80% of the total quarry allocation & unrestored quarries are in our area – and that includes landfill waste. We do not want any quarries on Ellenbrook Fields.
For the people of Hatfield and St Albans who have waited 26 years for a park on Ellenbrook Fields and not a quarry:
Latest News, June 2026:
Ombudsman: HCC Hatfield quarry failure complaint closed
The Herts Advertiser:
A formal complaint about Hertfordshire County Council’s failure to defend its own refusal to grant permission for a quarry on the site of the former Hatfield Aerodrome will not be investigated by the Ombudsman.
Brett Aggregates’ application to extract eight million tonnes of sand and gravel from the site – which sits between Smallford and Ellenbrook – was initially refused by the authority in January 2024.
But after Brett challenged the decision – triggering a planning inquiry – the county council announced that it was to withdraw its reasons for refusal.
A formal complaint about the council’s failure to defend its own refusal at the subsequent planning inquiry was then lodged with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) by a resident.
But now – after making some initial enquiries – the LGSCO has determined that the complaint will not be investigated further, because the planning application is subject to a decision by the Government.
A decision notice published by the LGSCO outlines the initial complaint, as well as the LGSCO assessment of the matter and the decision not to investigate.
According to the notice, the resident had argued that the council had withdrawn its reasons for refusal based on private legal advice, with no transparency or public explanation.
He had suggested that the council had prioritised its own procedures and risk avoidance over legal duties under planning law, the Environmental Act, environmental information regulations and national policy.
The complainant said that the council had not updated its position when new evidence or policy became available.
The LGSCO’s decision notice acknowledges that, on receipt of legal advice, the county council decided that the reasons for refusal were not legally sound, and that this was a decision the council was entitled to take.
It also highlights the resident’s concern that the council had refused to make the legal advice that it received public, as well as the council’s response that the information was legally privileged and that they were entitled to keep it private.
The notice acknowledges that the Secretary of State has ‘called-in’ the appeal – and will ultimately determine whether to allow the appeal or not.
It says that the LGSCO cannot, by law, consider matters which are subject to decisions by the Planning Inspectorate or by the Secretary of State.
However, it does advise that if the resident – referred to by the LGSCO as Mr X – believes that the legal advice should be in the public domain, it would be “reasonable” for him to complain to the Information Commissioner on this point.
“I understand Mr X is concerned the council refuses to make the legal advice it received public,” says the notice.
“However, the council has advised that the information is legally privileged, and it is entitled to keep it private.
“If Mr X believes the legal advice should be in the public domain, then it is reasonable for him to complain to the Information Commissioner on this point.”
And it concludes: “We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the law says we cannot consider matters which are subject to decisions by the Planning Inspector or the Secretary of State.
“It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner if he believes the council is withholding information the public is entitled to see.”
In response, a spokesperson for the county council stressed that the legal advice received by the council in relation to the application was “privileged” – and that they welcomed the conclusion of the LGSCO.
“In October 2023, Hertfordshire’s development control committee resolved to refuse planning permission at the site of the former Hatfield Aerodrome,” said the spokesperson for the county council.
“This decision was taken following legal advice, information that is privileged between the council and legal representatives.
“We have noted the comments of the ombudsman and welcome the conclusion that the decisions made in relation to this application were those of the council to take.”
Brett Aggregates application for the site – which sits between Smallford and Ellenbrook – seeks permission to extract eight million tonnes of sand and gravel over 32 years.
As well as permission to establish a quarry on the site, it includes proposals for a new access onto the A1057, an aggregate processing plant and ancillary facilities.
And it seeks permission for importing inert fill material to restore the mineral workings.
Following an initial hearing of the planning inquiry in November 2024, the inquiry was reopened in April this year (2026) to consider matters including public access to Ellenbrook Park during the quarry’s operation and phasing.
The findings of the inquiry will be passed to the Secretary of State, who will determine whether the application can go ahead.
