Shenley Parish Plan

Shenley Parish Plan Shenley Parish Council - May 2005

________________________________________________________________________________

Contents

Chapter Page 1 Executive Summary

- Genesis of the Parish Plan

- Key findings from the Survey

- Parish Plan themes

- Acknowledgements

3

2 Community development

- Community building

- Youth facilities

- Community safety

6

3 Environment & Development

- Introduction

- Residential development

- Commercial development

- Mobile telecommunication masts

- Environmental standards

- Recycling and refuse disposal

13

4 Traffic & Transport

- Road safety & traffic management

- Bus services

- Train services

17

Appendix 1 Action Plan 22 Appendix 2 The Parish Plan process 28 Appendix 3 Shenley in statistics: the 2001 Census 31 Appendix 4 Letter from Stuart Hunter Chairman of the Parish Council 34 Appendix 5 Parish Plan Survey results

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.

Selected survey findings: % of households ….

claiming to use local recycling facilities 75% which see Shenley’s countryside location as a key attraction 72% whose biggest concern is speeding vehicles 65% who want to see a united community 61% very or fairly satisfied with refuse collection 60% claiming that they would use a village website 58% which do not want pay extra tax to supplement the Police presence 57% very or fairly satisfied with the condition of pavements & roads 53% / 50% claiming to be part of an active Neighbourhood Watch scheme 52%

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

Action completed / ongoing Action planned

Community development

Launched village website (www.shenleyvillage.org).

Publicise activities of community groups on the village website and in The Link. Priority – high. Cost – low.

Encourage community groups to keep their contact and other details up to date. Priority – high. Cost – low.

Additional notice board erected, use of third party notice boards agreed.

Explore with local groups such as the Shenley Park Trust the scope for co-organising community-wide activities such as barbeques, concerts and treasure hunts. Priority – medium (summer 2005). Cost – medium.

Maintain funding support

for the Parish Magazine. Priority – medium. Cost – low.

Produce a printed and online directory of businesses, services, facilities and community groups, and distribute to all households. Priority – medium. Cost – medium.

Provide practical and

funding support to groups as appropriate, such as the provision of Harris Lane playing fields for the Shenley Fete. Priority – medium. Cost – low.

Youth facilities Make available football pitches at Harris Lane for use by youth football clubs open to Shenley youngsters (contact details on the village website). Priority – high. Cost – low.

Explore scope for building basketball pitch on land adjacent to Andrews Close. Priority - high. Cost – medium.

Establishment of drama club (contact details on the village website).

Develop an off-road bicycle track on land adjacent to the Green Street, subject to consultation with local residents and allotment plotholders. Priority – medium. Cost – medium / high.

Continue to provide

financial support for existing youth organisations. Priority – medium. Cost – low.

Use website and The Link to help publicise youth activities organised by other bodies. Priority – medium. Cost – low.

Secured opportunity for Shenley youngsters to use the youth club facilities in Radlett run by Aldenham Parish Council.

Convene meeting with young people to discuss youth facilities, when Council’s plans are further advanced. Priority – medium. Cost – low.

Community safety Most streets in Shenley are covered by the Neighbourhood Watch scheme.

Encourage residents of streets not yet in the Neighbourhood Watch scheme to join. Provide contact details on website. Priority – medium. Cost – low.

Publish crime data in The

Link and on the village website. Priority – medium. Cost – low.

Continue to lobby

Hertfordshire Constabulary for a permanent Police presence in Shenley. Priority – high. Cost – low.

Environment & development

•

Residential development

Oppose further residential development in Shenley which is not:

(a) restricted to brownfield and infill sites. The Council does not wish to see any

Seek to have Council’s policy, in whole or part, adopted by HBC as supplementary planning documents. Priority – high. Cost – low.

development of greenfield sites in the vicinity of Shenley;

• (b) very limited in scale, given the significant impact upon Shenley of the redevelopment of the old hospital; • (c) reflective of the character of neighbouring development; and • (d) aimed at meeting 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. • Priority – high. Cost – low.

Commercial development

• Discourage commercial development that: • (a) is outside the two main existing areas of commercial development; • (b) draws in significant numbers of commuters, rather than providing opportunities for employment of residents; • (c) may generate significant additional traffic to, from or through the village; • (d) has a large-scale footprint or mass, and is not consistent with the scale of other buildings in Shenley. • Priority – high. Cost – low.

