EL1, EL2, EL3 Land east of Luton

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 174

Received: 18/10/2016

Respondent: Mr Robert Morris

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to EL3: Visual impact, traffic, pollution, infrastructure (schools, doctors)

Full text:

The proposed building of 660 houses to the East of Luton on Green Belt land fills me with dread for the future of this area if you give the go-ahead.
This vast area is one of outstanding beauty and should not be covered in concrete in mine and countless other local people.
I hope you will also take into account the impact this will have on the locality, with thousands of extra vehicles crowding and clogging up Luton's already grid locked roads.
The impact this will have on people's lives with the increase in pollution, pressure on schools, Doctors surgeries who cannot cope with what is here without additional hundreds or thousands of extra children or patients.
When you make your decisions I hope you will take the opportunity to make the correct decision and turn down the Crown Estates plans who do not seem to care about the impact this will have on the local community and are more intent on making more money for their coffers.
If you do turn them down then you can rest assured that I and future generations will thank you for doing the sensible thing.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 201

Received: 20/10/2016

Respondent: Mr Robert Henry Phillips

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Development to meet the requirements of a neighbouring authority should not be met in North Hertfordshire - they should be met within Luton.

The area is already congested - development will exacerbate this problem. There is no provision for basic infrastructure, including retail, health and education facilities needed to support the development.

Land to the west of the M1 would mitigate much of the infrastructure required.

Full text:

With reference to the proposed development (ref 16/02014/1) submitted by The Crown Estate located in Hertfordshire close to the County Border near Tea Green, I should like to make the following observations based on the "soundness" criteria defined in your recent letter dated 17 October 2016. My comments equally apply to the much larger Blore Homes submission of 1500 dwellings, which abuts the Crown Estates site.


Using the tests of soundness identified in the local plan.

Positively Prepared.

Development to meet the requirements of a neighbouring authority should not be met by North Herts. It should be met by the neighbouring authority ie Luton Borough Council itself.

Justified

The proposed site is already in a congested area in terms of the volume of traffic accessing Luton from the direction of Stevenage and vice versa using the lanes adjoining the proposed development. These lanes are maintained at cost to NHDC and this development will only exacerbate the problem and associated additional costs of this increase volume of traffic. Absolutely no cost allowance, in perpetuity, has been allowed for in the proposals for this development. Although there is mention of this in your planning documents, there is no provision for the basic infrastructure needed to support this extra congestion on the plan. It is patently obvious that the vacant land in Luton, west of the M1, would mitigate much of the infrastructure required in the proposed plan as it has much easier access the existing, recently widened, M1 motorway.

Where is the provision for extra school places, retail infrastructure, medical facilities and all the other needs to support the size of this development?

Why should the council tax payers of North Herts be footing the bill for a neighbouring authority, which will continue in perpetuity?

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 211

Received: 18/10/2016

Respondent: Ms Ann Dainton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to the development of 660 dwellings adjacent to Copthorne, Luton:
Exitsing roads could not cope with additional traffic;
No improvements to the road infrastructure;
SUDs should not be located close to airports;
Development of flats would be out of character with the area;
Effect of infrastructure, including schools and healthcare;
Loss of green belt land; and
Loss of recreation opportunities.

Full text:

North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 -
Proposed Submission Local Plan Consultation
Wednesday 19 October 2016 to Wednesday 30 November 2016

With regards to the above planning application I wish to register my strongest possible objections to this development of 660 dwellings adjacent to Copthorne, Luton.

No proper regard seems to have been taken in respect of improving the road infrastructure. The minor alterations listed on the planning application would have little or no effect. The existing roads cannot currently cope with rush hour traffic in the mornings and evenings. Eaton Green Road, Crawley Green Road, A505, East Circular are nearly almost stationary. The road network could not possibly cope with any increase in traffic from any developments built in this area. At peak times it can take up to an hour to get to and from Junction 10 of the M1. There is also the added problem of expansion at Luton Airport which would certainly add to traffic problems.

Many local roads in the vicinity of the proposed site are narrow country lanes with single track stretches and they too would be unable to cope with the increased traffic, particularly public transport vehicles and large vans and lorries which will be required to serve the development.

I noticed on the plans that there are three proposed footpaths, cycle ways adjoining Copthorne to the new estate this will encourage people to use Copthorne as a cut through as well as a safe place to park their vehicles as it says in the plan that there is only one garage/parking per dwelling. As for the ridiculous suggestion that most people will be using cycles and walking, DREAM ON.

