Sent in response to an email from a constituent, which is also shown below for context.
Dear [constituent name withheld]
Thank you for your email and raised concerns regarding L&G application for homes.
We share similar views and concerns for all this development. However we cannot fully stop this from happening due to shortage of housing but we want to make sure the right provisions of additional schools, GP surgeries etc are in place hence the reason we have not given our consent on this. At the same time, I am very anxious about letting these developers build something that compromises present residents' livelihood by adding all these additional dwellings without a proper infrastructure.
Perhaps when I am next around your street i should come and pay you a quick visit to explain you the situation and our standing on this which is very clear and not in favour.
Kind regards
Cllr Ayesha Rohale, Harpenden North & Rural
Original email from constituent:
Dear Councillor Rohale, I understand that you are standing for St Albans District Council in the Harpenden North and Rural Ward in the forthcoming local elections. To me the biggest single issue facing Harpenden right now is Legal & General's application to build 550 homes on Green Belt at NW Harpenden. I believe that, if permitted, this development will have a severely detrimental impact on north Harpenden. I will vote for the people who are prepared to do all they reasonably can to resist this application and similar speculative developer applications on Green Belt. There are many strong arguments which can be made as to why the "very special circumstances" which would justify building on Green Belt do not exist. I have set some of these out in my objection to the Council, of which I attach a copy. With that in mind, I would be grateful if you could let me know: 1. Will you do all that you reasonably can to oppose this application, and marshal the strongest arguments available against it? 2. Will you help save the Green Belt around Harpenden in the future, for example by resisting the adoption of Local Plan housing targets which bear no resemblance to real housing "need" in the District? Kind regards,