Seek to have Council’s policy, in whole or part, adopted by HBC as supplementary planning documents. Priority – high. Cost – low.

Telecoms mast • Advised HBC (the planning authority) that Council seeks 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. Masts should be

Monitor applications for planning permission for other telecoms masts, and respond appropriately. Priority – high. Cost – low.

sited as far away as possible from residential premises as practicable, and with a view to minimising the environmental impact. •

Environmental standards

Four dog waste bins installed on the recreational ground at Harris Lane, six provided by Shenley Park Trust in Shenley Park, and others HBC in Shenley.

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 doggy bins. Priority – medium. Cost – low.

Discuss with HBC the

siting of additional bins in Shenley to deal with specific problems. Priority – medium. Cost – low.

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. Priority – low. Cost – high.

Recycling and refuse disposal

• HBC committed to provide bins for recycling garden waste.

Ask HBC to provide facilities for home collection of other recyclable material. Priority – medium. Cost (for HBC) – high.

• Ask HBC to consider using

commercially available stacked or segregated recycling bins, which take up less space outside homes. Priority – medium. Cost (for HBC) – high.

• Urge HBC to resume

collection of plastic waste from Andrews Close facility. Priority – medium.

Cost (for HBC) – medium.

• Offer to make land

available near the Green Street allotments for an additional recycling collection facility, subject to addressing access and other considerations. Priority – low. Cost – medium.

Traffic and transport

•

Road safety and traffic management

• Work with the Shenley Travel Plan Working Group and HCC to promote the introduction of physical traffic calming within the parish, particularly on approach roads to Shenley. Priority – high. Cost – low.

• Encourage Shenley

Primary School to renew the attempt to establish ‘walking buses’ to and from the school. Priority – medium. Cost – low.

Ask the Highways

Authority to consider marking double yellow lines on the street-side opposite the school. Priority – high. Cost (for Hertfordshire Highways) – low.

•

Publicise the School’s ‘drive and drop’ scheme, and encourage parents to use this if walking to school is not an option. Priority – high. Cost – low.

• Ask Hertfordshire Police to

task the police with regular visits to the vicinity of the school during pick-up and drop-off times. Priority –

medium. Cost – medium.

Public transport • Established the

Shenley Travel Plan Working Group in conjunction with the HCC.

Urge the HCC to seek additional resources so that it can improve the reliability and frequency of bus services, particularly at peak times. Priority – medium. Cost (to HCC) – high.

• Work with the Shenley

Travel Plan Working Group and the HCC to identify appropriate measures to promote the use of public transport. Priority – medium. Cost – subject to nature of measures.

•

Encourage residents to establish car pooling arrangements for predictable journeys. Priority – medium. Cost – low.

• Join other local authorities

in lobbying the Department of Transport to reverse the decision not to lengthen the Radlett platform, and to bring forward plans to upgrade the Thameslink line. Priority – high. Cost – low.

Appendix 2

The Parish Plan process We all share our local environment and the facilities and services provided, but as individuals have widely differing needs, expectations, experiences and values, we will not always feel the same way about it. The Parish Council recognises that all views are equally valid, even though sometimes difficult choices have to be made. Involving the whole community in discussion, through the Parish Plan production, will result in healthier decision-making and more sustainable outcomes in the future.

Much thought was given to the ways in which the whole community could be encouraged to participate, and it was recognised that several different methods should be used. Not everyone attends meetings, for example. The main consultation was to be through a household survey, but in order to create an effective questionnaire, it was necessary first to determine the issues that were most important to the village. A chicken and egg situation, if ever there was one!

The Parish Plan project was launched in March 2003, with a presentation given to representatives of all village organisations, groups and local businesses. Those in attendance were urged to raise awareness of the project amongst their members, staff and customers. A brochure was distributed, giving information and encouraging people to send in their ideas of issues to be explored. It was important to get people talking and the document also included a discussion guide to set the ball rolling, although it was emphasised that this is in no way sought to limit the scope of the plan.

Interest and enthusiasm soon began to gather momentum. A small booklet was distributed to every household in the Parish, resulting in offers of help and a flood of comments from residents, by telephone, fax, e-mail, post and via suggestion boxes placed around the village. Articles appeared in the Borehamwood Times, The Link and the Shenley Parish News.

