without exposing residents to that harm

 

This is not a community‑created problem.
It is not a developer‑created problem.
It is, in our opinion, a Council‑created problem.

​

Conclusion

In our opinion, East Herts County Council made a serious mistake by issuing the asphalt plant Permit without understanding its operational impacts or the realities of the Birchall Garden Suburb masterplan (or existing residents). The Council’s subsequent “no objection” letter only reinforces the scale of the oversight.

The decision conflicts with national planning policy, undermines public health protections, and places the future of BGS at risk.

We believe this is a problem of the Council’s own making.

​
Today is the last day to object to the planning application - Herts Planning

16/02/2026

Council Raises Concerns Over Asphalt Plant Expansion Near Birchall Garden Suburb

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (WHBC) has issued a detailed response to Hertfordshire County Council highlighting significant concerns over the proposed expansion of the BP Mitchell waste site on Birchall Lane, including the formal addition and relocation of a mobile asphalt plant.

BP Mitchell seeks to intensify operations at the existing inert recycling facility, adding new infrastructure, a concrete batching plant, and a mobile asphalt plant positioned closer to residential areas. While WHBC accepts that the site is already allocated for waste and employment use, the Council warns that the increased scale and nature of activities could have serious implications for local amenity, air quality, noise, and the future delivery of the planned Birchall Garden Suburb.

In its response, WHBC notes that BP Mitchell has failed to provide key information, including details of new buildings shown on revised plans and the apparent creation of large areas of hardstanding that do not appear to have planning permission. The Council states that this lack of clarity makes it difficult to assess the true impact of the proposals.

A central concern is the proximity of the asphalt plant to the 1,950‑home Birchall Garden Suburb development, which includes new schools, neighbourhood centres, and green spaces. WHBC emphasises that any intensification of industrial activity must not undermine the viability of this major strategic housing site. The Council also highlights the need to protect existing Welwyn Garden City residents from increased noise, air pollution, and heavy vehicle movements along the B195.

WHBC’s Public Health and Protection team has already raised issues relating to noise and air quality, and the Council advises that these must be fully addressed before any decision is made.

 

Although the Council does not object to the principle of development, it concludes that the proposed intensification “must be properly considered and mitigated” to avoid harm to the surrounding area, the adjacent Green Belt, and the future Birchall Garden Suburb community.

 

Speak Up WGC will continue to monitor the application and publish updates as the planning process progresses.

​
If you haven't done it already, please click here for how to object to their ammended planning application - Herts Planning

16/02/2026

East Herts Says “No Objection” to the Asphalt Plant

East Herts District Council has surprised many residents by issuing a one‑line response to the BP Mitchell expansion at Birchall Lane.

 

Their official position:

"The Council have no comments to make....and raise no objection"

​

This contrasts sharply with Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council’s detailed response, which raised concerns about missing information, unauthorised hardstanding, pollution risks and the impact on the future Birchall Garden Suburb.

 

So why the difference?
 

The Impacts Fall Mainly on Welwyn Hatfield
Although the site sits in East Herts, the noise, air pollution and HGV traffic will be felt primarily in Welwyn Garden City and in the planned Birchall Garden Suburb immediately north of the site. East Herts’ own communities are largely unaffected.

​

East Herts Already Allocated This Land for Industrial Use
From their perspective, BP Mitchell is an existing waste site. The expansion doesn’t conflict with their Local Plan, so they see no policy reason to object.

​

It’s a County Council Decision
Because Hertfordshire County Council will determine the application, East Herts has taken a minimal consultee role, leaving the detailed scrutiny to WHBC and the County planners.

​

Meanwhile, WHBC Raises Serious Concerns
Welwyn Hatfield warns that the proposal could:

• harm existing WGC residents

• undermine the future Garden Suburb

• increase pollution

• introduce unassessed noise impacts

• include unauthorised development

 

Their response is detailed and cautious - the opposite of East Herts’ silence.