I noticed also that surface drainage is going to be collected in three unfenced ponds (SUDS). Government rules state that (SUDS) should not be located close to airports as they could encourage flocks of birds which could endanger aircraft with bird strikes.

I noticed from the layout of the plan that the high density/social housing have been placed closest to the County View estate which mainly consists of 3, 4 and 5 bedroomed detached properties and will most certainly not blend in with these existing properties. I understand that 40% of this development is going to be affordable housing with the possibility of flats which is totally out of character with the area.

I understand that there are no plans for schools or infrastructure upgrades until after the site has been completed. The GP surgeries in the area are over subscribed and one dental surgery is not taking on any new patients. Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already over subscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.

I feel that your development, which is in Hertfordshire, should not be entitled to Luton's services and as a local rate payer I should not be subsiding Hertfordshire rate payers. It seems you are dumping all Hertfordshire's problems on the Bedfordshire rate payers. Luton Borough Council have not done any air particulate studies into air quality in our area, in spite of there being a massive airport expansion going ahead. Nor have they conducted traffic studies to address the terrible congestion in the surrounding area.

This development would destroy a large amount of North Herts Green Belt land. Government policy on Green Belt land is completely ignored in this proposal. Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl.

Also, I understand that the area you are proposing to build on is under consideration to be included as an area Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was at one time Grade 'A' agricultural land but in your latest bulletin this is no longer the case, how convenient.

Many people from the area use the surrounding countryside for recreational purposes, walking, cycling, and taking an interest in the wildlife. The villages of Tea Green and Cockernhoe should not be allowed to be swallowed up by the town of Luton in this way.

Once again I strongly object to any of the proposed developments as this is an overwhelming number of dwellings for such a small area.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 212

Received: 18/10/2016

Respondent: Mr Barry Dainton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to the development of 660 dwellings adjacent to Copthorne, Luton:
Exitsing roads could not cope with additional traffic;
No improvements to the road infrastructure;
SUDs should not be located close to airports;
Development of flats would be out of character with the area;
Effect of infrastructure, including schools and healthcare;
Loss of green belt land; and
Loss of recreation opportunities.

Full text:

North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Local Plan Consultation Wednesday 19 October 2016 to Wednesday 30 November 2016

With regards to the above planning application I wish to register my strongest possible objections to this development of 660 dwellings adjacent to Copthorne, Luton.

No proper regard seems to have been taken in respect of improving the road infrastructure. The minor alterations listed on the planning application would have little or no effect. The existing roads cannot currently cope with rush hour traffic in the mornings and evenings. Eaton Green Road, Crawley Green Road, A505, East Circular are nearly almost stationary. The road network could not possibly cope with any increase in traffic from any developments built in this area. At peak times it can take up to an hour to get to and from Junction 10 of the M1. There is also the added problem of expansion at Luton Airport which would certainly add to traffic problems.

Many local roads in the vicinity of the proposed site are narrow country lanes with single track stretches and they too would be unable to cope with the increased traffic, particularly public transport vehicles and large vans and lorries which will be required to serve the development.

I noticed on the plans that there are three proposed footpaths, cycle ways adjoining Copthorne to the new estate this will encourage people to use Copthorne as a cut through as well as a safe place to park their vehicles as it says in the plan that there is only one garage/parking per dwelling. As for the ridiculous suggestion that most people will be using cycles and walking, DREAM ON.

I noticed also that surface drainage is going to be collected in three unfenced ponds (SUDS). Government rules state that (SUDS) should not be located close to airports as they could encourage flocks of birds which could endanger aircraft with bird strikes.

I noticed from the layout of the plan that the high density/social housing have been placed closest to the County View estate which mainly consists of 3, 4 and 5 bedroomed detached properties and will most certainly not blend in with these existing properties. I understand that 40% of this development is going to be affordable housing with the possibility of flats which is totally out of character with the area.

I understand that there are no plans for schools or infrastructure upgrades until after the site has been completed. The GP surgeries in the area are over subscribed and one dental surgery is not taking on any new patients. Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already over subscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.

I feel that your development, which is in Hertfordshire, should not be entitled to Luton's services and as a local rate payer I should not be subsiding Hertfordshire rate payers. It seems you are dumping all Hertfordshire's problems on the Bedfordshire rate payers. Luton Borough Council have not done any air particulate studies into air quality in our area, in spite of there being a massive airport expansion going ahead. Nor have they conducted traffic studies to address the terrible congestion in the surrounding area.