March 2026:
CD-18 Reconvened Inquiry (2026) Interested Party Statements
We now have 109 statements from the public which you can read on:
https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/hatfield-aerodrome-appeal/inquiry-documents/core-documents/cd-18
February 2026:
Hatfield Aerodrome Planning Appeal – 2026 Reconvened Inquiry
A letter from Brian Owen Hertfordshire County Council:
“A public inquiry was then held during November and December 2024 by an Inspector who then wrote a report and which was submitted to the Secretary of State. Following this the Secretary of State has decided that the public inquiry should be reopened and the Inspector should hear further evidence.
The reopened public inquiry will open on 21 April 2026 at 10:00am and will last up to 4 days. The inquiry will be held at Fielder Centre, Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield Ave., Hatfield AL10 9TP for the first 3 days and the last day will be held at Robertson House, Six Hills Way, Stevenage, SG1 2FQ.”
“Any person wishing to make representation about the further information should make them in writing, before 15 March 2026 to Joanna Vincent Email: Joanna.vincent@gateleyhamer.com”
Download the full letter……………………………………..download
Brett Aggregate’s Consultation – “Our plan integrates the east of Ellenbrook Fields with the areas to the west, from day one and throughout the project”
“The clear water lagoons will be located in an area of scrubland in the east of the project. There is, at the moment, only one track in this area. Currently a livestock fence prevents free access from west to east and, because of this, movement between the eastern and western sides, as of today, is limited to two routes, one to the north and the second to south of the proposed site of the clear water lagoons.”
“As part of the project and as envisaged in the 2000 Agreement, we will preserve these existing routes and create new paths between and around the lagoons, increasing the number of available routes from east to west and ensuring that integration between key access points are unaffected by the project.”
“And because of our incremental working process we restore parts the park immediately behind us, meaning we reinstate existing paths or add new paths linking east and west in a timely manner and as soon as the restoration takes place.”
Public Access Strategy.…………………………………..download
The Consultation:
Any person wishing to make representation about the further information should make them in writing, before 15 March 2026 to Joanna Vincent Email: Joanna.vincent@gateleyhamer.com
Gateley Hamer
One Eleven Edmund St
Birmingham
B3 2HJ
Brett Aggregates – let them know how you feel about this Strategy:
Contact Details
planningdepartment@brett.co.uk
Tel: 01227 829000
Website www.hatfieldaerodromequarry.co.uk
A letter from Melvyn Middleton the Inspector regarding public access – 11th November 2025
1. The Secretary of State is considering the report of the Inspector, Melvyn Middleton BA(Econ), DipTP, Dip Mgmt, MRTPI who held a public local inquiry from 19 November 2024 into the above planning appeal. The Inspector’s Report (IR) was received by the Department on 4 August 2025. A timescale was set of the decision being issued on or before 3 November 2025. On 3 November 2025, parties were notified of a variation to the timetable, with a new target date of 15 December 2025. No decision has yet been reached on this application.
2. At the inquiry, the impact of the proposal on public access to Ellenbrook Park (EP) was discussed. The Inspector notes that the Hatfield Aerodrome Supplementary Planning Guidance states that a balance should be struck between maximising the use of the mineral resource and protecting the amenity of residents and users of the park. However, he considers that the proposal has not effectively struck a fair balance. This relates specifically to:
a) a failure of the Public Access Strategy to achieve the convenient cross-park access during the life of the quarry that is envisaged by the 2000 Agreement and MLP Policy 18(x), in part due to the proposed rerouting of the two paths which currently cross the site linking Sleepshyde with Salisbury Village in Hatfield;
b) a failure to integrate the restored phases into the unaffected part of EP in a timely manner, in part due to the positioning of the lagoons, which means that when the worked-out areas to the west are restored, it will not be possible to integrate them into the unaffected part of the park to the east through extensions to it, until the quarry is in its final stages of restoration.
