CD2 Codicote Garden Centre, High Street

We would like to make our views known as to the Local Plan put forward by NHDC and specifically as regards Codicote expansion.

[...] We have good local knowledge from both professional and personnel levels.

Objections to the Local Plan as published.

We are NOT nimbys and fully support house construction in appropriate areas. We actually support the Plan as regards areas in Codicote such as Garden Centre/brown field development on the grounds that we need to do something and do it soon.

Codicote is a tightly knit village with a reliance on everyone having an interdependence within the community as well as family, the expansion seen already by transforming a high percentage of the High Street and other areas from mixed business to residential has already taken a toll on the very nature of the village but more importantly the infrastructure is now at a point where it fails on a regular basis.
If we build up to 250 new homes on predominantly Green belt sites (which appears to contradict the Government's published plans) the pressure on the emergency services, schools, hospitals (which are slowly crumbling under the weight of numbers attending) as well as the obvious road population increases will have a permanent negative impact on the area and the wellbeing of the residents.

Given the need we so clearly have would not a totally new Garden City/Town such as those we lead the world in constructing last centuary, be the better answer?
There are several brown field sites I can think of in Hertfordshire that would be obvious choices, Henlow Camp is a good example as would any of the ex military or industrial sites. Green Belt usage is both against current environmental thinking and a stated Government policy.

I could list many other arguments to avoid Green Belt exploitation but am sure you will already have heard them all many times over.

Having read in detail the Local Plan we confirm our opposition to it as regards the section where Green Belt is consumed.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

You have identified three sites within Codicote Parish for potential housing as part of the need to build additional housing to meet the strategic plan for the county.

I wish to express my views on the proposed sites.

I am not against the designation of areas within the village, previously seen as 'green belt', to be used for small scale developments which seek to provide housing opportunities for the young people of the village and those wishing to 'buy in' to village life.

Village life will mean consideration must be given to primary school places in the village for under 11's, minimising risks of the ever increasing through traffic, ensuring the remaining shops survive by improving parking opportunities, reducing the speed of traffic, etc. I understand from a recent presentation that it is too early for these issues to even be discussed.

Of the three sites for housing the two sites along the Welwyn- Hitchin roads (CD1 and CD2?) appear to offer the least environmental impact on the village, though they will require investment in upgrading the road layout around the village. Should CD2 be chosen, please consider purchasing the adjacent allotment area for the parish to stop the potential of further development.

The third site off the bottom of Valley Road has a greater impact, not in the reduction of green belt or village amenities, but in the positioning of housing in an area with no exit to the High Street other than via Valley Road to Bury Lane, then left to the Welwyn/Hitchin Road or right to Knebworth/ Stevenage, along a 3 mile country road which will also require upgrading along its whole length at considerable cost to the environment and community.

In agreeing that new housing is required, I feel that the additional community charge income and indeed the parish precept generated (compared to the profits generated to the land owners, property developers, builders, etc.) will not be adequate to meet the additional costs involved on the community. Again, I understand that no figures are available at this time. Points that need covering are:




Road network improvements- refer to above comments.

Additional school places within Codicote for children under 11. I understand that new buildings are already necessary but not approved , with 100-150 new properties this can only increase the overcrowding. This could be alleviated by committing funds to purchase the adjacent unused farm land as a sports field and building onto the existing footprint and into the existing sports field. This would have the additional benefit of securing this area as 'green' belt for the future.

Damage to the viability of the few remaining shops as the flow of traffic, additional parking, etc. will reduce the potential for customers to stop and make purchases.

Increase the environmental damage being caused to property along the High Street and St Albans Road by traffic, on top of the damage being done through the continued use of Codicote Quarry for material reclamation beyond the original agricultural reclamation it was historically authorised for.

The need to provide adequate parking for new households which will have 2-3 cars (the norm. these days ). To see this in practice I would suggest a visit to the last 'high density' project at the Paddocks at the bottom of Valley Road. Also along the High Street, where cars are parked obstructing the pavement due to the Welwyn/Hitchin (A1M 'rat run') on an evening or early morning. A public parking option is urgently needed.

In addition the proposed long term improvements to the A1M recently reported as close to being authorised will only increase the traffic through the village and require managed entry into the flow from the proposed housing developments as well as Bury Lane, changing the village significantly.

To sum up there is a need for 'affordable and mixed' housing for the existing population of the village, both for new families and for 'seniors' to downscale. The possible developments could assist this.

I realise that the final decisions are needed to house the growing populations of Hertfordshire. I can only hope that you look beyond the housing numbers and consider the other quality of life factors which makes village life so attractive,