 

What This Means
East Herts’ “no objection” doesn’t mean the impacts aren’t real; only that they don’t fall on their residents. The responsibility now lies with WHBC, the County Council and the community to ensure the proposal is properly scrutinised.

​
If you haven't done it already, please click here for how to object to their ammended planning application - Herts Planning

16/02/2026

Why Has the Asphalt Plant Suddenly Gone Quiet? Residents Notice a Well‑Timed Pause

For many months, the mobile asphalt plant at the BP Mitchell site on Birchall Lane has been running almost daily; bringing noise, odour and heavy vehicle movements to the edge of Welwyn Garden City.

 

But last week, something changed.

 

The plant has suddenly fallen silent.

 

And the timing is raising questions.

​​

A Pause That Coincides With the Consultation Deadline

Comments on BP Mitchell’s plans close on 20 February 2026.

 

Residents report that the plant, previously active almost every day, stopped operating shortly before the final week of the consultation period.

The coincidence is hard to ignore.

​

Why Would Operations Pause Now?

There are several plausible explanations, and while none have been confirmed, the timing aligns with patterns often seen during sensitive planning stages.

 

Pausing the plant during the consultation window would:

• reduce noise and odour - evading any last minute air and noise monitoring

• reduce visible emissions

• reduce HGV traffic

• reduce the number of complaints

• reduce attention on the very impacts residents are being asked to comment on

​

It also means that any site visits by County Council officers would show a quieter, cleaner operation than residents have experienced in recent months.

​

Speak Up WGC will continue to follow this closely and keep residents informed.

If you’ve noticed changes in activity at the site, you can share your observations with us.​

​
If you haven't done it already, please click here for how to object to their ammended planning application - Herts Planning

30/01/2026

Ongoing Violations Highlight BP Mitchell’s Disregard for Planning Rules and The Local Community

BP Mitchell continue to run the asphalt plant in clear breach of the planning conditions that apply to the site, including operating well before the permitted hours.

This means the company is not only operating an asphalt plant without planning permission, but is also failing to comply with conditions governing the rest of their activities on the site, such as their Inert Recycling operations.

 

These repeated breaches highlight an ongoing disregard for local residents and the rules designed to protect them.

 

Unsurprisingly, this behaviour is motivating even more members of our community to submit objections to their planning application.

​
If you haven't done it already, please click here for how to object to their ammended planning application - Herts Planning

16/01/2026

Major Concerns Over Noise & Air‑Quality Assessments

We want to update residents on the latest findings from the planning documents submitted by BP Mitchell and why they raise serious concerns for our community.

No Proper Noise Testing Has Been Done
The applicant has not carried out any direct noise measurements of the asphalt plant currently operating on the site.
Instead, they have reused old data from a previous application and relied on generic figures taken from what we understand is the wrong standard (BS 5228), which is meant for construction sites and not industrial asphalt production.

This means the assessment does not reflect the real noise residents hear every day.

No New Air‑Quality Assessment Either

The air‑quality report includes no new monitoring or modelling for the asphalt plant in either its current or proposed location.

 

The applicant chose not to carry out this assessment because they claimed the plant was not close enough to your homes, children’s schools, or nearby wildlife areas; a conclusion that does not reflect the reality residents experience daily.

​

It simply summarises the applicant’s old permit‑application data, which does not account for:

• current operating levels

• the new plant position

• cumulative impacts with the concrete batching plant

• nearby homes, schools, or ancient woodland

​

There is no assessment of PM2.5, NOx, odour, or emissions at the nearest residential locations, schools or local amenities.

What This Means for Residents

BP Mitchell have failed to clearly assess and document the impact of the daily noise, fumes, and odours affecting our community. Without any reliable, up‑to‑date evidence; even though residents are already experiencing these problems every day.

This strengthens and reinforces the importance of residents submitting objections now to the Spatial Planning Department.

​
If you haven't done it already, please click here - Sign The New Petition

15/01/2026

Consultation Update: What Happens Next?