3. The Inspector considers that it would be possible to amend the proposal to acceptably address these issues, and has therefore recommended a new condition if the Secretary of State were to grant planning permission:
MHCLG, Secretary of State, 25111 Hatfield Aerodrome Letter: download
error in line "which currently cross the site linkingSleepshydewith Salisbury Village in Hatfield;" should read Smallford
To address the Inspectors concerns the Appellant has considered the following:
• Amending the phasing order to work Phase E in advance of Phase D to keep the
southern part of the site open for public access for a longer period of time;
• Providing drawings showing how public access can be gained to stages of phases in
advance of mineral extraction;
• Closing the gap in the peripheral bund on the southern site boundary in the vicinity
of Popefield Farm;
• Introducing new footpaths (for example between the two lagoons); and
• Moving some of the footpaths away from the edge of the site.
The Applicant has added a new pathway between the lagoons making a total of three pathways across the site.
In the dig phases A to G a changes in number 4 now becomes E.
A caterpillar action on each dig phases would open up to more restored ground and allow re-route paths
The industrial lagoons are in a postion which splits the park in two for the lifetime of the quarry. They are not lakes and due to the depth and shear sides they will be off limits at all times. This is a failure to intergrate the restored phases into the unaffected part of Ellenbrook Park in a timely manner.
for more information go to Gateley Hamer website:
https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/hatfield-aerodrome-appeal/inquiry-documents/core-documents/cd-17/
The Inquiry should start on the 21st April and last for three days.
December 2025:
APPEAL REF: APP/M1900/W/24/3346607
Land at the former Hatfield Aerodrome, Hatfield Road, Smallford, Hertfordshire, AL4 0HP
Proposed establishment of a new quarry, including new access onto A1057, aggregate processing plant and other ancillary facilities, together with the importation of inert fill material to restore the mineral workings.
SUPPLEMENTARY CASE MANAGEMENT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE TO BE HELD AT 14.00 ON MONDAY 15 DECEMBER 2024
INSPECTOR’S PRE-CONFERENCE NOTE
1. The case management conference will be led by the Inquiry Inspector, Mr Melvyn Middleton, a chartered town planner, economist and principle planning Inspector. That Inspector held the previous Inquiry into this appeal and wrote a report for the Secretary of State (SoS) on those proceedings. Attached as separate documents are instructions for joining the conference, a conference etiquette which will be observed, and the conference agenda.
2. On 11 November 2025 the SoS wrote to the principal parties who attended the previous Inquiry, referring to the proposal’s impact on public access to Ellenbrook Park (EP) and the Inspector’s considerations thereon. These relate to failures:
a) to achieve convenient cross-park public access during the life of the quarry and
b) to integrate the restored phases into the unaffected part of EP in a timely manner.
3. The Inspector considers that it would be possible to amend the proposal to acceptably address these issues through a recommended new condition and consequential amendments to sixteen others. The SoS considers that these would constitute new matters under Rule 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000.
4. He has therefore invited further evidence on the following matters:
a) the potential for changes to phasing or redesign, or any other provisions, that would lead to improved public access to Ellenbrook Park, including to the unaffected eastern part of the Park;
b) implications arising from any changes or provisions identified above, including any implications for the submitted Environmental Statement and signed Deed of Variation;
c) the proposed amended and additional conditions set out above.
He also considers that the matter would most effectively be dealt with via a reopening of the planning Inquiry.
5. There will be no discussion, during the conference, as to the merits of any perspective cases and Mr Middleton will not hear any evidence. Rather the purpose is to set out a clear indication as to the ongoing management of this case and the presentation of evidence, so that the forthcoming reopened Inquiry is conducted in an efficient, effective and timely manner and the Inspector can be in a position to report again to the SoS at an early date.
6.The Inspector is aware that not all participants, written to by the SoS, contributed to the discussions on public access and integration in a determinative way, if at all, and that they may wish to follow a similar approach this time. Confirmation of that would be appreciated.
Main Issue
8. On the basis of the information currently before him, the Inspector considers that the main issue in this case is likely to relate to:
“Whether the identified concerns relating to cross-park public access and integration with the unaffected eastern part of EP, could be resolved via the suggested condition 4a, with particular reference to the potential for changes to phasing or redesign, or any other provisions”.
