The entire plan is not sustainable, due to the piecemeal approach of the plan. It is obvious the plan is not a plan as such but rather that NHDC has asked land owners and developers to suggest sites for development with little thought to the problems some sites might create, such as increased flooding, increased gridlock at peak times, especially on the A1 (M) and junction 8 in particular, increased air pollution from standing/slow moving traffic, destruction of established communities, destruction of villages and the character of those villages and the views of local people. For example, any local plan should have the support of the local people - NHDC have been advised in previous consultations on this plan, and in particular site WY1, that the local people do not support 1) removal of green belt in their small villages, 2) developments which are inappropriate in size and scaled (such as site WY1, which is an increase of 100% of dwellings in a very small village) and 3) anything which threatens to increase flood risk, air pollution or gridlock - the plan unfortunately, across many sites, and when viewed along with Stevenage Borough Council's plan, does indeed cause some very serious and irreversible problems for all residents, current and new, with the majority of their proposals in this plan. Green belt is supposed to permanent, and supposed to stop urban sprawl. NHDC's proposals to move the green belt from around site WY1, massively increases the risk of the tiny village of Little Wymondley merging into a mega town of Stevenage and Hitchin (locally known as "Stitchin"). Furthermore, there is no local need to double the size of the village. As well as there being no local need for such a large development in this village, there is also a local fear that such a sizeable development would irreversibly alter the character and social cohesion of the village. We have an excellent community spirit in Little Wymondley, where people know and help each other, and it is a safe environment for people to live, which is why so many of the residents chose to live in a small village, surrounded by Green Belt, which the government led people to believe would always be there. It is worth noting the that the NPPF states there must be the existence of exceptional circumstances to alter the green belt, but none are demonstrated in this plan. Whilst it is recognised that there is a housing shortage in the area, NHDC state in this plan that there are 1,600 households on their housing waiting list so why do we need to build 14,000+??? The existing figure in the plan was created prior to the UK voting for Brexit, where any plans had to take account of the free movement of people throughout the EU. Once the UK is not part of the EU, it is highly likely that this free movement of people will not be a feature of the UK, so any calculations based on this policy, need to be revisited. It is also recognised that there are people not on the waiting list who will require housing in the plan period, such as young adults currently living at home, however, the answer to the housing need, IN A SUSTAINABLE FASHION is to build a new Garden City - NHDC has the land, just not the will, to do this, and yet this solution to sustainable development is not a new suggestions to them and I believe they have now requested the funding for this but fear they won't be able to deliver it within the plan period, but this is not true. There is also no adequate assessment of infrastructure needs in the NHDC plan, instead, the buck is passed to HCC. This is therefore not a positively prepared, justified, or effective plan, and it is not sustainable, nor is it consistent with national policy. In fact, the plan actually contradicts it's own policy SP1, particularly with regard to these comments in the same:

b. Ensure the long-term vitality of the District's villages by supporting growth which provides opportunities for existing and new residents and sustains key facilities;
c. Grant planning permission for proposals that, individually or cumulatively:
ii. create high-quality developments that respect and improve their surroundings and provide opportunities for healthy lifestyle choices;
iii. provide the necessary infrastructure required to support an increasing population;
iv. protect key elements of North Hertfordshire's environment including important landscapes, heritage assets and green infrastructure (including the water environment); and
v. secure any necessary mitigation measures that reduce the impact of development, including on climate change;

The build on site WY1 is in direct contradiction to all the above points. Particularly as it is already in a pollution hotspot and the plan increases standing traffic and gridlock in and through the village, contributing to hight levels of nitrous dioxide and the associated healthier issues. Also, it is worth noting that the site WY1 was previously a landfill site, so who knows what is buried in the ground there and what harm it may cause should it be built on with houses and/or a school? There could be radioactive material buried there which could cause huge health problems in the future.

David Levett opens the plan document with the statement "North Hertfordshire is one of the best places to live in the country and with that comes a unique set of challenges to keep it that way. People want to move here to enjoy our lifestyle, those of us who are lucky enough to live here want to stay" he then goes on to state "That growth needs to be managed and controlled in a way that will protect and enhance the area in which we live and keep it one of the best places to live" unfortunately, nothing in his plan will make Little Wymondley a better place to live - it's residents will be forced to live with a heightened risk of/fear of our homes being flooded, more health issues as we deal with at least twice the amount of passing traffic and a huge increase in standing/queing traffic to get onto the A1 (M), irreversible changes to the character of the community as such a large development will intrinsically change the character of our environment, and a loss of open countryside/green belt, all of which leads to a picture of it being far from a great place to live with a good lifestyle, but rather a miserable existence with our homes and health put at unnecessary increased risk of damage.

IMPORTANT Note - I left the "Soundness test" boxes unticked, as a tick indicates a positive, and I thought ticking them meant "yes, the plan is . . " however I cannot submit my comments if I do not tick the boxes, therefore i have ticked them all to say that the plan does NOT meet any of the soundness tests.