A Health Impact Assessment for Hitchin Industrial Estate was prepared for Herts County and North Herts Councils and published in May 2026 by Tetra Tech.
The report is here – Hitchin Industrial Estate HIA
Here are the comments on the Health Impact Assessment from Hitchin Forum:-
Hitchin Forum (HF) has some reservations about the comprehensiveness and accuracy of parts of the recent Health Impact Assessment. Nevertheless, the HIA identifies serious issues that, at a minimum, require actions on the part of the Councils. That the assessment engaged with 286 members of the local community, is itself evidence of the serious concern with which the impact of the activities of the waste sites is viewed by local residents. This document attempts to
- identify shortcomings of the HIA. These are mainly, but not exclusively, limited to the issues caused by HGVs associated with the waste sites which 27% of survey respondents identified as the most significant impact they experienced. HGV traffic is assessed as having a moderate adverse effect on population health, the highest level of adverse significance recorded in the assessment. It may be that if HGV issues are addressed, air quality, and a variety of other problems, might be alleviated.
- make some suggestions, both for further investigations and other mitigations which we believe could be more effective than those proposed.
Shortcomings of the HIA.
There are several issues related to the location of the industrial estate and area of impact which are not mentioned in the study. These are as follows.
- Para 8.2.13 refers to ‘the population who have limited access to alternative routes’. This understates the problem for this group. Severance due to traffic accessing the industrial estate is exacerbated by the railway lines. The bridges on Grove Road, Woolgrove Road and Cambridge Road are the only railway crossing points for pedestrians between the footbridge to the south of Hitchin station, and the road bridge at Ickleford (a distance of approximately 2 miles). Effectively there are no efficient or pleasant alternatives for the most vulnerable of road users.
- The HIA noted that the traffic survey offers a snapshot of road usage during typical conditions in 2025. If operational activities on the Estate were to change, for example, if Global Ardour (GA) were to increase their operations from 285,000 tonnes up to their current permitted limit (500,000 tonnes), HGV movements would inevitably increase considerably. In what seems to be an attempt to reassure the community, GA have apparently said that they have no intention of taking advantage of this permit. This begs the question of why they made the decision to apply to the EA for the permit, given that the application was first initiated by Recycling Lives. It would appear that, should GA abandon the site, the potential increased throughput would make the site more attractive to any potential successor aiming to run a similar operation.
Paragraph 4.1.2 of the HIA notes that the assessment ‘is based on core values, such as the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process’.
Prior to the Environment Agency’s decision to grant the permit to increase throughput, it contacted NHC for comment. There was no response from the council, despite it being aware of the strength of feeling among local residents. This effectively deprived residents of their right to be involved in the decision-making process through their elected representatives. In a response to our concerns regarding this matter, we are pleased to hear that HCC and NHC procedures have been reviewed to avoid similar situations, and that the Environment Agency has been asked to review its processes for future applications. Nevertheless, the permit remains in force.
- The HIA mentions the intimidation experienced by pedestrians and cyclists as a result of traffic in Grove Road. The traffic density is exacerbated by the limited options for vehicles to pass to the other side of the railway lines. Additional traffic using Grove Road but not accessing the industrial estate may be doing so as an alternative to the Cambridge Road bridge by the station. That bridge is frequently congested and has been closed for extended periods recently. Whilst that may be temporary situation, it is not unusual. The road and pavement surface under the Cambridge Road bridge requires frequent maintenance and, due to headroom constraints, the bridge can be blocked by over-height vehicles.
- Whilst the Highover Farm development is mentioned briefly in the report, little mention is made of the issues consequent upon it. Proposed traffic controls associated with the development in Woolgrove Road are rightly widely viewed with scepticism by residents and will undoubtedly impact the Grove Road / Cadwell Lane junction. The concerns of the Riverain Bowls Club about conflict between traffic on Woolgrove Road and vehicles using its car park are not mentioned. One of the mitigations suggested by the HIA, that of an additional pedestrian crossing point north of the railway bridge on Grove Road, would be likely to exacerbate the already complex traffic control proposals, and would almost certainly be refused.
- The section on speed is potentially the most worrying aspect of the report given that it shows that the 30mph limit is widely ignored. However, as a piece of evidence with respect to HGV traffic associated with the waste sites, it is of limited significance – Wilbury Way is not an access route for the waste sites. Speeding drivers would doubtless argue that Wilbury Way is wide by comparison with Grove Road and Cadwell Lane. Whilst that is an unacceptable excuse for failure to obey the speed limit, effectively Grove Road and Cadwell Lane are traffic-calmed by their comparative narrowness, parked vehicles and the difficulty of turning between Cadwell Lane and Grove Road. Whilst para 8.7 notes observations of HGVs travelling at excessive speeds, without data comparable to that obtained for Wilbury Way there is no evidence.
- Recommendations made in the HIA, are incorrectly described as ‘mitigations’. Several involve words such as ‘review’, ‘investigate’, ‘consider’. As written, these are effectively kicking problems into the long grass. There is no guarantee that any action will result from such deliberations, or that such actions will mitigate the adverse effects of the HGV traffic associated with the waste sites.
- Whilst walking one of the possible approach routes is worthwhile in helping to articulate a pedestrian’s perception, fig 8.1 is unhelpful in identifying the effect of traffic associated with the waste sites. It represents observations from a moving sampling point. It gives no indication of the proportion of HGV movements associated with the waste sites. Ideally, stationary observers should be deployed at various points along the route and record HGV movements during the same given period, not to mention in both Nightingale Road and Verulam Road. The crude methodology results in the impact on residents in Fishponds Road being understated. It also ignores completely impacts on the majority of the length of Nightingale Road and Verulam Road. At several points on all 3 of those roads, properties are very close to the carriageway and suffer considerably due to vibration, often very early in the morning.
- The so-called cycle lane in Grove Road is unsegregated and arguably more dangerous than if it did not exist at all. The white line encourages drivers to perceive that as the edge of the road, meaning that cyclists are passed more closely than is recommended by the Highway Code.
Recommendations.
We note that para 9.1.4 states that ‘Longer term solutions warrant further consideration by the Local Authorities.’ No indication of what these might be is included. We consider that longer term solutions should be
- Re-siting the operations to a less environmentally damaging location.
- Building an access route to the sites for HGVs, but avoiding residential areas.
- Withdrawal of the permit to increase the throughput tonnage to 500,000 tonnes per annum at the Global Ardour site.
To address issues around early arrivals, idling, speeding and dangerous loads, we would suggest that
- The waste site companies share the report with the haulage companies concerned, and make it clear that they will not deal with any company that fails to impress upon its drivers that speeding, idling, unnetted loads and intimidatory behaviour are unacceptable.
- The companies themselves introduce and manage a slot system similar to that used in managing arrivals at airports, with, for instance, no more than two vehicles permitted to park in Cadwell Lane at any one time, and only during the opening hours of the sites.
- The Baldock lorry park should function in a way analogous to a stack in aviation terms.
- Regular checks by police in Cadwell Lane to deter idling and allow for inspections to ensure compliance with the requirement to net loads.
- The police should publish the number and level of fines that have been imposed on lorry drivers / haulage companies for speeding, idling and failure to net loads.
- Automatic speed cameras should be installed in Fishponds Road, Nightingale Road, Verulam Road and Grove Road and other roads used to access the sites.
- The recommendation to reduce the speed limit to 20mph in the above roads be implemented as soon as possible regardless of the outcome of the recent consultation on 20mph in Hitchin.
- A dedicated hotline be introduced for the public to report matters of concern regarding any issues associated with waste lorries in Hitchin.