9. Evidence is also requested on the implications arising from any changes or provisions, as identified above, including any implications for the submitted Environmental Statement and signed Deed of Variation and on the proposed amended and additional conditions set out in the SoS’s letter.
10. It is essential that all parties communicate effectively with one another, to seek to narrow their differences (if any) over these issues for consideration at the Inquiry and as a matter of priority. This should be an on-going conversation. You are therefore requested to give consideration, in advance of the CMC, as to whether the matters identified above encapsulate those set out in the SoS’s letter and in particular the extent to which these matters are capable of resolution through the suggested revised conditions or changes to the updated legal agreement (if necessary). The conversation could probably be commenced most appropriately by the Appellant setting out an outline response to the SoS’s letter and circulating it to all of the other parties referred to by the SoS, who wish to participate, in time for a considered response from them before 5 December 2025.
Dealing with the Evidence
11. The Inquiry will only be concerned with the specific matters as described in the SoS’s letter. It is not an opportunity to submit additional evidence on other issues or even matters concerning EP itself that do not relate to public access during the quarrying activities and
the integration of restored areas into an extended unaffected park. Additional evidence should also focus on areas where there is disagreement. With that in mind, the conference will ideally explore the extent of any differences and determine how best to hear the evidence in order to ensure that the Inquiry is conducted as efficiently as possible.
12. The SoS would prefer an early response to his request and although the Inspector is mindful that Inquiry length will be determined by the responses from the main parties and the extent to which they disagree, he wishes to explore the opportunities for an early Inquiry. In the first instance he would ask the Appellant to identify all of the dates between
1 January and 30 April 2026 that it could be available for a resumed Inquiry lasting between one and four days and for the Colney Heath group to confirm that it could be represented on those dates.
13. To avoid unnecessary repetition in the presentation of evidence, the Inspector’s initial thoughts are that at an early date, subsequent to the CMC, there should be an agreed comprehensive Statement of Common Ground that on an issue-by-issue basis, clearly sets out what matters the parties are agreed upon and on which ones there remains disagreement, with the Statement clearly explaining why there is disagreement.
14. The Inspector has a relaxed view, concerning the format of the Inquiry, providing that it is efficiently carried out. The positions of the principal parties at the time of the CMC will probably be a determining factor. However, unless there is disagreement to an extent that cross-examination is necessary to clarify matters, then the Inspector considers that discussions through round table sessions would be the most appropriate vehicle.
15. You are requested to give the above careful consideration in advance of the related discussion at the CMC. Opportunities to enable discussion on all of the above points are included on the case management conference agenda.
16. The attached Annex sets out the PINS preferred format and content of proofs and other material, which should be observed.
Melvyn Middleton
INSPECTOR
26 November 2025
The Appellant (Brett Aggregates)
1. At the re-opened public inquiry and the CMC, the appellant will be represented by:
Counsel: Odette Chalaby
Instructed by: Andrea Bruce, Knights plc
9. The appellant’s evidence will cover three issues:
(i) Proposed improvements to public access via the Public Access Strategy and Phasing Drawings;
(ii) Ways the conditions can be revised to further control public access (including in relation to phasing);
(iii) Further explanation of those aspects of the scheme design and layout that cannot change.
10. It is not expected that this work will give rise to changes to the substantive conclusions of the Environmental Statement. Similarly, it is not expected that this work will require changes to the signed Deed of Variation.
Ellenbrook quarry decision “now with Labour minister”
Wewyn Hatfield Times: Leading Hertfordshire County Cllr Paul Zukowskyj has hit back at calls for the authority to withdraw support for a quarry on the site of the former Hatfield aerodrome…click on link
The Inquiry to be reopened so further evidence can be reached
At the inquiry, the impact of the proposal on public access to Ellenbrook Park (EP) was discussed. The Inspector notes that the Hatfield Aerodrome Supplementary Planning Guidance states that a balance should be struck between maximising the use of the mineral resource and protecting the amenity of residents and users of the park. However, he considers that the proposal has not effectively struck a fair balance.