In May 2003, two ‘Drop-in Days’ were held in the Village Hall and the Chapel. All comments received by then were displayed on boards, under appropriate subject headings. Residents were encouraged to add their own thoughts to these on ‘Post-it’ notes. It is not surprising that the more comments were gathered, the more forthcoming people became with their suggestions. These open days also featured games and competitions for children, designed to ascertain their views on aspects of Shenley, a display of artwork by the children of Clore Shalom school, refreshments and a video of residents giving their views on various issues affecting the village. Many teenagers attended these sessions, which was particularly welcome, as there is currently no particular organisation or activity through which to contact this growing section of the community.

Gradually, Shenley’s priorities for action began to emerge.

In June 2003, Shenley’s annual Fete and Carnival marked the end of the initial consultation. The theme of the day was ‘The Parish Plan’, with floats illustrating various aspects of village life. The Parish Plan stand attracted much interest and some valuable offers of assistance were received, some from residents with professional skills and resources to offer.

The sheer volume of comments received, and the number of residents wishing to help, enabled the Working Party to split into groups, each to consider questions for one section of the survey. The groups were fortunate to have the guidance of a resident market researcher, who shared some useful tips and ensured that they did not fall foul of the Data Protection Act.

The Working Party was mindful that any information gathered in response to the questions must have a purpose, since the final Plan should be focussed on action. That said, members were basing questions on popular comments from residents and some issues were raised too frequently to ignore. In certain cases (for example Question 7) it was agreed to include the question and to investigate whether action was possible if the responses deemed it necessary.

The survey booklet included a separate section for young people and a detachable volunteer sheet, enabling residents to offer their help with various village projects – this resulted in over 150 names being collected. Inside the cover was a contact number in case residents needed help to fill out the questionnaire. This appeared in the key community languages (according to the 2001 Census statistics) as well as in large print. As an incentive to return the surveys, prize draws were organised for the main questionnaire and the youth section.

The survey was piloted in August 2003, which resulted in some minor amendments, before the final printing. Delivery to all households took place in January 2004, since it was not considered prudent to circulate the surveys so close to Christmas. Collection was made by hand which resulted in a 74% rate of return. The completed forms were electronically scanned, although a very high degree of manual control was also necessary at this stage. The collated results were then displayed in the Village Hall and posted on the village website, providing some interim feedback to residents, whilst more detailed analysis was undertaken.

Parish Plan time line

Date Event

September 2002 Proposal to produce a Parish Plan agreed by Shenley Parish Council

October 2002

Initial steering group appointed, comprising Paddy Coleman, Bob Dearden, Denise O’Connor, Jackie Reith and Malcolm Williamson (Clerk to the Council)

November 2002

Grant of £3562.50 awarded to Shenley Parish Council by the Countryside Agency

December 2002 Steering group meets January 2003

Steering group meets with Gary Sage of the Community Development Agency for Hertfordshire, to determine a strategy for the Plan production

February 2003

Preparations made for launch meeting, including the production of a PowerPoint presentation and a brochure to distribute

March 2003

Meetings of steering group

Launch of project at Shenley School attended by over 60 representatives of community organisations, County, Borough and Parish Councillors and James Clappison MP

Information booklets printed and delivered to all households

April 2003

Meetings of steering group to plan and publicise ‘Drop-in Days’

Volunteers recruited to assist at these events

Filming/editing of the video May 2003

Two Drop-in Days held to gather residents’ comments

Steering group expands to become ‘Working Party’ with eleven members

June 2003

Meeting of Working Party to organise stand at the Shenley Fete

Volunteers contacted and four Topic Groups established to draft survey questions

July 2003

Topic Groups meet

Meeting of Working Party to discuss the content and design of the survey booklet

August 2003

Meeting of Working Party, volunteers and Shenley teenagers to discuss the content of the youth survey

September 2003

Meetings of Working Party to finalise survey questions, subject to advice on wording by professional helpers

October 2003

Meeting of Working Party

Pilot survey distributed

November 2003

Meeting of Working Party to consider results of pilot

Survey printed December 2003

Working Party agree to delay survey distribution until after Christmas period

January 2004

Meeting of volunteers to discuss procedure for survey distribution and collection

Survey distributed and collected February 2004

Survey booklets individually checked before scanning

Working Party meets March 2004 Data scanning and verification commences April 2004

Meeting of Working Party

Prize Draw winners notified May 2004

Topic Groups reconvene to devise a plan for research and cross referencing of data

June 2004

Collated results received and put on display

Detailed analysis begins August 2004

3 meetings of Working Party to agree a design for the final Plan and to commence writing draft Plan

January 2005 Parish Council appoints Peter Bourton to succeed Jackie Reith as Parish Plan Coordinator, and to draft Plan

February 2005 Parish Council endorses draft Parish Plan March 2005 Parish Council approves final draft of Parish Plan

for publication

Appendix 3

Shenley in statistics: the 2001 Census This material is abstracted from the 2001 Census data published on the website of National Statistics (www.statistics.gov.uk). It is Crown Copyright and is used with permission.