This development would destroy a large amount of North Herts Green Belt land. Government policy on Green Belt land is completely ignored in this proposal. Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl.

Also, I understand that the area you are proposing to build on is under consideration to be included as an area Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was at one time Grade 'A' agricultural land but in your latest bulletin this is no longer the case, how convenient.

Many people from the area use the surrounding countryside for recreational purposes, walking, cycling, and taking an interest in the wildlife. The villages of Tea Green and Cockernhoe should not be allowed to be swallowed up by the town of Luton in this way.

Once again I strongly object to any of the proposed developments as this is an overwhelming number of dwellings for such a small area.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 214

Received: 18/10/2016

Respondent: Ms Ann Dainton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, and biodiversity.

Full text:

North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Local
Plan Consultation Wednesday 19 October 2016 to Wednesday 30 November
2016

With regards to the above planning application I wish to register my strongest possible objections to this development of 660 dwellings adjacent to Copthorne, Luton.

No proper regard seems to have been taken in respect of improving the road infrastructure. The minor alterations listed on the planning application would have little or no effect. The existing roads cannot currently cope with rush hour traffic in the mornings and evenings. Eaton Green Road, Crawley Green Road, A505, East Circular are nearly almost stationary. The road network could not possibly cope with any increase in traffic from any developments built in this area. At peak times it can take up to an hour to get to and from Junction 10 of the M1. There is also the added problem of expansion at Luton Airport which would certainly add to traffic problems.

Many local roads in the vicinity of the proposed site are narrow country lanes with single track stretches and they too would be unable to cope with the increased traffic, particularly public transport vehicles and large vans and lorries which will be required to serve the development.

I noticed on the plans that there are three proposed footpaths, cycle ways adjoining Copthorne to the new estate this will encourage people to use Copthorne as a cut through as well as a safe place to park their vehicles as it says in the plan that there is only one garage/parking per dwelling. As for the ridiculous suggestion that most people will be using cycles and walking, DREAM ON.

I noticed also that surface drainage is going to be collected in three unfenced ponds (SUDS). Government rules state that (SUDS) should not be located close to airports as they could encourage flocks of birds which could endanger aircraft with bird strikes.

I noticed from the layout of the plan that the high density/social housing have been placed closest to the County View estate which mainly consists of 3, 4 and 5 bedroomed detached properties and will most certainly not blend in with these existing properties. I understand that 40% of this development is going to be affordable housing with the possibility of flats which is totally out of character with the area.

I understand that there are no plans for schools or infrastructure upgrades until after the site has been completed. The GP surgeries in the area are over subscribed and one dental surgery is not taking on any new patients. Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already over subscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.

I feel that your development, which is in Hertfordshire, should not be entitled to Luton's services and as a local rate payer I should not be subsiding Hertfordshire rate payers. It seems you are dumping all Hertfordshire's problems on the Bedfordshire rate payers. Luton Borough Council have not done any air particulate studies into air quality in our area, in spite of there being a massive airport expansion going ahead. Nor have they conducted traffic studies to address the terrible congestion in the surrounding area.

This development would destroy a large amount of North Herts Green Belt land. Government policy on Green Belt land is completely ignored in this proposal. Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl.

Also, I understand that the area you are proposing to build on is under consideration to be included as an area Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was at one time Grade 'A' agricultural land but in your latest bulletin this is no longer the case, how convenient.

Many people from the area use the surrounding countryside for recreational purposes, walking, cycling, and taking an interest in the wildlife. The villages of Tea Green and Cockernhoe should not be allowed to be swallowed up by the town of Luton in this way.

Once again I strongly object to any of the proposed developments as this is an overwhelming number of dwellings for such a small area.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 220

Received: 20/10/2016

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Cowling

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 2012

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Sue Humphreys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Objection to EL1, EL2, EL3 on the grounds of:
- greenbelt
- loss of three villages
- the two access roads already struggle to cope with traffic
- severe congestion on roads to the M1 already
- North Hertfordshire does not need this land for homes
- not the most suitable place for Luton's housing needs

Full text:

The proposal to build 2000 new homes on greenbelt land, thereby swallowing up 3 villages, seems wholly inappropriate. This land is accessed from Hertfordshire by 2 one track roads with passing places, which already struggle to cope with existing traffic, let alone another 2000 cars. There is also severe congestion on roads to the M1 already.
North Hertfordshire does not need this land for homes and it does not appear to be the most suitable place for Luton's housing needs, has common sense gone out of the window in the scramble to produce these 'Local Plans'.
Please save our lovely countryside and villages.