The consultation on the asphalt plant is still open, and residents are encouraged to continue sending their comments and objections to the Spatial Planning Department.

 

An updated noise and air quality assessment is expected to be added to the application shortly. It’s important to remember that these technical reports offer only a limited picture; numbers and charts cannot fully capture the day‑to‑day impact the asphalt plant has on the community. This is where your emails and letters to the Spatial Planning Department are really important.

Once the new assessments are submitted, the council will launch a minimum 21‑day public consultation. This phase will include:

​

• Environmental Health teams from the relevant local authorities

• All residents who have previously submitted comments or objections

 

Based on current timelines, the consultation is expected to remain open into the beginning of February 2026.

 

Further updates will be shared as soon as the documents are released.

​
If you haven't done it already, please click here - Sign The New Petition

30/12/2025

308 Signatures Challenge BP Mitchell’s Attempt to Bypass Full Planning

As we continue to enjoy cleaner air, birdsong, and a more peaceful local environment during the Asphalt Plant’s inactivity, we wanted to share an important update.

 

We have now submitted 308 petition responses to the Planning Officer at Hertfordshire County Council. These 308 signatures on the first petition call for a full planning application, including proper air and noise assessments and full neighbour consultation.

Despite this, the planning agent representing BP Mitchell is attempting to avoid a full application by simply amending the existing one. We hope that the strength of our 308 voices makes it clear that a full planning process is essential.

 

We also continue to encourage everyone to sign the second petition, which directly objects to the Asphalt Plant itself.

 

Thank you again for your kind support.
Click here - Sign The New Petition

23/12/2025

New Online Petition Launched to Oppose the Amended Asphalt Plant Application

Today we have launched a new online petition to enable local residents to object to the amended planning application for the Asphalt Plant.

​

We encourage you to review and sign the petition to help protect our community, our environment, and public health.

Click here - Sign The New Petition

22/12/2025

Article Reveals Missing Planning Consent - and Missing Photos of the Asphalt Plant

We note with interest an article published today on the Welwyn Hatfield Times website.

 

It is a clear admissision that planning consent had not been applied for to install and operate the Asphalt Plant.

 

Interestingly the article inclues a photograph of the BP Mitchell site (provided by Marengo Communications) but does not show the actual Asphalt Plant machinery!

You can draw your own conclusions.....

Click here for the article - WHTimes

19/12/2025

Fuelling Resident Backlash and Boosting Petition Support

BP Mitchell have recently been operating the site before 07:30 am, which is a clear breach of their planning conditions. The asphalt machinery is also running despite there being no planning permission in place for its operation.

While this is understandably distressing for residents; including, for example, key workers coming off night shifts who are unable to sleep; the early‑morning activity is drawing even more attention to the issue with the noise and emissions.

 

As a result, more residents are noticing the impact and signing the petition. In that sense, the unauthorised and unpermitted operations are significantly strengthening our campaign.

18/12/2025

Toxic Emissions from a Plant Without Permission

The pollution and air quality today are particularly bad by the ongoing operations of the asphalt production plant.

 

The heavy emissions from this site are contributing to the haze and poor air quality across the area, leaving residents exposed to potential and unnecessary health risks (we urge you to discuss any concerns with your G.P).

​

It is unacceptable that a facility operating outside the proper planning process is allowed to degrade local air quality in this way, underscoring the urgent need for enforcement action and protection of community wellbeing.

12/12/2025

Air Quality and Health: What Residents Should Know

Local residents often ask us on the doorstep about the potential health impacts of fumes and particles from the Asphalt Plant.

 

While we cannot provide clinical or medical advice, we strongly recommend that you raise any concerns with your GP or healthcare practitioner, who can offer appropriate guidance.

 

It is also worth noting that when cloud levels are low, they can act like a “blanket,” preventing fumes and particles from dispersing higher into the atmosphere. This is why the smell and fumes can feel particularly strong under these weather conditions.