Table 1: Resident Population and Age

The resident population of Shenley, as measured in the 2001 Census, was 5,647 of which 48 per cent were male and 52 per cent were female. The resident population of Hertsmere was 94,450, of which 48 per cent were male and 52 per cent were female.

Resident population (percentage)

Shenley Hertsmere England and Wales Under 16 23.3 20.8 20.2 16 to 19 4.0 4.5 4.9 20 to 29 11.7 11.4 12.6 30 to 59 46.2 42.7 41.5 60 to 74 8.1 12.3 13.3 75 and over 6.6 8.4 7.6 Average age 35.6 38.8 38.6

Source: 2001 Census, ONS

Table 2: Marital Status

Resident population aged 16 and over (percentage)

Shenley Hertsmere England and Wales Single (never married) 27.5 27.9 30.1 Married or re-married 55.2 53.6 50.9 Separated 2.5 2.1 2.4 Divorced 8.0 7.9 8.2 Widowed 6.8 8.5 8.4


Table 3: Ethnic Group


Shenley Hertsmere England White 92.2 92.5 90.9 of which White Irish 2.6 2.2 1.3 Mixed 2.2 1.6 1.3 Asian or Asian British 2.9 3.3 4.6 Indian 1.8 2.4 2.1 Pakistani 0.1 0.2 1.4 Bangladeshi 0.0 0.1 0.6 Other Asian 0.9 0.5 0.5 Black or Black British 1.3 1.4 2.1 Caribbean 0.5 0.4 1.1 African 0.7 0.9 1.0 Other Black 0.1 0.1 0.2 Chinese or Other Ethnic Group 1.4 1.2 0.9


Table 4: Religion


Shenley Hertsmere England and Wales Christian 65.8 63.0 71.8 Buddhist 0.6 0.3 0.3 Hindu 1.4 2.0 1.1 Jewish 10.1 11.3 0.5 Muslim 1.1 1.4 3.0 Sikh 0.4 0.2 0.6 Other religions 0.5 0.5 0.3 No religion 12.5 13.4 14.8 Religion not stated 7.6 7.9 7.7


Table 5: Health and provision of care

The 2001 Census asked people to describe their health, over the preceding 12 months as 'good', 'fairly good' or 'not good'.


Shenley Hertsmere England and Wales Good 76.5 73.2 68.6 Fairly good 18.4 20.2 22.2 Not good 5.0 6.6 9.2


It also asked questions about any limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability which limited peoples daily activities or the work they could do.

Table 6: Long-term illness, health problems or disabilities


Shenley Hertsmere England and Wales

With a limiting long-term illness 12.3 14.7 18.2


For the first time, the 2001 Census asked a question about any voluntary care provided to look after, or give any help or support to family members, friends, neighbours or others because of long term physical or mental ill-health or disability, or problems relating to old age.

Table 7: Unpaid health care


Shenley Hertsmere England and Wales Provided unpaid care 8.2 9.4 10.0


There are two main benefits associated with health that are paid to people needing help with personal care. They are the 'Disability Living Allowance' and the 'Attendance Allowance'.

The Disability Living Allowance is a benefit paid to people under 65, who are disabled, and need help with personal care, and/or getting around. In August 2000, 2,055 people in Hertsmere received this benefit.

Source: Department for Work and Pensions, 2000

The Attendance Allowance is paid to people over the age of 65, who are so severely disabled, physically or mentally, that they need supervision or a great deal of help with personal care. In May 2000, 1,980 people in Hertsmere received this benefit.