MHCLG, Secretary of State, 25111 Hatfield Aerodrome Letter: download
Welwyn Hatfield Times: “Ellenbrook Quarry: Inquiry to reopen in ‘chance to protect’ site” click on link
Welwyn Hatfield MP Andrew Lewin asks council to remove quarry from Hertfordshire Mineral Plan
Welwyn Hatfield MP Andrew Lewin is calling for the county council to formally withdraw its support for a quarry on the site of the former Hatfield aerodrome, following the re-opening of a planning inquiry.
Hertfordshire County Council had initially refused to grant Brett Aggregates permission to extract eight million tonnes of sand and gravel from the site, which sits between Smallford and Ellenbrook.
But in the run-up to a planning inquiry – triggered by Brett’s appeal against the council’s decision – the council went on to withdraw its reasons for refusal.
On the opening day of that inquiry, last November, the hearing was told that “subject to the imposition of suitable conditions” the council agreed that the appeal should be allowed.
Now – following the decision by the Secretary of State that the inquiry should be reopened – Mr Lewin has called for the council to formally withdraw support for any quarry at Ellenbrook.
He is also calling for Ellenbrook to be removed from the Hertfordshire Minerals Plan, which identifies potential sites.
Finally, he asks the county council to find an alternative site to take Ellenbrook’s place in that plan.
Should the council “move swiftly on all three points”, he suggests there may be a chance “to protect Ellenbrook in full”.
“I have long argued that a quarry at Ellenbrook is not right for Hatfield or Hertfordshire,” says the MP, in a statement issued in the wake of the decision to reopen the inquiry.
“I will continue to campaign and stand up for residents, but Hertfordshire County Council must lead as the planning authority."
In response to the calls made by Mr Lewin, a spokesperson for Hertfordshire County Council told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that the implications of the decision of the Secretary of State were still being considered.
“We have recently been advised that the planning inquiry held in respect of plans for a quarry on the site of the former Hatfield Aerodrome will be reopened,” said a statement issued by the county council
“We will be considering the implications of this decision in the coming days and will provide advice to councillors to establish what actions they wish us to take on behalf of residents.”
In initially refusing the application, county councillors had focused on a range of factors that included the Green Belt, heritage, residential amenity, landscape character, biodiversity, public access, the highway and groundwater.
But it was in the run-up to the November 2024 inquiry that the county council withdrew its reasons for refusal – while the Colney Heath Group and others continued to argue that the quarry proposal should be rejected.
A decision on the application by the Secretary of State – rescheduled from November 3 – had been expected by December 15.
But following the decision to reopen the inquiry, no new target date for the decision has yet been set.
Nor is it yet known whether the reopened inquiry will be an in-person event or will involve written submissions.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service understands that it will focus on changes to the phasing or design that could lead to improved access to Ellenbrook Park, and other amendments proposed by the planning inspector.
38 Degrees is a British not-for-profit political-activism organisation. It describes itself as “Progressive” and claims to “campaign for fairness, defend rights, promote peace, preserve the planet and deepen democracy in the UK”.
Protect the health of people who live near quarries – please sign:
Update June 2025:
The inspector has asked for updated Conditions: download
Update January 2025:
Deed of Variation 20th December 2024: download
HCC Section 106 Deed of Agreement 20th December 2024: download
Appelant note – Benefits of revised Agreement: download
Update 20 December 2024:
In view of the National Planning Policy Framework update above, the date of adjournment referred to below in respect of conditions clarification and the draft variation to the 2000 legal agreement, has been extended to Tuesday, 7 January 2025.
The Inspector has received and assessed the observations on the draft conditions that were published by the Council on November 29 2024. He has a small number of matters concerning the responses.
He will be writing to the effected parties for further clarification. He will not be reconvening the Inquiry on 4 December but will adjourn until Monday 16 December 2024 to provide time for the condition clarification and the receipt of the agreed draft variation to the 2000 legal agreement. If appropriate, any consultation on the revised legal agreement will take place during this time. The Inspector is not anticipating reconvening the Inquiry either in person or virtually, unless unforeseen circumstances arise. In responding to any correspondence from the Inspector, parties to the Inquiry should restrict their observations to the questions posed by the Inspector and not submit evidence about other matters. Any new evidence that has not been specifically requested by the Inspector will be returned.