See attached

See attachment

See attached

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attached

Objections to some of the plans for building houses around Codicote. My objections cover the following areas:-
1. Impact of traffic congestions- All the proposed site increases the pressure of traffic. Rush hour already causes a very busy road, heavy congestion. the high street is partially single lane due to parked vehicles of residents, this is no problem with low level of vehicles. However, the quarry continues to flaunt it rules having lorries come at 7 am in the morning weekdays and weekends, and the volume of lorries coupled with increase traffic from the new houses puts considerable pressure in the system. There are not plans to manage this pressure. Access routes of traffic for some sites (CD1, CD2 & CD3) are manageable but not for CD5. The access onto St Albans road are only large enough for one vehicle at a time between 2 houses and really should not be an access route at al. The another route onto dark lane, again and small narrow access route that comes into a blind corner. A corner that is extremely dangerous. Quarry lorries come around that corner in excess of 50 miles and hours and I have seen several near misses that could be fatal. Increasing traffic pulling out into the corner would need thorough planning. This means access into the Meadow way estate or direct onto Heath hill would be required but not sufficient for the sheer volume of houses. I suggest reducing the volume of houses on CD5, allocating land for school expansion and fund building projects to expand the school in advance of the housing.
2. No account for sufficient infrastructure- if all these houses are built the local school is not sufficient to take the children. there needs to be supporting plan to extend the school. The only land the school can extend to is the field adjacent to the school the other side of the foot path and that field should be used for expansion with the foot path being diverted.
3. Loss of green belt outside of policy- the Government fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. the current plan goes against this essential policy. Adding such a large number of houses increases urban sprawl, especially the site CD5 which urbanises an areas used a lot by local dog walker, children for walking and leisure.
4. Affordable housing. The plans need to have some affordable homes. Not homes starting at £300 000, but affordable flats for new starters or for people in the village to buy. The housing build in Codicote tends to be luxury 4 bed homes, there needs to be commitment but builders who get the contract to build sustainable homes and at least 20% affordable homes for first starters.

I am writing to you provide you with my objections to the proposed Codicote Local Development Plan (part of the Proposed Submission Local Plan 2011-2031). I have been a resident of Codicote for around 50 years, and my two daughters have also been homeowners here. As such I feel I am well placed to comment on the Local Development Plan.

Whilst I appreciate that there is a shortage of housing in the current climate and that the village will have to provide new houses, the number of dwellings proposed in this Plan is far beyond what the village infrastructure could cope with. The 315 dwellings proposed represents growth of almost 25%.

Over the last few years Codicote has grown significantly and its infrastructure is already severely over stretched. The proposed plan will radically change the nature of this rural country village. My objections are as follows:

1. School

The school is already oversubscribed. Although enlarging it is within the plan, the quantity of houses envisaged will fill that immediately. The secondary schools all involve a commute (which would add extra traffic and school buses to the roads) and would struggle to provide places to the additional children.

2. Doctors

The local GP surgery is already at crisis point and it is extremely difficult to get a doctors appointment with the present number of residents. They often quote 3-week waiting times. The surgery finds it extremely hard to recruit new GPs to cope with present demand.

3. Transport

The village roads are crowded and these are rural lanes quite unsuited to managing a lot more traffic. At peak times it is difficult to gain access to the main B656, and there are long daily tailbacks through the village. Parking near the shops on the high street is already always difficult, and school drop-off and collection times mean gridlock in the side streets. Extra houses would increase pollution and journey times.

4. Utilities

The main drains in the village are said to be struggling to manage the present level of use. There are still some houses that are not connected to the mains drains because of the difficulties with levels.

It is doubtful that the pumping station by the river could deal with the number of houses in the proposed plan. It has one small pipe leading to the village water tower that is a fair distance away from the pumping station. A few years ago the river even dried up due to increased demand.

The electricity supply is similarly challenged and a new sub-station had to be built after the supply dropped below the legal limit after some in-fill houses were built.

5. Recreation & Nature

Although some of the proposed sites (such as CD2 by the garden centre) would appear to have good road access, other proposed sites are in the green belt. They are also extremely rural and are traversed by footpaths that are regularly used by dog walkers.

The Mimram Valley is one of the most beautiful areas in this part of Hertfordshire. To blight it with the CD5 development is a significant loss. The large green belt area to the south of Heath Lane and west of St Albans Road (CD5) is prime green belt land. Building on it would totally affect the entire nature of the village and have a very detrimental effect on the diverse wildlife dependent upon it. This includes deer, foxes, badgers, herons, egrets, owls, red kites and many other species.

Dark Lane offers an attractive year-round walk. The villagers extensively use it for recreational purposes. Dog walkers, cyclists, horse riders and families visiting the Mimram river (that is accessed further down via a bridleway) use this quiet, pretty lane frequently. The proposed CD5 development would surely mean that the high traffic levels would be too dangerous for this recreational use to continue. This would be a big loss to the community and to their access to, and enjoyment of, nature.

6. Farming

The CD5 and CD1 proposed houses would replace a dwindling supply of established permanent pasture, which has for decades been used for fattening farm cattle and sheep, and producing summer hay crops. We need such established farmland to feed the British cattle and sheep that in turn feed the people of our country. There would also be loss of open space and loss of Green Belt land.

7. Road Safety

The proposed access to CD5 from St Albans Road and Dark Lane is ridiculously inappropriate. One access is a grassy farm track just wide enough for a tractor or land rover. The other access point off Dark Lane is also narrow, and becomes an overhung single-track road currently serving just three houses. Dark Lane comes off a very dangerous blind bend on St Albans Lane. This is surely the most dangerous corner in the village. To increase the traffic to it would be unfeasible.

Similarly the CD1 houses would be accessed off Cowards Lane, which too is a single-width lane that connects onto one of the faster travelling sections of the High Street featuring a blind summit.

To conclude, I believe that the rural nature of Codicote village would be lost forever by the proposed number of houses outlined in this ill conceived plan.

See attachment

See attached