Table 8: Economic Activity

Resident population aged 16 to 74 (percentage)


Employed 71.2 66.4 60.6 Unemployed 1.7 2.3 3.4 Economically active full-time students 1.7 2.5 2.6

Retired 8.5 12.0 13.6 Economically inactive students 3.9 4.0 4.7

Looking after home/family 8.4 7.0 6.5 Permanently sick or disabled 2.3 3.2 5.5 Other economically inactive 2.2 2.5 3.1


Within Shenley, 16 per cent of those unemployed were aged 50 and over, 4 per cent had never worked and 23 per cent were long term unemployed.


In August 2000, there were 495 Jobseeker Allowance claimants in Hertsmere of which 41 per cent had child dependants. The Job Seeker Allowance (JSA) is payable to people under pensionable age who are available for, and actively seeking, work of at least 40 hours a week. Figures produced here are those only for people claiming income-based JSA.


In August 2000, there were 4,425 Income Support claimants in Hertsmere, of which 1 per cent were aged under 20. Income support was introduced on April 11th 1988 and can be paid to a person who is aged 16 and over, is not working 16 hours or more a week, and has less money coming in than the law says they need to live on.


Table 9: Students and Qualifications

Students and schoolchildren aged 16 to 74


Total number of full-time students and schoolchildren aged 16 to 74

218 4,196 2,648,992

Percentage of total resident 3.9 4.4 5.1

population Total number aged 16 to 17 98 1,840 1,014,284 Total number aged 18 to 74 120 2,356 1,634,708

Note : Students and schoolchildren were counted at their term-time address. Source: 2001 Census, ONS

Table 10: Degree-level qualifications

Resident population aged 16 to 74 (percentage)


Had no qualifications 18.8 23.6 29.1 Qualified to degree level or higher 28.9 22.6 19.8


Table 11: Housing and Households

In Shenley there were 2,137 households in 2001. 97 per cent of the resident population lived in households. The remainder of the population lived in communal establishments. The number of households in Hertsmere was 37,869.

Number of households (percentage)


One person households 20.0 27.2 30.0 Pensioners living alone 7.6 14.3 14.4 Other All Pensioner households 6.6 10.0 9.4 Contained dependent children 38.7 31.6 29.5 Lone parent households with dependent children 8.0 5.5 6.5

Owner occupied 73.0 75.2 68.9 Rented from Council 1.9 2.1 13.2 Rented from Housing Association or Registered Social Landlord

14.5 14.0 6.0

Private rented or lived rent free 10.6 8.7 11.9 Without central heating 2.1 3.8 8.5 Without sole use of bath, shower or toilet 1.3 0.2 0.5

Have no car or van 11.4 17.6 26.8

Have 2 or more cars or vans 51.9 41.0 29.4 Average household size (number) 2.6 2.4 2.4

Average number of rooms per household 5.9 5.5 5.3


Table 12: Housing types

£'s and number of households (percentage)

Hertsmere England & Wales Average

price Percentage of

households living in this type

of property

Average price

Percentage of households

living in this type of property

Detached .. 21.2 .. 22.8 Semi-detached .. 33.7 .. 31.6

Terraced .. 22.7 .. 26.0 Flat .. 21.7 .. 19.2 All property types

.. ..

Sources: 2001 Census, ONS; The Land Registry, 2001

Area Statistics

Table 13: Levels Of Crime in Hertsmere

Notifiable offences recorded by the police. April 2000 to March2001.

Violence against

the person

Sexual offences

Robbery Burglary from a

dwelling

Theft of a

motor vehicle

Theft from a motor

vehicle Total number of offences recorded, Hertsmere

444 32 51 510 299 1,225

Rate per 1,000 4.5 0.3 0.5 5.2 3.0 12.5

population, Hertsmere Rate per 1,000 population, England and Wales

11.4 0.7 1.8 7.6 6.4 11.9

Source: Home Office, 2001

About this summary

1. This summary brings together data from a number of sources, all of which are available elsewhere within the Neighbourhood Statistics website. More detailed information on these topics and others, is available within the site and can be viewed through a number of ways.

· by subject;

· by a list of areas;

· by using the interactive map.

2. In some cases the data shown in this summary may have been rounded and figures shown may differ slightly from those published elsewhere. Due to rounding of percentages, the addition of categories may not sum to exactly 100 per cent in all cases. It should also be noted that in some cases, different tables may show different counts for the same population, due to disclosure protection measures used to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of information about identifiable individuals. Figures quoted should therefore be used for guidance only.