Hatfield Aerodrome Planning Appeal – Gateley
APPEAL REF: APP/M1900/W/24/3346607
Land at the former Hatfield Aerodrome
Hertfordshire County Council Development Control Committee met on Tuesday 24th September and heard speakers from resident’s associations. At part 2 (closed to the public) legal evidence was presented to the committee that legal costs will be awarded against HCC. HCC will not be giving evidence or witnesses at the Inquiry but will attend. All other Councils and “Rule 6” Parties have withdrawn because of the threat of legal action. There still may be an opportunity for residents to speak and put forward their views.
Reasons for refusal withdrawn ahead of quarry inquiry, WHT link:
Reasons for refusal withdrawn ahead of quarry inquiry | Welwyn Hatfield Times (whtimes.co.uk)
Hertfordshire Council, Development Control Committee webcast 24th September 2024:
MP Andrew Lewin speaks out ahead of Ellenbrook Quarry inquiry
A committee that turned down plans for a quarry on the site of the former Hatfield Aerodrome is to be presented with the latest ‘legal advice’ received by the county council – just weeks before the decision is due to be challenged at a Planning Inquiry.
Hatfield aerodrome quarry inquiry to be discussed by council | Welwyn Hatfield Times (whtimes.co.uk)
Hatfield Aerodrome campaigners respond to council’s inquiry withdrawal
Reasons:
A loss of 87 hectares of Green belt. “The proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would not protect the countryside from encroachment….” reason 1
25 years of Biodiversity is destroyed. “The proposal would not sufficiently minimise the impacts of the development or provide for adequate net gain within an appropriate timescale contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 174d. Further the development would result in significant harm and is not adequately mitigated contrary to paragraph 180 a). The proposal would be likely to result in loss of or damage to habitats or species contrary to policy 9 of the Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan Review 2002-2016 Adopted March 2007. reason 5
Heritage The proposals do not adequately consider the setting of the heritage asset, Popefield farmhouse and barns (Grade II listed)….” reason 2
Landscape Character and visual amenity “The proposals by reason of their size and scale, the extent and long term siting of screening and perimeter bunds, and the extensive removal of roadside vegetation to create visibility splays for the new access (A1057) would be harmful to landscape character and the visual amenities of the area ” reason 4
After any quarry the land is sterilized by removal of minerals, it then becomes available for Future Development
Loss of Ellenbrook Country Park and open space for 40 years
Green Belt download
Noise download
Traffic The additional HGV movements associated with the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the local area.
Disturbing nearby Bromate Contamination. “The proposals do not demonstrate that the existing hydrogeological flow regime would not be adversely affected during mineral workings, and that the risks to groundwater from disturbance of the bromate plume can be adequately managed and mitigated ….” reason 8 download
Increase Flooding risk downstream due to soil stripping and increased runoff. download 1
Poor quality of sand and gravel in the East of quarry site. This is due to the geographical nature of the land.
Preventing normal Public Access. The proposals for public access to Ellenbrook Fields, contained within the Public Access Strategy (July 2023) do not demonstrate that users of the Park would be adequately protected over the duration of mineral workings.
Legal implications to start up a quarry on land promised as a park under a S106 agreement pending the formation of the 125 year Trust
Cumulative quarries in our area: Cemex’s Hatfield quarry, Furze Field (active to 2027), Land adjoining Coopers Lane Stanborough (starting after 2027). Tarmac’s Tyttenhanger quarry (active)
more downloads:
Brett response: Public Access Strategy………………………………………… download
Technical Memorandum restoration-drainage…………. download
Health impact assessment HIA……………………………………………. download
In response to HCC Regulation 25 request, documents can be viewed on HCC website………………… download
Planning Register | Hertfordshire County Council
Hatfield……………… download
80% of the total quarry allocation & unrestored quarries are in our area – and that includes landfill……………… download
Drainage response final:…………………… download
–