08/12/2025

Residents Speak Out: 88 Petition Responses Issued to County Council

We have today submitted 88 petition responses to Hertfordshire County Council’s Spatial Planning Department.

 

The petition will remain open, and further responses will continue to be collected and forwarded to the Council.

 

We await their reply with interest.

05/12/2025

Responses to the Online Petiton - Currently at 85

We’ve already received 85 responses to our online petition, which calls for a full and transparent planning application.

We also know that many of you may not have signed this first petition, but are ready to add your names to the second petition once it is launched; this one will directly oppose the Asphalt Plant proposal.

 

Thank you to each and every one of you. You are the ambassadors of this campaign, and we would not have come this far without your energy, determination, and commitment to protecting our neighbourhood, our community, and our environment.

04/12/2025

Rolls Wood Spoiled by Asphalt

"This morning’s walk in Rolls Wood was ruined by the smell of hot asphalt and the noise from the plant nearby.

What used to be a peaceful place to enjoy nature and fresh air has become polluted and unpleasant. Instead of relaxation, the woodland now feels like somewhere to avoid."

02/12/2025

More Frequent Asphalt Production

The Asphalt production machinery has been running more frequently in recent days. 

The noise from the plant has increased and detected before 07:30 am.

01/12/2025
The Online Petition

We want to thank our Campaign Ambassadors (that is all of you) for signing the first Petition that calls for the Asphalt Plant to be subject to the full Planning Application.
​
The response has been extremely positive and we will be soon to submit the Petition responses to Hertfordshire County Council, Welwyn Hatfield and East Herts, to demonstrate the strong local opposition to the Asphalt Plant at the B.P Mitchell site on Birchall Lane, Cole Green.
​
In the meantime we still await for the new Planning Application to be published and will update here when it is available.

26/11/2025
Asphalt Plant Activity

Residents have observed the Asphalt Plant running on scattered days and at irregular times.​
​​​
We are keeping a log of dates and times.

20/11/2025
Marengo Communications:

We have been contacted by a Communications Company "Marengo Communications" working on behalf of B.P Mitchell, with an offer for a meeting "...........to discuss a combination of our proposals and your objection and campaign www.speakupwgc.com"
​​
Our Response:
We provided the following in response:

"At this time, we respectfully decline the offer of a meeting. We do not believe it would be appropriate to engage in private discussions with representatives of the applicant.
​
Our focus remains on ensuring that the community’s concerns are heard through the formal planning process, where all stakeholders have equal access and where decisions are made in the public interest."
 

18/11/2025
The Planning Application

Hertfordshire County Council (Spatial Planning Department) have confirmed that the planning agent, working on behalf of B.P. Mitchell, has agreed to amend the application to include all current site operations, including the asphalt plant.
 
Residents will have an opportunity to comment on the revised proposals once submitted.
 
All updates will be published on the council’s website, and those who have previously submitted representations will be notified directly.
 
Further information will be made available online as it becomes available.
​
Our Comment:
Positives
 

• Acknowledgement of Full Site Operations.

The planning agent’s agreement to amend the application to include all current operations - specifically the asphalt plant - is a significant step toward transparency and procedural compliance. This ensures that the full scope of activities is subject to formal scrutiny.

 

• Opportunity for Public Input.

Residents will have a renewed chance to comment on the revised proposals, allowing community voices to be heard and considered in the decision-making process. This is a critical safeguard in democratic planning.

 

• Commitment to Communication.

The council’s pledge to publish updates online and notify previous respondents directly demonstrates a baseline commitment to procedural fairness and information access.

​

Negatives

 

• ​Unclear Timeline and Scope.

While updates will be published “as they become available,” there is no clear timeframe for submission or review of the revised application. This ambiguity may delay community engagement and prolong uncertainty.

 

• Limited Notification Reach.

Only those who previously submitted representations will be notified directly. This risks excluding newer residents or those unaware of the original application, potentially undermining inclusive consultation.