The Planning Committee approved the Salisbury Square re-development on Thursday 1st March.
 
Gascoyne Cecil (GC) asked for and was awarded an extension from 3 to 5 years on the date by which the development can start in order to get the finances in place.

Two speakers were allowed: Peter Clegg (GC) for the development who repeated the general charrette objective, and Roy Walton of Bromwall against: he concentrated on the way the Council had sold rights on the land to GC without looking for competitive tenders.

The Councillors, notably Caron Juggins, asked some relevant questions, especially about retail and Ali specifically. Response is that this is a matter for GC and the law, not Planning. She also asked the officer about open space and the use of the square, and got an answer in terms of farmers markets and relationship with other spaces in Old Hatfield and Stable Yard.  Another councillor asked whether the aim was to encourage people to pass through Salisbury Square on the way to Hatfield House. Answer, yes. There were other questions: one Councillor asked whether the proposal would conflict with plans for regeneration of Hatfield Town Centre (answer no, the increase in retail would be very small). Another appeared to ask where the Job Centre was moving to.  The chairman said that the buildings around the square "don't look as good on the computer as they do on the drawings: rather dark and shadowy".

The proposal was passed 13 to 1 with a couple of abstentions, including Caron. The whole business took about half an hour.

People present included: Chris Goward (speaking),Ali Pari (launderette), Trevor Samols, Mark Bolitho, Jackie Palmer, and 4 people from the GC team.

The next application was for demolition of the parade of shops. Nothing from the officers, just 3 minutes from Chris Goward on behalf of the Old Hatfield Residents Association.  Chris repeated the plea for the developer to help the existing retailers and act upon the balance between retail and Jobcentre parking, about consulting with residents about use of the Square and tree provision. The issue was raised regarding the station development and road crossing and we asked for a delay on the decision so that the planning committee could take a holistic view. This prompted a councillor to ask whether the council would get an opportunity to approve the station development. The answer was no.

Demolition passed 14 to 1.