3. These summary statistics are based on administrative ward boundaries legally in force at the end of 2002, which includes ward boundaries that became operative in a number of Local Authorities in May 2003, and some others that will become operative in May 2004.

4. The symbol ".." is used to indicate that the value is not available.

Copyright

This material is Crown Copyright. Shenley Parish Council has obtained a Click-Use Licence from HMSO for the purposes of reproducing this information in its Parish Plan, and on its website.

Appendix 4

Letter from Stuart Hunter, Chairman of Shenley Parish Council

Letter from Stuart Hunter, Chairman of Shenley Parish Council

Shenley is a unique community. Once it was a rural village, where people earned their living from agriculture. That all changed when Shenley Hospital was established in the grounds of the Porters’ Park estate in the 1930s. People came to work in the hospital from all over the UK and overseas, and many chose to make Shenley their home. With the demolition of the hospital in the 1990s, and its redevelopment for new housing, there was a further influx of new residents.

So we have a community drawn from many different backgrounds. With such a diverse population, it is inevitable that people have different ideas about what needs to be done to make Shenley an even better place to live. Those looking after very young children, or shepherding teenagers towards adulthood, or enjoying retirement may have very different ideas about what Shenley needs to make it an even better place to live.

Finding out about the aspirations of local residents and reconciling their different interests is not an easy task. So the Parish Council welcomed the idea of developing a Parish Plan to tackle the issues that residents considered important. As you will see from the description in Appendix 2, it was a long and complicated process, involving many local people. The first step was to consult widely on what local issues concerned people most. Then an objective questionnaire was designed to find out what people felt about these issues. You can read the results in the Parish Plan section of the village website (www.shenleyvillage.org).

In the light of the opinions expressed in response to the questionnaire, the Council has developed a detailed Action Plan. Not everyone will agree with everything in the Plan. A document that everyone agreed with would have very little to say. But the results of the Parish Plan Survey point clearly to the areas where local residents would like action to be taken. And Council has listened carefully to what people have said in deciding what should be done. We will now do our best to put the Plan into practice, and will publish a progress report in November. We hope that you will support the Plan as best you can, and we would welcome any views you may have.

Stewart Hunter

Chair

Shenley Parish Council

Appendix 5

Parish Plan Survey Results In 2003, a questionnaire was issued to every household in Shenley in order to gauge community feeling on a range of transport, environmental and recreational issues. The response rate was a spectacular 74% - almost unprecedented in a survey of this kind.

To see the main survey results, click here. To see responses from young people in Shenley, click here.

The figures shown represent the total number of ticks for each box, and therefore show how the Parish, as a whole, answered the questions. In some instances, it seemed more helpful to express the information as percentages. These are based on the total number of respondents to the survey, rather than the number of responses to each question.

[1] See extract from 2001 Census at Appendix 2.

[2] 26% of households said that they did not know.

[3] Of households which responded, 28% expressed no interest in participating in any of the local activities on offer. The figure for Porters Park was lower (23%), and higher for the remainder of the village (34%).

[4] Hertsmere Borough Council, in conjunction with the Primary Care Trust and the Countryside Management Service is setting up a Health Walks initiative. Health walks are short but brisk organised walks.

[5] The Parish News (delivered monthly for the modest annual subscription of £3.50) provides an excellent way of keeping up-to-date with village affairs, including forthcoming events – contact details at the village website (www.shenleyvillage.org).

[6] The Radlett Youth Club meets in the Aldenham Youth and Community Centre on Thursday evenings between 7pm and 8.30pm. Please contact the Youth Leader, Sandra Huff, for more details on 01923 332037, or [email protected].

[7] The Policing component of Council Tax for a Band G house rose by 12% in 2002/03 (from £120.65 to £135.02), by 21% in 2003/04 (to £163.80), and by a further 14.5% in 2004/05 (to £187.55).

[8] Toxocariasis is a disease caused by the eggs of the roundworm toxocara which can be passed from dogs to humans through contact with the animal faeces and contaminated soil. Children, who are prone to put their fingers in their mouthes, are particularly at risk and infection can lead to serious illness and even permanent loss of sight. This is an entirely preventable health risk and the main reason that dog owners should clean up after their pets.

[9] Under The Dog (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, District and Parish Councils may make bye-laws requiring dog owners to collect and dispose of dog waste.

Shenley Parish Plan

Documents

Transcript of Shenley Parish Plan